Lanius Pulvis
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
5
   |
Posted - 2013.10.03 00:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
Firstly, I haven't lived DUST as long as many of the previous posters, but it does seem inevitable to me that changes will happen whether we want them to or not. Just as in war TTPs are ever changing on both sides of the equation, the game world cannot stay static, it would eventually bore the core of old guard players and offer nothing new and exciting to draw in new blood. Ultimately CCP runs a business as well, and though that business is built on giving the players what they want, to draw them back time after time, no business can succeed with only it's original customer base. I bow to the inevitable, CHANGE WILL HAPPEN!
That being said, if things are going to change I'd like to tell CCP what I'd like, not just what I don't want.
1) Greater modularity: if I can equip 2 turrets on a DS why not let me put them both on the same side if I want. And likewise if I can fit 3 on an ADS why not put them all on the nose. The latter suggestion would likely require something like splitting which guns are active with your R2, e.g. I have 2 blasters for anti-personnel then I switch to a single missile launcher for AV.
2) More interdependency: GIVE US HOMING MISSILES ON ADS; however, in order to lock target, a scout must paint it by laser.
3) More creative defense: the shield or armor debate seems too limiting, real tanks can deploy smoke screens, real combat aircraft can launch chaff or flares. These are consumable commodities whose use must be timed properly and once deployed are expended. It's kind of like one get out of jail free card.
4) More information: U.S. military ground vehicles in this day and age can pinpoint other similarly equipped vehicles with a tracking device and coordinate attacks via this device. Combat aircraft are equipped with systems to identify radar locks by missiles. Not to mention aircraft have altimeters and airspeed somewhat prominently displayed.
5) More Infantry equipment: already soldiers on the battlefield have drones, motion sensors, signal jamming equipment, surely some of these could be brought into play. Imagine a sniper who now has the choice, nano-hive or an early warning motion sensor on a likely approach to his position. Or a Logi who can actively jam sensors within a certain radius. These all have the element of rock/paper/scissors, all can be defeated...or can defeat something else.
And maybe, just maybe you should take some of those original beta testers, the guys and gals who have stuck around, taken noobs under their wings and all around showed an unparalleled devotion to what others would dismiss as just a game, and have them beta test all your "fixes" before actually rolling them out. I for one would like to know that your new vehicles work in practice before I start skilling into them. I was thoroughly excited to pilot an ADS, and then today's forum and suddenly I feel like my character is in limbo for however many months the update takes.
You've created a dynamic and nearly self sufficient layer to a universe many of us already love from EVE, I'm going to err on the side of hope and say, I trust you to make DUST a better place to game. Just please don't forget, you can only do it with our help. |
Lanius Pulvis
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 05:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
Okay, so on a longer look I've decided the turrets are all a joke. Really, the only turret that out ranges swarms is a large rail turret!? I assume these changes will affect the AI turrets as well. Clearly you don't intend to bring back Enforcer tanks. The range of the small blasters should probably be increased as well. It would only make sense to use them on LAVs with the current range, once again ensuring the SP cost as well as ISK is inordinately high for tankers and DS pilots. Speaking of which, cost is still not being addresed that I've seen. |