DUST Search - A discussion of vehicles and how ammo and the future will change things.

All Channels

General Discussions

A discussion of vehicles and how ammo and the future will change things.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 3864	Posted - 2013.09.07 14:42:00 - [1] - Quote 1.5 is introducing ammo limits for vehicles. At first, I thought this was a bad thing, then I read the new thread about Bombers. The more I worked through things, the more I saw the potential for massive vehicle battles AND a way for infantry to remain relevant. I worked through this starting from the concept of Bombers, and working out how they'd be introduced, and would would be needed for them to be effective, then looking at counters. Any Bomber type air vehicle, whether it has jet-like handling or flies like a dropship, is likely to have a specialised "bomber" turret that either switches the pilot to a ground-view with limited forward visibility (making them easy targets, particularly for other aircraft), or requires a gunner to operate. Either way, the ammo limits are going to be pretty tight, and they're almost certainly going to be skillshot weapons that are difficult to aim with. They'll probably be larger and slower than standard Dropships if they're hover-capable, or slightly faster as jets, but with predictable flight patterns because of it. I'm expecting that if and when bombers arrive, it will be after fighter jets, or at the same time. In either case, you will probably need air superiority squads with several Fighters and a Bomber, maybe with a Dropship to provide infantry transport while the Fighters provide cover from enemy air attacks and strafe infantry positions to limit the effectiveness of AV attacks. If Dropships get a bit of a buff to their HP all round and Assault Dropships are given a range bonus on their weapons, we might see them operating as Blaster Gunships suppressing infantry (and threatening LAVs) with Bombers to clear out any HAVs, while Fighters hold off the enemy air assets (which would otherwise WRECK a slow-moving Dropship or Bomber). You wont be able to take and hold territory on the ground with a team like that, but that's why you bring a couple of regular Dropships in to drop off a team of infantry once the air support has got the enemy pinned down. In most objective areas, even an effective close support ADS will be more of a suppression weapon than a direct infantry killer, meaning there will be a need for your own people on the ground even in Ambush if the enemy team focuses on infantry to counter your air superiority. You might find that this strategy chews through ammo too fast to be sustainable, and that's when you add a Logi Dropship or two with remote resupply tools that turn them into giant mobile nanohives, but with a relatively limited-duration effect and a VERY long cooldown, you need to very careful on your timing and your air force will have to be prudent about their ammo use. ...and then you realise that a few good Forge Gunners or a Rail tank with good aim will ruin the day of at least a couple of your pilots before you get in close if they have good sight lines, so you'll need to plan for that possibility and try to approach from a direction that gives you cover. And once you're in close, Missile and Blaster HAVs will be acting like AA guns and Flak (particularly with Scattered Blasters and Fragmented Missiles, or there might be a dedicated Flak or AA model of these Turrets) with explosions detonating all around. To counter this, you need to send your bomber over first at high altitude, or maybe bring a Heavy Fighter with a powerful Railgun turret that limits the jet's effectiveness in a dogfight, but makes it a suitable ground-attack craft for targeting HAVs and maybe slower-moving LAVs as well. With MAVs and MTACs added into the mix, things get several new layers of complexity as each develops its own niche in the crazy pattern of killing and dying and 'splosions. Infantry have their role as being difficult to counter from the air. Ground vehicles can be fitted for anti-air, but are compromising slightly on their ground assault capabilities to do it. If not equipped with anti-aircraft weapons, tanks and LAVs are vulnerable to "death from above" attacks. New ground vehicles add new tactics just like the air vehicles will. MTACs will likely be the best anti-infantry vehicles, but vulnerable when fighting against HAVs and Dropships/Bombers. And I can see MAVs taking over the role that LLAVs are currently filling, with an enclosed hull so the driver and passenger(s) can't be shot, and a Medium Turret that's a little more effective than the current Small Turret on the LLAV. When that happens, there will be less grounds for players to argue against nerfing LLAVs to be more in line with the regular LAV, because in essence, their role will be as a cheap/fast/low-SP alternative to MAVs rather than as the only real Logi vehicle option. LLAVs will be able to provide support quickly, but it will be less effective than the MAV offering the same kind of backup. They might be able to develop an IFV variant of the MAV with open sides that the passengers can shoot from (if CCP ever work out a way to allow passengers firing from vehicles), and that would change the game's dynamic up again. So... have at it, everyone. Tear me apart, counter or add to my suggestions, whatever. What do you think?
Soldiersaint Deepspace Digital 448	Posted - 2013.09.07 14:52:00 - [2] - Quote Yes this game will finally become a tactical war game. running around like a nut will no longer be valid.
Henchmen21 Planet Express LLC 218	Posted - 2013.09.07 14:56:00 - [3] - Quote Seeing as I already stopped carrying AV because the rendering has killed vehicles, giving them finite ammo to shoot at things they can't see isn't going to help. Until turrets and players don't blink in and out of existence vehicles are expensive coffins.
Arkena Wyrnspire Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 3010	Posted - 2013.09.07 14:57:00 - [4] - Quote New thread about bombers...?
Boxoffire Ninth Legion Freelance Top Men. 96	Posted - 2013.09.07 15:01:00 - [5] - Quote I like this, I like this a lot. Heavy emphasis on team play and dedicated roles doing their jobs on the battlefield.
Zero Harpuia Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 878	Posted - 2013.09.07 15:08:00 - [6] - Quote Sounds decent enough. Not too sure about the Logi DShip providing more ammo though, the whole idea of ammo was to provoke retreating. Even Nanohives have to be placed behind cover, and can suffer the wrath of the Flux. Also, I'm just going to wait here until someone starts campaigning for these hypothetical Bomber Pilots to get turret control because they spent the SP. Then for the HAV pilots to say that would make it too easy to kill them. Then for someone in neither camp to tell the HAV pilots that they could give up turret control for bigger HP. Then for the HAVs to stab him in the throat.
Bishop Harcourt K-A-O-S theory 3	Posted - 2013.09.07 15:15:00 - [7] - Quote This sounds cool, but until CCP increases player counts in battle, it will never work.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 3885	Posted - 2013.09.07 15:39:00 - [8] - Quote Zero Harpuia wrote: Sounds decent enough. Not too sure about the Logi DShip providing more ammo though, the whole idea of ammo was to provoke retreating. Even Nanohives have to be placed behind cover, and can suffer the wrath of the Flux. Also, I'm just going to wait here until someone starts campaigning for these hypothetical Bomber Pilots to get turret control because they spent the SP. Then for the HAV pilots to say that would make it too easy to kill them. Then for someone in neither camp to tell the HAV pilots that they could give up turret control for bigger HP. Then for the HAVs to stab him in the throat. Bombers COULD give pilots control of the bombs, but like I said, you'd have to shift to a down-facing view that would limit your visibility over the battlefield, making you vulnerable when doing it. It's a plausible option that could be pretty fun to use. And honestly, bombing as a bomber only would probably be pretty boring. But to be fair, if Logi Dropships were tuned like I suggested for Logi LAVs so they don't get a durability buff, and they have to be close to friendlies to provide ammo, they'd be vulnerable if they try moving up to the front lines to resupply, so effectively they WOULD be a hidden nanohive in a corner rather than someone running around handing out ammo.
Sarducar Kahn xCosmic Voidx The Superpowers 102	Posted - 2013.09.07 17:10:00 - [9] - Quote I can see an MTAC convoy tearing into a dropship wing flying overhead.


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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.