CELESTA AUNGM
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
72
   |
Posted - 2013.12.18 22:31:00 -
[1] - Quote
....Well,... er I'm not exactly sure what a "PROFESSIONAL Dropship Pilot" actually IS ( if there was such a thing in real life as a Dropship Pilot, then you'd have some sort of reference to go by). But OK, Agent Overkill... I won't try to pull your leg about that.
Kallas and Agent Overkill, you both have put together a great debate about how to further balance the vehicle module and AV stats in the game, but I'd like to propose this thought to you both:
Agent Overkill, you have used an ADS dropship, and described how easy it is for your fit-out to help you linger in the combat zone much longer than what is intended in CCP's "Waves of Opportunity" concept; hence you believe that CCP's construct for the AV and the vehicle modules should be further tuned to achieve CCP's goal.
I say NO, it doesn't mean that CCP's construct should be improved--and what you did with your DS was NOT easy. You studied the stats using personal initiative to discover an individual fit-out, while many other pilots beg for CCP charity. Your bird is now a unique adaptation, with and strengths on the map that not everyone else in the DS community is going to be able to "clone". ROCK-On!
Kallas, you have used a home-recipe of Hardeners, and orchestrated-timing when activating them, to get around the "Waves of Opportunity" concept; hence you believe that the Hardeners and similar modules should be "weakened" with longer cooldowns in order to better achieve the CCP-intended way modules should be used.
I say NO, it doesn't mean that their intended "Waves" idea should be improved--and you DIDN'T undermine their concept. You used an individually sharp awareness of the module's math, and found you can use it in conjunction with TEMPORAL math, to make a unique strength by "sequencing" the module-use. A substantial chunk of pilots will never be able to keep a picture of that timing in their minds, so their DS will never benefit from that hardener-sequence technique with the same prowess as your DS does. THAT is Cold Beer Time!
Notice in both cases, I don't want to further improve the module construct CCP is creating. I am completely OPPOSED to the "Waves of Opportunity" layout--I don't agree with it at all. (NOOO, CCP, I don't pack this module aboard planning to use it THAT way) But I'm willing to play ball in their construct, so long as I can still see SOME small room to scheme MY OWN adapted innovation of the modules (even if it's counter to "The CCP Way" to use the modules),...
The payoff becomes a vehicle with a UNIQUE value in the game.(..."I don't know what the hell CELESTA did to get 4613 Armour HP on her ship, but it's the reason we definitely need her on our team--hers is the only ship that can get us all the way to the hack point through all that AV!"...)
I'm worried that, if CCP's "Waves" arrangement gets more perfect and bulletproof, any room for the individual achievement I just described and both of you displayed, will be squashed. |
CELESTA AUNGM
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 16:30:00 -
[2] - Quote
Shijima Kuraimaru wrote:CELESTA AUNGM wrote:...
I'm worried that, if CCP's "Waves" arrangement gets more perfect and bulletproof, any room for the individual achievement I just described and both of you displayed, will be squashed. Though I admire the ability to think outside the box to "surpass" expectations, you're sounding as if you are one of those that believe that Infantry AV should not be a threat to vehicles unless they get really lucky. Either that or you're on the side that says Infantry AV need to be un-nerfed. With the current team size, one cannot rely on numbers. Infantry AV is no longer the paper to the vehicular rock, and really hasn't been for a while. But now, even more so, Infantry AV has become the smudge of wood pulp that makes no difference on the surface of the looming vehicular boulder. What I wouldn't give for my forge to have a five hundred meter range again. LOL
Oh, no Shijima. My post didn't intend to express any opinion about the AV-versus-Vehicle issues. My point was centered on the subject of "modules" and how a player may use them (for their intended purpose or otherwise) to his INDIVIDUAL gameplay style.
Now that you bring up the factor of AV, heck... I hope it can apply in an advantageous way to your AV fit-out too.
I understand the wish (and yes, NEED) to keep a "balance" of technology/weaponry strengths in the matches. If CCP has decided to try the module-use as their tool for balancing, I just don't want them to end up overlooking how the custom-fit-outs and custom stacking of module-use are also the players' tools for creating custom roles, pimping fit-outs, creating new character combat roles, and adapting their vehicles for those roles (something I understand is used in EVE to create entire new professions for players...cool).
Before 1.7 I could pick my vehicle of choice, select from a stack of modules that can support MY style of fighting in the match, and even choose to tweak PG or CPU as may be needed to result in MY OWN slightly personalized module scheme.
....Now that 1.7 is here, I see SOME of that personalized selection restricted...possibly BY ACCIDENT during CCP's pursuit of the "Waves Of Opportunity" strategy to address the (entirely?) separate issue of combat-balancing.
Balance the battlefield, yes. But be careful not to leave players restricted to the same 4 or 5 famous cookie-cutter combat roles that old FPS games consist of. |