|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The-Errorist
550
   |
Posted - 2014.03.07 04:30:00 -
[1] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Churning in my head a bit on how to make AV 'threatening' to vehicles considering that I just went a round where I parked a maddy and just ate everything shot at me by infantry. (approximately ate about 15 av shots and only got to half armor and didn't have hardener so there may be a number adjustment needed regardless)
As we all know the pendulum keeps swinging back and forth and now the pendulum is back in tank's favor in terms of infantry av vs tanks the problem I honestly feel is that throwing the numbers back is going to constantly just keep the pendulum swinging back and forth.
So what if we gave all the current AV weapons some form of 'debuff' that would hurt the targeted vehicles in ways they don't need to be hurt.
For example a Plasma Cannon shot becomes sticky and does its damage to the attached vehicle (or unlucky infantry) that get directly struck by it?
Forge guns slam so hard they disrupt hardeners biting into a second of effective up time remaining and increasing cooldown by a second for that cycle
AV grenades could lock up vehicle modules from activating. (this would require limiting the grenade to 1 throw)
Swarm Launchers slowing down vehicles?
These are just examples but there are plenty of legs on the stool to kick out aside from HP. like regen, shield delay, sensors, turret cooldown rates, ammo reserves the list goes on. Come up with your own that you might think would make them a viable threat and useful alone or in groups.
Awesome ideas; here's what I would like them to be like:
Anti-vehicle grenades - Slow down vehicles
Flux grenades and Forgegun shots - Reduce Active duration of modules by 1 second and increase their cooldown by 1 second.
Missiles from swarm launchers, remote explosives, and proxy mines - Reduce armor rep rate
They should also get a buff to their explosive force, so they can disrupt steering and flight even more.
Plasma Cannon shots - Reduce shield regeneration rate
The projectiles also becomes sticky and does damage over time to the target that gets directly hit. |
The-Errorist
550
|
Posted - 2014.03.07 04:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
Meeko Fent wrote:Shooting the Main gun reduces the hardeners effect by 1% on blasters, 15% on Rails, and 3% on missiles.
Bad idea and it isn't even relevant to what the OP is talking about or asking. |
The-Errorist
550
|
Posted - 2014.03.07 04:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
ResistanceGTA wrote:Could we get Webs already?!?
These are interesting ideas, though I think some simple DoT would be amazing for variants of weapons (and all Plasma Cannons).
Why exactly can't they program in Damage over Time abilities? I know a Dev explained it, but, vehicles used to burn, couldn't that programming be modified to do less damage and over X number of seconds. Also adding some form of 'extinguisher' module for vehicles to stop the effect could add some variety. DoT works through Hardners (if hit before hardner was activated) and also cancels out regen, or at least slows it down.
I don't act like I know vehicles, I fly ADSs, but, I don't know anything, so mighty tankers, please treat me with pity if you tear this post apart, I just asked 2 questions.
It's not that easy as taking the burning effect that vehicles had; based on what they said it would require new code which they don't have to time and resources to make (sounds like BS). Also an extinguisher module already existed in the test server and I don't think DoT damage would or should be that deadly to warrant dedicating a module slot to deal with it. |
The-Errorist
561
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 05:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:Change AV nades to stop whatever modules are currently active? Something along those lines. Tanks should be nigh unkillable when hardeners are on. It'd be fair for AV nades to force those modules off and make the tank vulnerable as opposed to the crap damage they have now/
That, even though isn't doing damage to vehicles, is in my opinion, it's not the best alternative. What if there was an enemy caldari LAV around you that was passive tanking that has a gunner. A non damage dealing grenade that only stops the currently active module, would be useless.
However, during tank fights, it would be an "I Win grenade".
As proposed my others and I, having AV grenades do damage as well as slowing down vehicle, would be great. |
The-Errorist
563
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 21:11:00 -
[5] - Quote
No 1 has any feedback on this version or anyone else's version of Iron Wolf Saber's ideas?
The-Errorist wrote:
Anti-vehicle grenades - Slow down vehicles
Flux grenades and Forgegun shots - Reduce Active duration of modules by 1 second and increase their cooldown by 1 second.
Missiles from swarm launchers, remote explosives, and proxy mines - Reduce armor rep rate
They should also get a buff to their explosive force, so they can disrupt steering and flight even more.
Plasma Cannon shots - Reduce shield regeneration rate
The projectiles also becomes sticky and does damage over time to the target that gets directly hit.
|
The-Errorist
570
|
Posted - 2014.03.23 00:44:00 -
[6] - Quote
crazy space 1 wrote:Please remember I'm seriously running for CPM 1
I'm on the fence on which way to go. On one hand you can add debuffs to all AV weapons I fear they will be useless, 1 second? On the other hand introducing 2-3 brand new EW equipment would require art production and effects, lots of other busy work and would take more time away from other features like new Minmatar LAV and HAV. I would argue it's a waste of arts time.
I would propose a middle ground. Using existing AV weapons lower the production and time needed to deliver.
Web Swarm launcher
0 Damage
150 range *too much?*
velocity lowered by 50% for 3/5/7 seconds, multiple shots reset the timer
skill for 5% per level more duration
Web Prox mine
0 Damage
Velocity lowered by 50% for 5/7/9 seconds
same skill bonus
What else do we need? I'm serious I can't think of anything more important. Also Why do tanks move so fast uphill while LAVs slow down while going uphill? That's not fair... Anyways let me go on.
Other effects like a low damage forge gun that saps cap would be awesome, but CCP needs to introduce cap mechanics into dust. Lets just focus on two forms of web warfare using weapons already in the game is genius. If you put small de-buffs on normal weapons you create more balance issues than you even want to have to waste time on.
You should put that you're for CPM 1 in your sig.
The none of the de-buffs proposed here IMO sound useless. Also the debuff where it cuts down the current active module duration and increases cooldown time for 1 second, would be stackable; with each hit it would apply that effect.
Adding de-buff to AV would make using teamwork to take down vehicles much easier as it would make the vehicle less functional with each consecutive hit as well as do damage.
Also your solution isn't that great as it's just adding de-buffs to AV weapons, but having it as a variant, but not letting it do any damage. That, in my opinion would make the de-buff variants very underpowered as it can't be used to kill anything or at least damage it, which makes it just an equipment instead of a weapon.
After thinking a little more about this, I changed my mind on having the base variant have de-buffs; the base should just be pure damage dealing weapon and their should be a de-buff variant that supports AV and isn't under or overpowered.
If there were going to be variants that add debuffs, these stats seem better:
Web Swarm launcher
Damage: 50% less than base variant
Range: Same as regular swarm launchers
De-buff: Lower current speed, max velocity, and acceleration by 10% per missile for 5 seconds. Multiple shots reset the timer and the de-buff stacks.
It should also uses the same skill as the regular swarm launcher since its a variant and not a completely different weapon.
Web Proxy mine
Damage: 50% less than base variant
De-buff: Lower current speed, max speed, and acceleration by 50% |
The-Errorist
579
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 21:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Churning in my head a bit on how to make AV 'threatening' to vehicles considering that I just went a round where I parked a maddy and just ate everything shot at me by infantry. (approximately ate about 15 av shots and only got to half armor and didn't have hardener so there may be a number adjustment needed regardless)
As we all know the pendulum keeps swinging back and forth and now the pendulum is back in tank's favor in terms of infantry av vs tanks the problem I honestly feel is that throwing the numbers back is going to constantly just keep the pendulum swinging back and forth.
So what if we gave all the current AV weapons some form of 'debuff' that would hurt the targeted vehicles in ways they don't need to be hurt.
For example a Plasma Cannon shot becomes sticky and does its damage to the attached vehicle (or unlucky infantry) that get directly struck by it?
Forge guns slam so hard they disrupt hardeners biting into a second of effective up time remaining and increasing cooldown by a second for that cycle
AV grenades could lock up vehicle modules from activating. (this would require limiting the grenade to 1 throw)
Swarm Launchers slowing down vehicles?
These are just examples but there are plenty of legs on the stool to kick out aside from HP. like regen, shield delay, sensors, turret cooldown rates, ammo reserves the list goes on. Come up with your own that you might think would make them a viable threat and useful alone or in groups. lolno How does a FG disrupt something thats inside a vehicle? How does a nade lock up a switch? How does a swarm slow down a vehicle? Just more bad ideas again from infantry If you want EWAR and webs and neuts and tracking disruptors then add in capacitors for all vehicles, copy and paste from EVE all the mods/skills and transfer into DUST
1. You should say how would instead of how does.
2 You can apply the same weird logic to what you're proposing.
How does EWAR and webs and neuts and tracking disruptors work if they're not in dust?
How does a capacitors for all vehicles work in dust when there isn't one
3. The following is the answer to the 3 questions you asked: when CCP adds code for it to work like that; it can be done using math.
Furthermore, one could just make up an explanation for how and why these weapons could specifically do such things to a vehicle.
The forge-gun's massive kinetic force coupled with the radioactive metal launched at hypersonic speeds, cause hardener's to use up a bit more energy and the vehicles' processing power to give the same level of protection.
The explosive ammo used for the swarm launcher is also packed with explosive-resitant nanines encased in a scify tar-like substance that invasively work to work to impepede a vehicle's mobility.
For the nade disabling an active module, I don't support it for various reasons. |
The-Errorist
579
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 21:28:00 -
[8] - Quote
Auris Lionesse wrote:Vulpes Dolosus wrote:Or, now that active mods are king, EWAR equipment.
Grenades that reduce "capacitor" (the time left on the module running).
AoE Hives/Webifiers that slow vehicles/nullify nitrus boosts(could be activated when run over at high speed
Just a few ideas. Or just add capacitors so Ccp doesn't halfass another eve mechanic into dust. Do it right or not at all. 5 module slots are bad enough.
CCP already addressed why they won't add a cap system, will edit this post to have the source and a quote later. |
The-Errorist
588
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 20:30:00 -
[9] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Stuff
You already made your case and are now just repeating yourself and are bringing nothing new for your arguments. You don't need to go bash other's ideas just because it hasn't already been done in EVE. Also just because something is done in EVE doesn't mean that it would take less time or effort to recreate in Dust as other things that aren't in EVE; Dust is running on a completely different platform and uses different tools.
Lastly, when Iron Wolf Saber wrote, "Dunno how does an rpg stop a tank from moving? how does a well placed cannon round disable the turret?" Both those questions were rhetorical questions and you obviously missed the point he was making. |
|
|
| |
|