|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Son-Of A-Gun
3dge of D4rkness
SoulWing Alliance
405
   |
Posted - 2013.11.26 06:53:00 -
[1] - Quote
It's not supposed to be an anti-infantry focused weapon. Before the weapon came out, it was billed as being (by the Devs) an anti-vehicle weapon with anti-infantry capabilities as an added bonus.
{:)}{3GÇó>
|
Son-Of A-Gun
3dge of D4rkness
SoulWing Alliance
405
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 07:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
Pvt Numnutz wrote:Son-Of A-Gun wrote:It's not supposed to be an anti-infantry focused weapon. Before the weapon came out, it was billed as being (by the Devs) an anti-vehicle weapon with anti-infantry capabilities as an added bonus. Which is what it is. People don't use it correctly.
It is not that people don't use it correctly. It is that IT IS NOT A VIABLE AV WEAPON. It is far out classed by the swarm launcher. it's AI functionality is about as good as it should be for a weapon that should be a viable option for shield vehicles. The other side of that coin is the swarm launcher which has no AI capability but has a fire and forget functionality.
{:)}{3GÇó>
|
Son-Of A-Gun
3dge of D4rkness
SoulWing Alliance
405
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 09:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
^^^
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 offten find was 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.
{:)}{3GÇó>
|
Son-Of A-Gun
3dge of D4rkness
SoulWing Alliance
407
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 10:22:00 -
[4] - Quote
Chesyre Armundsen wrote: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.
Unfortunatly (while the types of weapons systems you are talking about would be fantastic) this is not the way thing currently function, neither have they ever nor, for the foreseeable future, will they. So we are stuck with trying to balance the scales.
{:)}{3GÇó>
|
Son-Of A-Gun
3dge of D4rkness
SoulWing Alliance
407
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 11:12:00 -
[5] - Quote
Justicar Karnellia wrote:Working on game balance is always important, but at this stage, I think the back and forth could go on forever, and they should concentrate on new content (suits, weapons, maps, modes, PvE, trading, etc.) rather than balancing. Having said that, including a "balancing" section in each patch is great.
With the exception of a few thing that would seem to be easy fixes like the plasma cannon and laser rifle, and others which are game breakingly broken such as vehicles Vs. AV and planetary conquest, I completely agree with you.
{:)}{3GÇó>
|
|
|
| |
|