|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Foundation Seldon
Molon Labe.
Public Disorder.
419
   |
Posted - 2014.02.06 20:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
All credits to JudgeRhadamanthus for the video.
Send any likes over to him at : https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1806881#post1806881
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHy6CXWk3K4
A FANTASTIC look at the problem with Redline Rails in their current state of the game. Check it out.
Saga v. Methana Balance
|
Foundation Seldon
Molon Labe.
Public Disorder.
419
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 20:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:About bloody time....players have been telling CCP for months red line rail turrets are ridiculous....I hope CCP finally takes note.
Made even more ridiculous thanks to stacking 30% damage mods and a buff to their base damage amounts. Various comments from CCP members make it sound like they've payed attention to Judge's videos and discuss them among the dev team, hopefully they're listening now.
Saga v. Methana Balance
|
Foundation Seldon
Molon Labe.
436
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 20:27:00 -
[3] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Fiddlestaxp wrote:Make railguns behave like the mass driver(of old?). Have the projectile disappear after a certain duration. Make this distance ONLY so short as to make the railguns all but useless on anything but their home point from the red line.
Lol wut? Rails are already hard-capped at 600m. You want to nerf their range? Then how about a sniper's maximum range gets nerfed in return too? You really think a turret that long, with so many magnetic rings to accelerate projectiles, will have a short range?
Considering 600m nets them near full map coverage from the redline I don't see that as being unreasonable. If Snipers had a 600m optimal range then I don't think nerfing that would be unreasonable either. The look of the weapon shouldn't have any bearing on how that weapon is balanced.
:P
Spkr4theDead wrote:
Today's tanks have great range, no reason tanks 20,000 years in the future should have LESS range just because you say so. Dust tanks use very powerful magnetism instead of explosive charges for the railgun, why do you think it's called a railgun?
I'll accept a nerf to rail range if snipers get a range nerf.
This is an irrelevant point at the end of the day. If we were at all concerned about making the game jive with real world war conventions then Tanks wouldn't be able to be effectively operated by a single pilot to begin with. The Railgun could have a 20m range if it provided an overall positive effect to the balance in the game (it wouldn't so I'm not suggesting that).
Spkr4theDead wrote:
We all know what happened to Dust / vehicles when CCP listened to just a few people.
It's a good thing the case for nerfing Rails isn't held by just a few people then. In their current incarnation in the game they're acting like a Shotgun with 600m range. You make comparisons between it and the Sniper rifle but, last time I checked, I couldn't effectively use a Sniper Rifle in 20m just as easily I could use it at 200m. It's overall flexibility compared to other turrets isn't just a problem when it comes to Tank v. Dropship, they're a problem in Tank v. Tank as well.
Saga v. Methana Balance
|
Foundation Seldon
Molon Labe.
437
|
Posted - 2014.02.08 21:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:
The look? The look of the weapon? I don't care about the look of the weapon. I care about how it works. It's using electromagnetism to move projectiles at hypersonic speeds.
How are rails a problem in tank v tank? Are you mad? Will infantry only be happy when the only turrets tanks have are missile turrets?
But wait, tankers will use those too effectively! Then those must be nerfed! Then subsequently removed, and tanks will have no more purpose, and infantry will achieve their goal of having tanks removed.
I also love all this "tanks can't be operated by one person BS." In what video game does it require more than one person to operate? Even in World of Tanks, there's a 4-man crew, but it's still a video game, and that one person playing that specific video game controls the whole of the tank.
I love how you'll simultaneously cite real world conventions (electromagnetism to move projectiles at hypersonic speeds!) to justify not changing the excessive range of the Railgun in the exact same post that you'll use "it's a video game!" to justify the effective 1 man operation of a Tank. If that's not an example of cherry picking then I don't know what is. You're right, it's a video game, which is why we shouldn't be concerned about the real world physics of a particular turret type with respect to its balance. I hope you won't bring up that point anymore.
Rails are absolutely a problem in Tank v. Tank as they're the only Large Turret worth fitting on the damn things that won't get you hard countered by any and everything else on the field. Blasters are **** in the vehicle department and Missiles, a turret that's arguably even less effective against infantry than the Large Railgun is, are all but useless against an entire segment of the tanking population (ie. all Shield Tanks) and even if they weren't their anti-vehicle prowess is only useful up close and is only maybe just as effective as Large Railguns within that range. All while the Large Railgun operates hilariously effectively from anywhere between 10 ~ 600m and can take on any type of Tank that's called on the field.
Feel free to explain why I should bother with anything else.
I'm not an infantry dude by the way.
:P
Saga v. Methana Balance
|
Foundation Seldon
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
469
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 17:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
Luk Manag wrote:CEOPyrex CloneA wrote:Luk Manag wrote:CEO Pyrex agrees with Judge. While utterly dominating in a Domination (Assault Dropship), he lamented on the level of risk a prototype railtaink represents. He cited all of the rigorous evidence, because you guys think tanks should have less range and be prevented from pointing up... silly. I'm fine with removing redlines, but don't nerf the only real counter for the Dropship. No you are wrong, so wrong, in fact you are so far from being right that you had a make a two day trip to get to this conclusion (reasonably priced motel stop over - pool was crap - AC a little disappointing) Red line railgun tanks are VERY broken indeed, why should you have all the power and almost no risk at all. that to me smacks of 'im alright Jack' and protectionism. Frankly CCP are not showing much leadership or collaboration on this topic either, almost 3 months of 1.7 with very little sight of 1.8 coming except (before fanfest maybe) that means there is a potential 6 months between patches and that to me says this game is no longer important or valued by CCP and is being kept alive by a skeleton crew to keep the 1.6m GBP PA it perhaps makes going. CCP need to wake up and realize they have a rough diamond here that with the right level of effort would make good money, what we see instead is a focus on a tech demo game which requires the user to shell out -ú200 for a pair of goggles that are already technically obsolete, a WOD franchise that apparently is now going to be a bit like DAYZ (way to bandwagon onto a game that itself is already dead) and a cash cow that is about to be totally overtaken by Star Citizen and Elite Dangerous, both games with incredible pedigrees already. Seriously CCP are you asleep at the wheel? Thank you for the excellent reply. I loled at my trip to wrong-land. I'm right that you agree with Judge. I'm also right for implying that you have a history of endorsing OP tactics. You don't care that I agreed with the redline argument. I want CCP to remove the redlines and maybe just add a few more spawnpoints to prevent overcamping if they can't come up with a good solution (energy shield). You just like going 20/0 every match in an Assault Dropship, and you think it would be even better if you didn't have to worry about railguns, and the point about the broken redline is a convenient smokescreen.
I guess in these moments its easier to attack a person's "record" rather than the actual arguments that are being presented. To say that Pyrex agrees with Judge because he's Judge is to ignore every piece of evidence Judge has used to come to the conclusion that Rails need adjusting. It discredits both Pyrex in saying that he's only supporting him because they're buddy buddy and it discredits all the work Judge has put in trying to make his case. Likewise you contradict yourself on his "history" of endorsing OP tactics, if this were truly the case then why would Pyrex not be defending the Redline Rail mechanics in their current iteration? Why would he bother using Shotgun Scout (or Scout at all) in the amount of videos hes used them in? Why would, in his crusade to use everything OP, ever skill into Assault Dropships of all things given their state in the game?
No one is denying that some of the blame should be put on the front step of the current iteration of redline mechanics but it's ridiculous to assume that having range that allows you to shoot from 100m into your own redline and tag enemies that are present near the opposing one is an acceptable position when you take in consideration the damage that they're able to effectively put out. Having a 600m effective range, in the current state of the game, is simply excessive.
Even if we accept that Redline mechanics need to be changed then there'd still be a justifiable reason to nerf the effective range (or i'd still argue the damage) of Rails. I feel like people are totally glossing over the significant buffs they received going into 1.7, they simultaneously do more damage than their old compressed variant at a higher rate of fire and with lower heat gain and their influence has not only negatively effected the current state of Tank v. Dropship but has also made them more or less the only turret worth using in any sort of Vehicle v. Vehicle engagements.
Saga v. Methana Balance
|
Foundation Seldon
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
469
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 20:32:00 -
[6] - Quote
Luk Manag wrote:Foundation Seldon. LOL. These are the moments of hilarious deflections and unsubstantiated fluff. Yes, Judge has some specific points about the role of the dropship, emphasizing teamplay tactics (fulfilled by any dropship), and glosses over the infantry squad shattering impact of the Assault Dropship. To support the team play role, I would suggest extra HP when weapons are absent, but an offensive weapons platform needs to be vulnerable, or people will simply quit at higher rates. You can make reasonable points about dropships not having adequate cover on some maps, and that's largely a map design problem. You can't simply expect all maps be built to accommodate dropship tactics. I would personally like to see more infantry-only maps (all underground or starship interior). Other maps, like nearly all of them, were built for vehicle combat, and it is unrealistic for me to expect infantry-only engagements in open fields, likewise, it's unreasonable for you to think open skies should be ideal for your dropships. Some maps are more dangerous than others, and maybe we'll see more valleys/mountains/cityscapes provide cover for assault Dropships. I'm not a huge fan of the sniper role, AV or anti-infantry, but many years of PvP shooter history (industry wide), in every game, all have preserved the ominous threat elements that a sniper brings into the experience. Yes, they're annoying, but no, you will not be allowed to run amok.
Please point out what parts of my posts that could be considered "unsubstantiated fluff". It's a fact that Railguns of 1.7 do more damage than their old compressed variant with an improved heat gain and significantly higher rate of fire. Coupled with the addition of 30% damage mods and they're better than they've ever been. What's hilarious is you accusing someone else of using "deflections" when your last post began with attempting to discredit a player based on who they agreed with on a singular issue and what weapons they use in-game rather than the arguments said player was presenting. It's a classic ad-hominem and one you've been rightfully called out on.
No one disagrees with you that Dropships need a reliable counter, Judge himself in the video he presented said as much himself. And trust me, having played through the game on and off since the E3 Build I know what it means when Dropships are able to "run amok". PreChrome/PreMissile Nerf Dropships were truly the Hammer of Thor on the battlefield. We don't want to see the return of that. Rails NEED to be a part of the game to act as a counter to Dropships. The problem, as mentioned over and over again, is that they risk absolutely nothing in being able to sit deep in their redline and be able to cover effectively the entire map. There are counters and then there's singlehandedly having the means to shut down the entire match for a branch of players while being invincible to anything else that may look in your direction. The counter lacks a counter itself.
Regarding Infantry v. AV I'm absolutely inclined to agree, right now it's all in a state where there's difficulty in taking out even a Militia Baloch let alone someone that's as maneuverable as an Assault Dropship. This isn't what the topic of this discussion is about though.
Saga v. Methana Balance
|
|
|
| |
|