|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Chesyre Armundsen
Thanes Of Dust
9
   |
Posted - 2013.11.26 05:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
New and veteran players alike want DUST to thrive and be rewarding. We feel like we are working in tandem with CCP with every new patch reflecting input for the many varied players who choose to leave comments on this forum. While we all think we are making the game better as a whole I would like to put this out there:
Maybe our push and pull is killing the development of DUST....
I just came from "Do you not think..."
Here the debate is about the plasma cannon and whether it should be "nerfed" or "tweaked", is it an AV or personnel weapon, and what could be done to make it better (or worse) depending on your personal bias for play style.
I found it interesting that the description taken from the marketplace says the following:
"The Plasma Cannon is a single-shot, direct-fire weapon developed by Allotek Industries primarily for use in urban operations and confined space combat. The dense plasma discharge it generates is highly unstable, decaying rapidly and venting sufficient heat and energy to severely damage targets caught within its critical emission radius.
During the short pre-fire charge, ultracold plasma is prepared and then heated inside a magneto-core trap. Just prior to discharge, a small precursor projectile is fired that produces (and is ultimately consumed by) a short-lived tail that helps guide and contain the volatile discharge is it travels towards its target."
The focus on the thread tho seemed familiar with the debate over its DPS, vehicle killing power and splash damage with a focus on man vs machine. To myself the description reads as a mid to close quarters area suppression tool for infantry...but this seems to be broken as I, and many others have stepped out of the way of a direct hit.
Swarm launchers were OP because you could dumbfire into a crowd and rack up points, so now they only lock onto vehicles. The new changes to swarm allow for vehicles to outrun the projectile. ARs are too efficient too far, HMG aren't accurate enough...the list goes on.
Maybe trying to tweak square pegs into round holes is whats getting us into the whole "balancing" mess in the first place. Maybe we should keep it simple. A weapon excellent at what it is intended for, and lacking in other areas.
Rock > scissors > paper > rock...
|
Chesyre Armundsen
Thanes Of Dust
10
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 08:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
Yet people want it tweaked to be viable for a role it was not meant to fill.
This goes back to the square peg for a round hole concept. I wonder if the development has been tainted by too great a response to the demands of the mercs?
In the classic "Rock, Paper, Scissor" model there is a natural structure where each unit has its place with advantages and disadvantages. The key to solid gameplay is learning what a viable solution to each encounter is.
(This is an exagerated example) Eg. Swarm kills tank -> infantry kills swarm (who is focusing on tank) -> infantry escorting tank advances -> rival infantry falls back till they can refit w/ swarm...cycle repeats.
I am not saying that tanks should be killed by a single swarm, nor am I advocating monster armor. I just think that limitations imposed on the hardware we use would force us to adapt and find the solution that works best. Teamwork, weapons that offer a single hit kill but leave us wide open, area denial weapons that require rerouting your path or calling in HAV's....I don't have a concrete solution.
Think about every other game you play tho. Are you provided with a weapon perfect for the job? Does your victory come after trying new tactics? How many times do you die only to spur you on to try again?
I think it would be a nice change to have CCP say "this is your new weapon, its good for ____. Use it or not." |
Chesyre Armundsen
Thanes Of Dust
11
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 10:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
Son-Of A-Gun wrote:^^^ If CCP were comprised of experts at playing this game I would be inclined to agree with you. But they are not the experts at playing this game, it is the players in this community who are the experts. I highly doubt that anyone at CCP has anywhere near the amount of time spent in game, in battle that I do. DEVs need us for testing purposes, and we quite often find ways to break or exploit aspects of dust which the Devs thought would be good. As well, when the experts are telling you that a particular thing in the game is UP they should be taken seriously. {edit>>> Here, here is an example of the sort of thing I am talking about: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=569627#post569627https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=569648#post569648
I agree 100% that the DEVs need this community to troubleshoot and make DUST better. My concern is of the biased suggestions in movement of equipment stats to adjust their operation outside of certain parameters to which they would likely function for their intended role.
In modern combat a man portable surface to air missile is single shot, slows down user mobility, and must lock on to a target but then the payoff is likely the destruction of its target. Deployment of such a weapon requires the user to be escorted and covered during operation. Here we have some AV arguing swarms be light one hit kill weapons, while some of the tank and dropship camps feel they should be able to survive multiple hits.
A realistic approach to the issue would have been a single shot swarm that acquired a lock and would kill anything that wasn't hardened. Slow reload time if you missed or were defensively countered so that you need cover. Your defense would be based on you having someone watching your back.
Vehicles should have active defense mods: jammers, chaff, flares to counter swarm tracking. Radar and audio notification that they have been locked. Equipment to counter equipment...not buffing and nerfing to improve the odds of surviving.
Posted criticism of DUST hardware is biased to the players view of what they have to lose/gain from said change. It becomes a numbers game of DPS vs HP stacking and which number is larger. |
|
|
| |
|