DUST Search - [Request] Damaged Null Canon State

Yun Hee Ryeon wrote:

Neat idea.

It seems like both this and the MCC boarding mechanic are very interesting, doable possibilities ...

... when we get to the point where both the MCC and the NULL cannons are tools on a much larger battlefield.

At the moment, NULL cannons take center stage in Skirmish. Allowing them to be effectively suppressed would add a troublesome element: allowing those who can apply loads of force (kill the other side a bunch) but who don't have the tactical finesse to maintain control of the board to apply the simple solution of clubbing the other side's holdings into submission until they can be cloned.

In other words, you're creating a method for turning the focus of Skirmish into Ambush.

I don't say that this is necessarily a wholly bad thing, but it would change the nature of the match. Objectives become optional if you can effectively cripple them.

I can see this as an excellent thing when (I do expect it will eventually happen) unit commanders are purchasing and fitting MCC's, we're receiving orbital strikes from dreadnoughts as a matter of routine course, and defenders get to design their own defensive layouts-- of deployable resources, at least, if not entire structures.

In other words, it seems like a neat thing to have when DUST battles start being less like sporting events and more like a war.

At the moment, what you propose would be a radical change, and it's not one I think we need badly enough to go throwing the rulebook out the window. I, too, am impatient for us to move on from fair engagements on relatively equal terms, but I'm not in such a hurry as to start adding more war elements to what is still a sports arena.

In that arena, winning on clones is a long shot. That's for the best, I think.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jadek Menaheim WarRavens League of Infamy 54	Posted - 2013.09.01 20:46:00 - [1] - Quote From the start, I'm not proposing that mercs or vehicles would have the ability to eliminate objective based Null Canons; rather hinder their operational systems and damage output while in a 'broken' state. A canon's control panel/outer structure could be damaged by several remote explosives or heavy artillery fire. A damaged canon would fire 30% less as its fire solution protocols are damaged. Additionally, a hack upon a damaged canon would take twice as long to complete (by this I mean both the hack and null canon targeting switch would be twice as long). However, one could speed this process up and boost the damage output by repairing the canon via a fuse box panel located near the hack terminal. This suggestion could open up possibilities for several strategic decisions. For instance, sabotaging a canon currently in your possession may make it easier to lock an objective that is frequently contested, however doing so could be at the cost of hindering the amount of damage your controlled canons do to the enemy MCC.
Jadek Menaheim WarRavens League of Infamy 54	Posted - 2013.09.01 21:54:00 - [2] - Quote Damaged null canon controls and their respective fuse box terminal could only be fixed with repair tools.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Brutor Vanguard Minmatar Republic 5676	Posted - 2013.09.01 22:24:00 - [3] - Quote I like it. Reminds me of MAG.
Jadek Menaheim WarRavens League of Infamy 55	Posted - 2013.09.01 22:57:00 - [4] - Quote Thinking with initial figures, a null canon should have 3500 shields and 2000 armor. The canon becomes operational again once its armor is fully repaired. Basic Equipment Figures for Damage and Repair to Canon: Damage/ -Std Flux Grenade 1200 Hp x 3 -Std Remote Explosive 1500 Hp x 2 Repair/ -Std Repair Tool 75 Hp (26.6 sec to max operation) -Pro Core Focused Repair 121 Hp (16.5 sec to max operation)
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Brutor Vanguard Minmatar Republic 5679	Posted - 2013.09.01 23:21:00 - [5] - Quote You can edit your original post to add any more details instead of making more posts.
Interplanetary Insanitarium Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 208	Posted - 2013.09.01 23:27:00 - [6] - Quote Wyoming! That's the damaged null cannon state! 3500 shields 2000 armor means no null cannons. I'd blast them in a clip with my FG... and I'm not the only person that uses them. And if people were running around breaking the null cannons and not killing or capping the match would end up timing out which isn't fun.
Jadek Menaheim WarRavens League of Infamy 55	Posted - 2013.09.01 23:41:00 - [7] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: You can edit your original post to add any more details instead of making more posts. Yes, you're right on that point. I just like to 'bump' my forums with content.
Jadek Menaheim WarRavens League of Infamy 55	Posted - 2013.09.02 00:01:00 - [8] - Quote Interplanetary Insanitarium wrote: Wyoming! That's the damaged null cannon state! 3500 shields 2000 armor means no null cannons. I'd blast them in a clip with my FG... and I'm not the only person that uses them. And if people were running around breaking the null cannons and not killing or capping the match would end up timing out which isn't fun. I'm not sure what you mean by timing out. The mechanic I'm talking about only works in the context of skirmish and domination matches where your 'timers' are MCC health and clone count. As for the canon health figures, the numbers were kept low for repair times to be low as well. Shield strength should get a buff though.
Yun Hee Ryeon Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 214	Posted - 2013.09.02 00:54:00 - [9] - Quote Neat idea. It seems like both this and the MCC boarding mechanic are very interesting, doable possibilities ... ... when we get to the point where both the MCC and the NULL cannons are tools on a much larger battlefield. At the moment, NULL cannons take center stage in Skirmish. Allowing them to be effectively suppressed would add a troublesome element: allowing those who can apply loads of force (kill the other side a bunch) but who don't have the tactical finesse to maintain control of the board to apply the simple solution of clubbing the other side's holdings into submission until they can be cloned. In other words, you're creating a method for turning the focus of Skirmish into Ambush. I don't say that this is necessarily a wholly bad thing, but it would change the nature of the match. Objectives become optional if you can effectively cripple them. I can see this as an excellent thing when (I do expect it will eventually happen) unit commanders are purchasing and fitting MCC's, we're receiving orbital strikes from dreadnoughts as a matter of routine course, and defenders get to design their own defensive layouts-- of deployable resources, at least, if not entire structures. In other words, it seems like a neat thing to have when DUST battles start being less like sporting events and more like a war. At the moment, what you propose would be a radical change, and it's not one I think we need badly enough to go throwing the rulebook out the window. I, too, am impatient for us to move on from fair engagements on relatively equal terms, but I'm not in such a hurry as to start adding more war elements to what is still a sports arena. In that arena, winning on clones is a long shot. That's for the best, I think.
Jadek Menaheim WarRavens League of Infamy 55	Posted - 2013.09.02 02:39:00 - [10] - Quote Yun Hee Ryeon wrote: Neat idea. It seems like both this and the MCC boarding mechanic are very interesting, doable possibilities ... ... when we get to the point where both the MCC and the NULL cannons are tools on a much larger battlefield. At the moment, NULL cannons take center stage in Skirmish. Allowing them to be effectively suppressed would add a troublesome element: allowing those who can apply loads of force (kill the other side a bunch) but who don't have the tactical finesse to maintain control of the board to apply the simple solution of clubbing the other side's holdings into submission until they can be cloned. In other words, you're creating a method for turning the focus of Skirmish into Ambush. I don't say that this is necessarily a wholly bad thing, but it would change the nature of the match. Objectives become optional if you can effectively cripple them. I can see this as an excellent thing when (I do expect it will eventually happen) unit commanders are purchasing and fitting MCC's, we're receiving orbital strikes from dreadnoughts as a matter of routine course, and defenders get to design their own defensive layouts-- of deployable resources, at least, if not entire structures. In other words, it seems like a neat thing to have when DUST battles start being less like sporting events and more like a war. At the moment, what you propose would be a radical change, and it's not one I think we need badly enough to go throwing the rulebook out the window. I, too, am impatient for us to move on from fair engagements on relatively equal terms, but I'm not in such a hurry as to start adding more war elements to what is still a sports arena. In that arena, winning on clones is a long shot. That's for the best, I think. The ability to win on clones is the ideal goal, especially in a PC context where you can roll into multiple matches if you meet the minimum clone requirement per match. This aids smaller and medium sized corporations breaking into Planetary Conquest. If a team can field talented and cohesive 'team players' they become a force to be reckoned with in the greater scope of the game. There's still a 'tactical finesse' regardless of how you slice it. With both MCC boarding and canon control mechanics, even heavy pounding troops lose their edge if they don't have the sensibilities to maintain power when and where it's needed in a battle being fought on multiple fronts. Sure, for example you could have a sniper squad run terminal suppression by sending in two mercs to mess with the null canons and then having the rest of the squad hang back and pick off repairmen. That approach may not work if the terminals are indoors or the opposing side opts to take out your MCC core control. On the flip slide, if a heavy shock troop battalion hunkers down on the MCC or indoor objective they run the risk of losing footholds elsewhere because of limited mobility. It's all about learning the nuances of the game and knowing when to make certain tactical decisions. Everything I've brought up before only aims to enhance that goal. Even if it does change some current game conventions that we've become accustomed to, what's wrong with that?

CLONE117 Planetary Response Organization Test Friends Please Ignore 262	Posted - 2013.09.02 02:54:00 - [11] - Quote make this come with a gear restriction and gameplay would become nearly perfect and fun..
Jadek Menaheim WarRavens League of Infamy 55	Posted - 2013.09.02 02:59:00 - [12] - Quote CLONE117 wrote: make this come with a gear restriction and gameplay would become nearly perfect and fun.. It seems only spawn pads should be limited from use in the MCC (on-board signal scrambler). Would you suggest anything else?
Yun Hee Ryeon Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 215	Posted - 2013.09.02 04:03:00 - [13] - Quote Jadek Menaheim wrote: The ability to win on clones is the ideal goal, especially in a PC context where you can roll into multiple matches if you meet the minimum clone requirement per match. I will grant that the ability to win on clones is important. I see no particular reason to make it any easier to do so in Skirmish. We are in a limited-option environment, presently. Certain options are necessarily favored, to one degree or another, over others. Resource expenditure has to be controlled in Skirmish, especially if one team (as in many PC matches) is at a clone disadvantage. Let me be clear: I play a scout. I can hold my own, sometimes, in Ambush, usually by baiting hostile squads into traps, but Skirmish is my forte. The tactical game in Skirmish favors effective maneuvering over gunplay-- and it is the only game mode that does. I'd rather not see Skirmish easily turned into "Ambush with an alternative form of timer"-- that is, virtually always won by whoever can wipe the other team out the most efficiently, a pattern that strongly favors direct tactics. When the maps are large enough for scouts (and dropships, and other units that favor tactical flexibility over durability and firepower) to serve additional purposes, I'll be much more interested in adjusting gameplay in this manner. Until then, gunplay has its share of turf, and then some. Allowing tactical assets to be degraded with the simple application of brute force (as by a rooftop forge sniper with a commanding view of NULL cannon assemblies, if not their control panels) degrades tactical warfare rather than expanding it, much the same as the introduction of a new, unbalanced weapon favors its own use even if it expands the total options available. This being so, I much prefer that finesse (in this case, the ability to keep a majority of objectives hacked in spite of a hostile force with superior weapons, superior defenses, and at least equivalent aim) not be nerfed by introducing a trivially-exploitable vulnerability.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page