|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Winsaucerer
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
207
   |
Posted - 2013.10.02 14:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
Just like last time, I don't like the general look of these changes, but even with these numbers it's hard for me to evaluate properly. Things come out when playing.
Overall, I have a negative reaction to the "waves of opportunity" rework for vehicles. Things I don't like, at a glance:
* AV will chase vehicles. As soon as cooldowns are off, vehicle will die. Forge gunners and swarm launcher players can be persistent and will chase
* How useful will a passive tank be against AV? It sounds to me like it might not be at all a viable build and will be vulnerable to dying quickly
* Having to time my attack for a "wave", and make sure I know my exit path, then exit, then sit back and wait for cooldowns while dodging AV that's chasing me, sounds very much like the opposite of fun. It sounds tedious
* 36 seconds (for armour) to make your entry, make the push, then retreat. 37 seconds (with complex and skills) to hide behind buildings until you're ready for your next 36 second dart.
I probably simply don't understand. For now, I cannot see how these changes are going to be better or, more importantly, fun. I just don't "get it" though, and maybe it will all come together when it's released and the approach will click with me. |
Winsaucerer
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
207
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 14:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
Also, I too would like to know what's going to be done with existing modules/vehicles in inventory, and skills, when these changes come out.
Also, are there going to be any changes to existing costs of vehicles along with these changes? The balance between vulnerability and cost of loss is a big factor in whether a vehicle is fun or not. |
Winsaucerer
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
217
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 03:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
Uravm0d groundforce wrote:
...Seriously the way to make vehicles fun is to make it profitable and with the info provided I would say they would have to cost the same as a drop suit.
Thats my verdict.
Yep. What I think should be considered:
* Reduce cost by a lot
* Make tanks easier to kill by just a little bit
This way, you can afford to lose a tank maybe once or twice a battle, but they also don't dominate so much. The main issue with tanks is that they're quite hard to kill, and can kill a lot -- so infantry think they're too strong. However, one tank costs multiple battles worth of ISK, so tankers think they're too weak, because one loss means a few battles of earning that isk back. You can change a lot of people's expectations by reducing their power on the battle field by just a little, and reducing their cost by a whole lot, so that losing one or two in a battle isn't a problem.
I also think that CCP needs to eat less vegetables and more dessert. I am seriously wondering if the better thing is to just keep introducing new stuff, and balance while you go, rather than removing content and balancing the core. Each new thing in the game can significantly affect the balance of a whole range of things. So even if you succeed at balancing the core, that may not mean much at all once you throw new things in the mix.
Put it all out there, let the chips (so to speak) fall where they may, and then balance. Put all the pieces you can in as scaffolding, then build up around that. Dust 514 needs more dessert.
Also, please capacitors like EVE. That sounds great.
Caveat: I have not given these suggestions a great deal of thought. |
|
|
| |
|