DUST Search - Balance is Breaking DUST

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#post569627

https://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.

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

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...
Son-Of A-Gun 3dge of D4rkness SoulWing Alliance 405	Posted - 2013.11.26 06:53:00 - [2] - 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>
Pvt Numnutz Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 321	Posted - 2013.11.26 07:04:00 - [3] - Quote 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.
Son-Of A-Gun 3dge of D4rkness SoulWing Alliance 405	Posted - 2013.11.26 07:11:00 - [4] - 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>
Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 10	Posted - 2013.11.26 08:45:00 - [5] - 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."
Son-Of A-Gun 3dge of D4rkness SoulWing Alliance 405	Posted - 2013.11.26 09:04:00 - [6] - 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>
Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 11	Posted - 2013.11.26 10:00:00 - [7] - 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#post569627 https://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.
Son-Of A-Gun 3dge of D4rkness SoulWing Alliance 407	Posted - 2013.11.26 10:22:00 - [8] - 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#post569627 https://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>
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 164	Posted - 2013.11.26 11:06:00 - [9] - Quote 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.
Son-Of A-Gun 3dge of D4rkness SoulWing Alliance 407	Posted - 2013.11.26 11:12:00 - [10] - 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>

Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 164	Posted - 2013.11.26 11:21:00 - [11] - Quote Son-Of A-Gun wrote: 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. Definitely. Anything "game breaking" should be hotfixed, and I think they've reacted fairly well on these occasions - the best example for me was the tactical assault rifle , which I believe was not included in a standard patch, but was a hotfix. The flaylock and murder taxis were two things which took a bit too long to fix, as they were included in a standard patch cycle.


Pages: 1 :: [one page]