|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Texs Red
DUST University
Ivy League
296
   |
Posted - 2014.03.16 14:38:00 -
[1] - Quote
Skihids wrote:
Ideally we should be able to use both the DS3 for direction control and a mappable KB for module control. The selection wheel is a lousy interface for critical systems control. Imagine something like that on your car.
One panic slap on the boost button and you are back up to max shields.
Enemy turning to fire on you? Slap the hardener button and return fire. Coast clear? Shut down the hardener before it drains all your cap with another press.
I agree that the selection wheel is a rather poor interface sometimes. It is always irritating when I go to activate both of my hardeners but instead just turn off the one I just turned on.
However giving free reign of mapping out controls could lead to an imbalance that favors KBM, you simply have more buttons that are easily accessible.
Total number of buttons on a DS3: 14
Total number of buttons within easy reach of a 4 finger placement: 20-27 + 2 on the mouse
On the matter of Capacitors:
I think they just would make ground combat unnecessarily complicated. It would draw too much of a single players attention away from what they are doing to simply managing their vehicle. Having to micro manage how much you are shooting, how much cap draw your defenses are taking, aiming, maneuvering, maintaining situational awareness, watching ammo count, judging how quickly your opponent is losing eHP vs your eHP, and communicating with allies is too much for a single person to handle. You would end up with very boring tank battles: Upon seeing each other they would stop their tanks and it would become a battle of capacitor micromanagement and build setup, which is EVE not Dust.
If you are truly displeased with the current mechanics then I see two possible alternatives:
1) Vehicle "crews". By allows several people control of a tank you reduce the overwhelming amount of micromanaging needed. The driver could manage defensive modules and steer while the gunner manages offensive modules/turrets and keeps situational awareness. Tank matches would be won by teamwork of the crew, capacitor micromanagement, and the build of the vehicle.
This option would also reduce tank spam as it would take at least 2 people to operate a tank and a poor crew that lacks communication would pale compared to an organized one, thus MLT tanks would fall out of favor. Redline rail tanks might still be a problem though, as sitting in the redline and striking at long range allows them to not deal with defenses or mobility.
2) Vehicle modules operate more like stamina than the hard cool down system we have currently. By not using up the full duration of the module then it recovers more quickly. The reduces the amount of micromanagement needed but increases the amount of detailed control the operator has (which is what I assume you capacitor people want). |
Texs Red
DUST University
Ivy League
296
|
Posted - 2014.03.16 15:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
Here is some ideas I had, which may or may not be tied to vehicle capacitors.
1) LAVs: Currently they are not LAVs, they are simply transport that happens to have a gun on it (or not).
-a) Increase the damage it receives from light weapons
-b) Make it so that instead of it's hitbox potentially blocking those hiding inside (making them hard to hit) instead have it reduce the damage instead
-c) Fix small blaster turrets so that they have more of a cone-of-effect similar to that of a AR. Currently they are far too precise and you would be better off using a light weapon instead because at least they have some spread and it's damage isn't enough that occasional hits can seriously hurt or even kill someone.
-d) Fix small rail turrets. Currently the suffer from bug that makes them miss even if you are exactly on target, I once shot half a clip straight at a sniper who was a simple 100m from me but none of the connected despite all my efforts and taking the time to aim... three times...
-d) Redesign LAVs: The current design is more similar to a truck with a gun on a tripod in the back than a specifically designed military vehicle. Currently dropships already demonstrate that you don't need to manually control the turret so cover the whole LAV (they all look like dune buggies instead of armored vehicles), put the turret on top, and have the passenger control the turret. Then have room for 2-3 passengers in the rear who are just along for the ride or can switch out in case the driver or gunner dies. OR turn our current model into more of a highly mobile ATV vehicle then add new LAVs that look like real military vehicles that actually cover their occupants.
-e) Have Assault and Transport specializations. Assault would give bonuses to weapons and perhaps have not 1 turret but 2 (forward and backward facing) where as the Transport would gain bonuses defenses/resistances with a steadier frame that prevents it from bucking on hills or rolling.
Result: You have a vehicle that can move very quickly and either survive or attack. It cannot stand and deliver as it can be seriously harmed if several light weapons shoot at it, also it's occupants can still take damage from people outside the LAV. It is very vulnerable to proxy mines and direct AV hits due to its light build.
2) HAV to MAV: All things considered, our tanks aren't very big. To be honest I think they are more like striker tanks than HAVs. In the regard then I would say limited their slots to make them a bit more "medium" but keep their near immunity to light weapons (expect AV of course). So their ability to deal excellent damage plus their speed is their advantages.
3) True HAVs: Here are the big daddies. Their turrets are crazy powerful but have even worse tracking speed than our current large turrets, making them excellent tank killers with fantastic tank to back it up but lacking the tracking speed needed to deal with infantry. Infantry could climb onboard and damage different functions of the vehicle, perhaps tear off a panel and damage the engines or place a shaped charge in a small weak spot dealing massive damage. Most of the other vehicles are too quick and deadly vs infantry to allow this to happen but would be a fear of a HAV pilot.
So it comes full circle Infantry > LAV > MAV > HAV > Infantry.
What does this have to do with capacitors? Assault variants will be varied and, while they will have single person variants, will often require two or more people to full operate.
Vehicle balance is also very important to capacitors because broken vehicles with capacitors are hardly any different than broken vehicles without capacitors. |
|
|
| |
|