CELESTA AUNGM
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
118
   |
Posted - 2014.01.29 21:35:00 -
[1] - Quote
Since it's first suggestion in the forums, I have been against the theory of the "waves" concept that Patch 1.7 would be initiating. But I wanted to run around in it a few weeks, purge the old logi ways in which I used my dropship (now that logi vehicles are currently on hiatus) and build some new techniques under the "waves" plan, and give myself full immersion before I draw a conclusion.
With my vehicle refits optimized as far as they can be, module preferences rearranged, all new skill bonuses rebuilt from the SP I was refunded, and new flying techniques to keep me alive in the matches again, I can't mature much further in vehicle use, and have to make my final decision/view about this program.
It's already been described from different POVs, and I listed these below because they had interesting angles, not because they are specifically negative:
...CCP Logibro:
There will be a far greater emphasis on active module use than ever before. The intent here is to create GÇ£waves of opportunityGÇ¥ that allow vehicles to be devastatingGǪ temporarily. Active modules will greatly enhance a vehicleGÇÖs attributes, but when they enter cooldown, the vehicle is left exposed and vulnerable to attack (more on this below). This back-and-forth allows infantry to engage vehicles, but do so knowing that the vehicleGÇÖs pilot has a short window in which he can drastically alter the outcome of any engagement.
...Winsaucerer:
Overall, I have a negative reaction to the "waves of opportunity" rework for vehicles. Things I don't like, at a glance:
* AV will chase vehicles. As soon as cooldowns are off, vehicle will die. Forge gunners and swarm launcher players can be persistent and will chase
* How useful will a passive tank be against AV? It sounds to me like it might not be at all a viable build and will be vulnerable to dying quickly
* Having to time my attack for a "wave", and make sure I know my exit path, then exit, then sit back and wait for cooldowns while dodging AV that's chasing me, sounds very much like the opposite of fun. It sounds tedious
* 36 seconds (for armour) to make your entry, make the push, then retreat. 37 seconds (with complex and skills) to hide behind buildings until you're ready for your next 36 second dart.
....TheAmazingFlyingPig:
Vehicles can no longer stack multiple modules of the same type. This is to bring us closer to our goal of having vehicles able to use "waves of opportunity" to break battle lines, then retreat, rather than perma-blasters farming WP's.
I train as a support-player, so I never expect to persist in the forefront of the fight:
Prior to the "Waves" reworking, I intended to use my DS (or any vehicle) as a LEVER : enter with the troops, attach to the door, work on it to pry the door open for my troops to enter, and stick around only until infantry can secure the prize or can no longer keep the vicinity free from enemy AV--at which time I can no longer provide the leverage my team needs and I have to retreat or hide.
[;)My aim in fitting passive/active modules is to buy maybe 30 seconds more "fight" time for my mission, and postpone my "retreat/hide" time, BUT ALWAYS KNOWING THAT, much like real combat vehicles, retreat/hide time is ALWAYS approaching (other than in those rare 'hostiles all gone; hang around for a beer' moments).
 Often players who train as frontliners/attackers, (and lots of support-mercs too) try to fit modules in their vehicles to buy SO MUCH "fight" time that, in a short Skirmish match there isn't enough time or opportunity for hostiles to neutralize them, and the result is the effect of 'invulnerability'. I THINK I understand this concern. It's not so much an imbalance in STATS that CCP is trying to address...it's that imbalance in the players' chosen WAYS of using the vehicles that CCP is struggling with (and admittedly needs to legislate).
But with the "Waves of Opportunity" design we're FORCED into a "balanced battlefield" by conducting such artificial behavior in vehicle that it's now completely divorced from any "the real vehicle combat" notions we can fantasize about and reenact in this game.
Under the 'Waves" scheme, fitting players with a stopwatch hasn't resulted in their vehicle use becoming devastating, but desperate and hummingbird-like. Ground players clutching onto speed as sole protection for HAV/LAVs--many opt to fight solo, or barely "help" infantry with a little pot-shooting on the run....I observe that many aerial players resort to continuous defensive hustling around the air without the modules to do what many of us got into vehicles to do: suss, engage, and support.
 I've become that kind of DS driver,...no longer able to fit modules as a means to risk more "fight" time, instead I've accepted using modules as the routine unexciting yellow protection I throw on my back as I'm fleeing away. In this flip-flopping rush-in/quick-exit procedure, I figured I spend about 85% of my vehicle time fleeing or hiding, and only 15% mobilizing and helping troops. No, not getting shot down or losing a lot of ISK, but spending the chore of winding around the map until the clocks reset.. while the fight I wanted to support has ended and moved on.
I think this is too high a price to pay, and the WRONG price to pay, in order to get the vehicle-use balance battlefield you are trying to achieve. 20 minutes in this kind of gameplay is similar to run-n-gunning, which to many of us is "tedious,...the opposite of fun".
Even though I am opposed to the "Waves of Opportunity" experiment that you've introduced, I am an adapter, and hope to adapt to this arrangement enough to sglean some quantum of fun from using vehicles in Dust. From a purely business standpoint, if you've obtained your goal of "battlefield balance", then I'll congratulate you.
But I wish you had chosen some OTHER mechanic of the game to use as the tool to accomplish that balance. |