DUST Search - backwards walking speed.

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

backwards walking speed.

» 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)
X7 lion Swamp Marines Kleenex Inc. 60	Posted - 2013.11.23 03:02:00 - [1] - Quote ok scouts & assorted infantry of dust, I am positive that most of not all have noticed this issue, the speed at witch a target can walk backwards is ridiculous, some say its faster the walking forwards. This has to be addressed people can walk backwards so quickly i cant walk up to them with nova knifes when i have maxed out movement speed & they are an armored target. This is not working as intended, this is broken. If i cant walk faster then a plated target walking backwards in my gellente proto scout with 3 complex catalizers, then what? This is unarguably broken & this needs to be fixed asap. Thank you for your time.
Mobius Kaethis Molon Labe PC RISE of LEGION 1003	Posted - 2013.11.23 04:08:00 - [2] - Quote lol. Now that you've posted this i fully expect to see squads of mercs walking backwards into battle. That image is totally cracking me up. Fun > Realism
Ulysses Knapse duna corp 610	Posted - 2013.11.23 05:51:00 - [3] - Quote People can actually move backwards pretty fast in real life. The main reason they don't do it more often is because there's not really much reason to (there's plenty of reason to do it in Dust), and you're more likely to have yourself a tumble (which never happens in Dust anyhow). Also, you can't see where you're going, but that can apply to Dust as well, even with a minimap. To be honest, when it comes to video games, I'm fine with quick backward movement, so long as it's not faster than moving forward. I'm also fine with slow backward movement, so long as it's not cripplingly slow. Also, keep in mind that you can realistically run backwards faster than you can run sideways, though humans can move sideways better than most other animals, since we only have one pair of legs, which happen to be quite flexible. Humanity is the personification of change.
Talos Vagheitan Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 233	Posted - 2013.11.23 05:52:00 - [4] - Quote I agree. Reducing backwards walking speed would help Nova Knifer's out in particular, On a similar note, strafe speed could probably also be reduced a bit. This would make Dust a bit less of a 'jump around and dance' shooter, which would give M/KB less of an advantage, possibly allowing AA to be drawn back a bit. Who cares what some sniper has to say
Ulysses Knapse duna corp 610	Posted - 2013.11.23 05:59:00 - [5] - Quote Talos Vagheitan wrote: Reducing backwards walking speed would help Nova Knifer's out in particular, On a similar note, strafe speed could probably also be reduced a bit. This would make Dust a bit less of a 'jump around and dance' shooter. I'm fairly certain that's more because of how quickly we can change directions than how fast we can move. If we had more inertia, "dancing around" would be far less advantageous. Also, we could change the speed penalty on armor plating to an inertia penalty, at least partially. Humanity is the personification of change.
Nova Knife Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 2144	Posted - 2013.11.23 06:52:00 - [6] - Quote Backwards motion is currently at a 1:1 ratio to forwards motion. It's bad. I hate it. It essentially makes one immune to melee of any kind, which is icky. Even a heavy suit can back away from scouts and avoid melee on most occasions long enough to shoot & kill someone not smart enough to weave. This makes me sad. The real question is : How many people would be in favor of lowering backwards motion relative to forward? Lateral (sideways) motion is currently set at 90% of forward motion. Personally, I think 80-85% for backwards would be fine. What do you think, my brethren?
Ulysses Knapse duna corp 610	Posted - 2013.11.23 06:56:00 - [7] - Quote Nova Knife wrote: Lateral (sideways) motion is currently set at 90% of forward motion. Personally, I think 80-85% for backwards would be fine. Why would walking backwards be slower than walking sideways? It's not realistic from a biological perspective, and strafing isn't a concern for walking backwards. Humanity is the personification of change.
X7 lion Swamp Marines Kleenex Inc. 60	Posted - 2013.11.23 08:50:00 - [8] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: Nova Knife wrote: Lateral (sideways) motion is currently set at 90% of forward motion. Personally, I think 80-85% for backwards would be fine. Why would walking backwards be slower than walking sideways? It's not realistic from a biological perspective, and strafing isn't a concern for walking backwards. Its just a matter of balance, some times thing need to be abit off to be fair.
Ulysses Knapse duna corp 610	Posted - 2013.11.23 09:24:00 - [9] - Quote X7 lion wrote: Its just a matter of balance, some times thing need to be abit off to be fair. I don't think you understand. Strafing is a bigger issue than walking backward to avoid melee attacks. Why should walking backwards be slower than walking sideways? Trick question, it shouldn't. It's not realistic, and it's not really that balanced. While I do agree walking backwards should be slower, it shouldn't be slower than walking sideways. Maybe the same speed, but not slower. Humanity is the personification of change.
X7 lion Swamp Marines Kleenex Inc. 61	Posted - 2013.11.23 11:16:00 - [10] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: X7 lion wrote: Its just a matter of balance, some times thing need to be abit off to be fair. I don't think you understand. Strafing is a bigger issue than walking backward to avoid melee attacks. Why should walking backwards be slower than walking sideways? Trick question, it shouldn't. It's not realistic, and it's not really that balanced. While I do agree walking backwards should be slower, it shouldn't be slower than walking sideways. Maybe the same speed, but not slower. Strafing may be an issue, but keep in mind broken bones don't cure disease, its a problem all the same & not as hard to fix as your resistance to the post may imply.

Ulysses Knapse duna corp 610	Posted - 2013.11.23 12:07:00 - [11] - Quote X7 lion wrote: Ulysses Knapse wrote: X7 lion wrote: Its just a matter of balance, some times thing need to be abit off to be fair. I don't think you understand. Strafing is a bigger issue than walking backward to avoid melee attacks. Why should walking backwards be slower than walking sideways? Trick question, it shouldn't. It's not realistic, and it's not really that balanced. While I do agree walking backwards should be slower, it shouldn't be slower than walking sideways. Maybe the same speed, but not slower. Strafing may be an issue, but keep in mind broken bones don't cure disease, its a problem all the same & not as hard to fix as your resistance to the post may imply. I'm sorry, but I honestly lost you there. I have no idea what you're trying to say right now. It's clear that this conversation is getting confusing, so I'm going to end it with two final statements. I am totally fine with backward walking speed being slower than forward walking speed. It should not, however, be slower than sideways walking speed. It's unnecessary (strafing is a larger issue than walking backwards to avoid melee attacks, so why would walking backwards be penalized more than walking sideways?), and it would, from my personal perspective, cause Dust 514 to be less immersive. If you wish to know why... Walking backwards is quite plainly easier than walking sideways. If you can walk forward normally, you can walk backwards, because the motion of your legs is pretty much the same both ways. This does not hold true when walking sideways. This is also disregarding the fact that we are wearing armored dropsuits which are probably not optimized for moving sideways, but wouldn't have a problem with walking normally. If you don't believe me, try walking sideways, then try walking backwards. The only reason walking sideways would ever be easier is because we can, to some degree, see where we are going. This disadvantage also exists in Dust 514, so there's no reason to make walking backwards slower than walking sideways. Humanity is the personification of change.
Hagintora Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 172	Posted - 2013.11.23 12:24:00 - [12] - Quote Suggested Speed Changes My contribution to this discussion, or really, any discussion involving current speed mechanics. Look on page 2 for suggested changes to Kinetic Catalyzers as well.
Ridire Greine 53	Posted - 2013.11.23 13:36:00 - [13] - Quote Nova Knife wrote: Backwards motion is currently at a 1:1 ratio to forwards motion. It's bad. I hate it. It essentially makes one immune to melee of any kind, which is icky. Even a heavy suit can back away from scouts and avoid melee on most occasions long enough to shoot & kill someone not smart enough to weave. This makes me sad. The real question is : How many people would be in favor of lowering backwards motion relative to forward? Lateral (sideways) motion is currently set at 90% of forward motion. Personally, I think 80-85% for backwards would be fine. What do you think, my brethren? Scout strafe and backpedal should be 1:1 with movement. Med and Heavy strafe and backpedal should be 90% of movement. Property of Knight SoiaireGäó R 0 N 1 N


Pages: 1 :: [one 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.