Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vell0cet
Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire
170
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 00:04:00 -
[1] - Quote
With the back-to-the basics approach to the upcoming 1.5 vehicle rebalance, there will never be a better opportunity for CCP to implement a capacitor system for vehicles. As more vehicle content gets added it will only get harder to add these later, requiring another major vehicle rework and balancing effort when they add them later. It may become so cumbersome later on that CCP gives up on the concept entirely.
Capacitors could be implemented using the existing stamina system and expanded/improved as needed over time. Capacitors are fully compatible with CCP's stated goals/vision for vehicles in DUST (the ability to tank bursts of damage for limited time, but being vulnerable to attack when their cap is dry). Capacitors open up the opportunity for cap warfare down the road which would give DUST a gameplay element that doesn't exist in any other competing FPS title out there. Capacitors give vehicle users more flexibility and control in their module activation choices. They are an easy concept to grasp, and appeal to EVE players who may decide to play as vehicle specialists due to a similarity of mechanics.
Please post if you think adding vehicle capacitors is a good idea for 1.5. Or if you disagree, please share your reasons why you don't want them. |
Killar-12
The Corporate Raiders
1052
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 00:12:00 -
[2] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote:With the back-to-the basics approach to the upcoming 1.5 vehicle rebalance, there will never be a better opportunity for CCP to implement a capacitor system for vehicles. As more vehicle content gets added it will only get harder to add these later, requiring another major vehicle rework and balancing effort when they add them later. It may become so cumbersome later on that CCP gives up on the concept entirely.
Capacitors could be implemented using the existing stamina system and expanded/improved as needed over time. Capacitors are fully compatible with CCP's stated goals/vision for vehicles in DUST (the ability to tank bursts of damage for limited time, but being vulnerable to attack when their cap is dry). Capacitors open up the opportunity for cap warfare down the road which would give DUST a gameplay element that doesn't exist in any other competing FPS title out there. Capacitors give vehicle users more flexibility and control in their module activation choices. They are an easy concept to grasp, and appeal to EVE players who may decide to play as vehicle specialists due to a similarity of mechanics.
Please post if you think adding vehicle capacitors is a good idea for 1.5. Or if you disagree, please share your reasons why you don't want them. +1 to caps, no cap draining weapons yet though for infantry to use. |
Meeko Fent
Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State
872
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 00:28:00 -
[3] - Quote
I agree. |
KalOfTheRathi
Black Phoenix Mercenaries
681
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 00:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
Nah. Capacitors are an EVE thing. Let them stay there.
Adding them to DUST is potentially a ton (tonne) of work. The weapons systems work a particular way and there is lots of code that makes assumptions based on the current implementation. Maybe they are planned. Either way, a lot of work. |
Alena Ventrallis
Osmon Surveillance Caldari State
121
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 01:04:00 -
[5] - Quote
Capacitors are a good thing for Dust. IT gives all vehicles more survivability against av (not going to beat a dead horse there) and makes using your vehicle require forethought and planning. Do I activate my rep, or save my cap for my guns? Acivate my booster and get out of dodge, at the risk of a long recharge time, or do I try and stick this fight out?
Add in capacitor skills for vehicle pilots, or perhaps have pilot suits improve capacitor by a percentage per level in pilot suit skill, and we have a good system going. |
Vell0cet
Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire
171
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 01:05:00 -
[6] - Quote
KalOfTheRathi wrote:Nah. Capacitors are an EVE thing. Let them stay there.
Adding them to DUST is potentially a ton (tonne) of work. The weapons systems work a particular way and there is lots of code that makes assumptions based on the current implementation. Maybe they are planned. Either way, a lot of work. Weapons could be capless in 1.5 and into the foreseeable future. The ideal time to balance vehicle weapons and cap would be when they implement the full spectrum of turrets later on. As stated above, the existing stamina system (and code) could be used for capacitors in theory, so it shouldn't be nearly as difficult as designing a system from scratch.
If it wasn't a huge effort on CCP's part, would you still be opposed to the idea? If so, why? |
Skihids
Bullet Cluster
2050
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 02:42:00 -
[7] - Quote
CCP doesn't have to coddle us. They don't have to try to make things baby simple.
If anything the clunky cool-down system is more complex to deal with than stamina.
Yes let's just call it what it is, vehicle stamina. Infantry stamina is terribly simple. You use it up at various rates as you run and jump, and it "recharges" over time and is affected by modules and skills.
That's too complicated you say? People won't know how to deal with it? Ok, let's change that.
Let's give infantry a movement module. When a merc wants to run he activates his boost module and he can run until it runs out or he shuts it off. Then he watts for it to cool down before he can run again.
So simple isn't it?
|
Vell0cet
Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire
175
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 10:28:00 -
[8] - Quote
Skihids wrote:CCP doesn't have to coddle us. They don't have to try to make things baby simple.
If anything the clunky cool-down system is more complex to deal with than stamina.
Yes let's just call it what it is, vehicle stamina. Infantry stamina is terribly simple. You use it up at various rates as you run and jump, and it "recharges" over time and is affected by modules and skills.
That's too complicated you say? People won't know how to deal with it? Ok, let's change that.
Let's give infantry a movement module. When a merc wants to run he activates his boost module and he can run until it runs out or he shuts it off. Then he watts for it to cool down before he can run again.
So simple isn't it?
Excellent argument. |
hgghyujh
Expert Intervention Caldari State
91
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 10:44:00 -
[9] - Quote
YES!!! PLEASE!! |
Aikuchi Tomaru
Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
652
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 10:51:00 -
[10] - Quote
KalOfTheRathi wrote:Nah. Capacitors are an EVE thing. Let them stay there.
Adding them to DUST is potentially a ton (tonne) of work. The weapons systems work a particular way and there is lots of code that makes assumptions based on the current implementation. Maybe they are planned. Either way, a lot of work.
Yes. It's an Eve thing. Dusts full title is Eve - Dust 514. It only makes sense adding them in Dust. When the space ships have Capacitors, why not Tanks, LAVs and Dropships too? |
|
ladwar
Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn
1553
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 10:52:00 -
[11] - Quote
i dunno if CCP can do it right without messing this one up and i don't want to wait 10 years for them to get it right. |
Vyzion Eyri
The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine
1274
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 11:46:00 -
[12] - Quote
I've previously suggested "phase one" of introducing vehicle capacitors is to have a unique module for each vehicle (or variant of vehicle) that draws on power from a capacitor. For example, basic dropships have an afterburner module, assault dropships draw cap when they fire the pilot turret in exchange for higher damage (lower damage when cap is drained) and logistics dropships draw some cap whenever someone spawns into their CRU.
These modules can't be changed and are essentially in-built with the vehicle, like the current CRU with the logistics dropship. From these modules data can be gained to tweak how much cap vehicles have, how much modules should drain cap, how fast cap should recharge, etc.
Then introduce the ability to change the cap module. This will be "phase two". All vehicles have an extra slot for the capacitor module which costs less CPU/PG than other modules since they drain cap. From here do some more module tweaking to ensure balance, and determine the correct CPU/PG costs and brainstorm modules which can boost cap/weaponry which can disrupt cap.
"phase three", we might not even have to go this far and stay in phase two. Essentially, here we make all active modules reliant on capacitor. |
Vesago Ghostcore
Rejected Clones
4
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 11:59:00 -
[13] - Quote
Imagine in a vehicle cap world, an infantry weapon, say a grenade that drains cap. The Amarr Neut Grenade.
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star. EoN.
1271
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 12:25:00 -
[14] - Quote
All they have to do is copy and paste from EVE tbh
Same with the mods/skills etc
If i can perma run a tank with reps and resistances because my perfect support skills allow it i should be fine not nerfed, problem is infantry would cry OP and we would never get vehicles that could perma run stuff so cap would be limited and small and prob next to pointless |
darkiller240
K-A-O-S theory
155
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 15:58:00 -
[15] - Quote
yes yes YES please, it could be easy way to balance shield tanking |
Harpyja
DUST University Ivy League
566
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 16:16:00 -
[16] - Quote
Yes! I should be able to use an active module when I want it, and as long as I want it, as long as I have the capacitor power for it. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
654
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:52:00 -
[17] - Quote
I don't play EVE, but the capacitor idea sounds great.
Imagine the rage and cries for nerf threads that will be created when we figure out the perfect balance between cap and rep. |
Vell0cet
Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire
186
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 23:37:00 -
[18] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:I don't play EVE, but the capacitor idea sounds great.
Imagine the rage and cries for nerf threads that will be created when we figure out the perfect balance between cap and rep. Obviously there will be tradeoffs, just like in EVE. For example, it's possible to have a perma-rep fit on some ships, but they will typically have much lower resistences, so they mitigate much less incoming damage. There are passive shield tank fits that passively shield rep a modest amount continuously, but will go down quickly with lots of alpha fire. There are brick-tank fits that are designed around logistics repping them, and speed tank fits that focus on mitigation and avoidance of damage via speed. In theory, some or all of these options will be available in DUST at some point. Also in EVE, there is the notion of gank vs. tank and finding the proper balance of boosting your dps output (or other role's effectiveness) vs. your survivability. It's having to make choices and tradeoffs that make the system so compelling. |
Vell0cet
Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire
196
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 23:36:00 -
[19] - Quote
Anyone else have an opinion? |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
641
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 23:45:00 -
[20] - Quote
Well, I'd rather not; well at least not since they changed how the repps work. That's what took up most of the cap EVE side, and would be the same Dust side. But since they completely changed, I'd just rather not, as it would be weird. What, you gonna make me have to worry about ammo, overheating, and cap? You gonna make hardeners require tons of cap? It would make no sense. I'd just rather not. |
|
Vell0cet
Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire
231
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 00:06:00 -
[21] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote: What, you gonna make me have to worry about ammo, overheating, and cap? Infantry have to manage ammo, overheat and stamina, is it all that different? |
Vell0cet
Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire
231
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 17:17:00 -
[22] - Quote
Bump. |
Vell0cet
Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire
308
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 16:23:00 -
[23] - Quote
Back to the top. Share your thoughts. |
Akurabis
A.N.O.N.Y.M.O.U.S.
25
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 16:41:00 -
[24] - Quote
+1 |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |