|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
1030
   |
Posted - 2014.02.21 01:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
I have been arguing against the numerical 'nerf hammer' being cried for by people all over the forums in relation to Vehicles. Specifically Heavy Attack Vehicles which are 'dominating the field' at the current time.
This has earned me many bad looks, an opinion that I favour HAV and Vehicle Drivers over Infantry. An allegation that is false, misleading, and completely innacurate.
I do believe, however, that a 'quick fix' numerical balance will not solve the inherent problems in Vehicle Vs. Infantry Gameplay, but simply 'patch it' until another change comes along. What I'm campaigning is a more permanent fix which may include a numerical alteration, but not as the be all and end all of the discussion.
First, the Maps MUST be balanced. Currently every map has at least 80% or more coverable by Vehicles. Heavy Attack Vehicles account for 60-70% dependant on the map, with an overlap for Assault Dropships making up the additional coverage.
A well-designed map has greater variance in each unit's ability to perform it's job. Open Plains with scattered cover favor Heavy Attack Vehicles. This is where they 'dominate'. A cluttered installation interior, with buildings (interiors included) and gaps too small for a Heavy Attack Vehicle to get through (and fire through effectively) favors the Infantry when combating Heavy Attack Vehicles.
Dropships are capable of three dimensional movement, and thus are greatly desired if maps are designed with steep up and downs, such as cliffs, valleys, and hills that ground units find hard to traverse.
Currently, there is little actual diversity in the overall map. If a Heavy Attack Vehicle cannot get to the point itself, there is alot of open space around each point that they can cover. Effectively covering the point strategically and tactically. Anyone in there is unlikely to be able to get out to support their allies, and reinforcements are unlikely to get in.
Secondly. Infantry need more options to deal with Vehicular Threats. Currently non-Anti-Vehicular Equipped Infantry have a mere handful f options. All involving damage and / or destruction (AV Grenades, Flux Grenades for Shield Tanks, Proximity Explosives, Remote Explosives, and already deployed, but non-replaceable Turret installations).
What is needed is content designed to allow infantry to shape the battlefield to their advantage. Things such as Hedgehogs, Walls, Deployable Turrets, Shield Generators and Gates. Not only would these add greater options to dealing with Vehicles, they would also introduce multi-level theatres.
As an example (I wont say quick, because my examples never are quick):
Quote:Team A in a Skirmish is defending a Point accessible by Northern, Eastern, and Southern routes. They need to free up some forces to move on to the next point, but 3 access ways is alot of ground for 1 or 2 men to cover. So they deploy some defences. The Northern Path is wide enough for a Heavy Attack Vehicle to get in and cover the point (or seriously impact the ability to hold the point) so they lay out 3 strategically placed Hedgehogs. This will slow down Heavy Attack Vehicles who must destroy the Hedgehogs in order to penetrate the defender's position. Each hedgehog has HP equivalent to a Supply Depot, so they are not easy to kill.
The Eastern route is a covered walkway. The soldiers deploy 2 'Cover Shields' to allow 2 people to stand and fire with some easily accessible cover nearby. The third route is he landing platform. Accessible only by air. So they deploy 2 Automated AA Guns to deter aerial assault.
Now you have a point, highly defensible, with the ability to counter the 'most likely' threats from each position. The Northern Route can still be traversed by Infantry and the Eastern Route is heavily Defensible from Infantry. Taking apart these defences would require more than just rocking up in a Heavy Attack Vehicle or Dropship. The two infantry defenders do not need to carry any particular equipment to counter threats (making personal choice once again matter), but would be advised to carry at least 1 repair tool to keep the defences from being destroyed or overrun too easily.
Giving us the options and the tools to counter both lethally and non-lethally Vehicles and / or other threats makes the game far more complex, involved, and allows balance by proxy. Maps, deployable installations, and being able to 'dynamically change' the battle field on the fly make for a much more interesting gameplay experience than a simple numeric balance.
A simple numerical balance right now will not solve the long term issues that having vehicles and infantry on the field at the same time will have. Nor will complex mechanics restricting Heavy Attack Vehicle usage. It's quite simply a case of getting the content to balance tanks, the maps to balance tanks, and not touching the numbers until this is in place.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
1032
|
Posted - 2014.02.21 15:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
Bumping to keep it above the 'nerfhammer' requests.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
1034
|
Posted - 2014.02.22 13:18:00 -
[3] - Quote
Thankyou for the support!
Keeping these ideas on the forefront on our minds can open up true opportunities for balance, Vs. sole options.
Keep in mind that 'some' of the above would be equipment items (Cover Shields probably being one of course) while things like Hedgehogs would be deployed installations so ANYONE who has invested in purchasing some for their personal reserve of deployables would be able to use them, regardless of equipment.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
1034
|
Posted - 2014.02.23 21:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
Bumping it above the nerfhammer threads again.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
1040
|
Posted - 2014.02.24 07:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
Loving the discussion in this thread.
Now I'm no expert (yet) in level design. But as above posters have mentioned some of the assets are in already. Hedgehogs are on a couple of maps. Turrets are already on maps. And creating assets is actually fairly easy in the grans scheme of things. (I'm talking the actual creation, not the texturing and implementation.)
The Drop Interface is already in place, as is the animation and system for it. (Ambush OMS). Now the only barrier I may be able to see is that these turrets, though dropping in seemingly at random, are actually socket based, which means no matter what order, or what turret drops in, they will always drop in the same, or a set series of areas.
A passing familiarity with UE3 isn't enough for me to make an educated guess about if this is the way it works or not, but from a design point of view, I can certainly see why they would make it that way. It avoid clipping issues, turrets hanging mid-air in locations inaccessible, as well as a few other issues including manipulation of the hit boxes of various objects to exclude them from being valid 'drop areas'.
Now, I know the 'nerfbat' is the only real tool we have to balance at the moment, but in truth it will only exacerbate the issue further, and put off the development of other assets in the 'Infantry Toolkit' because hey, suddenly people aren't complaining about HAVs blowing apart or being blown apart... job done.
And yes, from a developer's point of view (I've spoken to a couple about above ideas and much more though none directly in CCPs employ) that is how they think. They will not throw more development money at something that seems to be working.
New maps that follow the design philosophy are a secondary concern. I'm sure we'd all love to have it, but getting a deployment system that allows us to break out a toolkit of some kind to counter threats without HAVING to fit weapons of AV Destruction working on our current maps would give us 80% of what we need right now.
It's this kind of thinking I believe we need to get into. Not short term caulking to stop the leaks, but actually laying down new wood in place of the rotting hull. Short term solutions are good, only if you KNOW what is going to happen afterwards, and there's a promise or commitment to ensuring that it's ONLY a stop gap measure.
CCP is good with some of their information, but when it comes to making changes, we never really know if the change they're making is stop gap, or permanent. This is where a clear roadmap outline can help out the player base tremendously, as well as the development teams.
Not to toot my own horn (much) but this and more is something I want to push to CCP. Whether I get on the CPM or not, I intend to make them discontinue the overuse of the nerfbat as a 'all-in-one solution and actually lay out their plans in a clear, concise format for us to say... look, they're doing this now... but we know that they want to take it here afterwards.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
1040
|
Posted - 2014.02.24 09:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
Royalgiedro wrote:I think that the idea is very good, but needs a couple tweaks/additions.
1.) A way to stop spamming of installations.
a.) I foresee many maps being transformed into a giant mess of Bolases dropping walls everywhere. This would make the map inaccessible to tanks.
b.) A squad limit wouldn't work, because you can have up to 15 squads, so what if one person/squad put all the teams installations in very bad places?
c.) Perhaps make the hedgehogs have less than the health of a supply depot. Maybe 10k health? Also, make them available to be shield, armor, or balanced with their health design.
2.) AA guns shouldn't be deployable since drop ships are very easy to kill anyways. (and assault drop ships have to dodge enough)
Overall I think if you took the idea and shrunk it down in order to be more manageable and not abused, it would work wonders to improve gameplay and not make every match the same.
I do see your points, and I have some safeguards in place in my personal hardcopy of the idea (I typed it out before posting it here in a condensed forum version).
The 'limit' on spamming installations would be done primarily though the use of denial areas. You can't drop a hedgehog within x metres of another hedgehog, with a shared Installation Denial Area.
The actual number would have to be determined by range finding each map, setting 'deployable areas' but allow installations such as hedgehogs to be close enough together to actually impeded HAVs.
There could also be a map-wide cap for the time being. Similar in effect to the vehicle cap. While this may be abuseable by the people trolling and placing their installations behind your redline for whatever purpose, it would certainly limit the spam on the field of hedgehogs and turrets.
The HP issue is one I debate with. While a 10k HP buffer would be sizeable, a Railgun Tank could eliminate one without overheating. The reason the approx. Supply Depot was chosen was due to the fact that Supply Depot are hard to kill, and you have to sit there firing for a good length of time to actually remove them. That's what the Hedghogs need to be.
As to the Automated AA guns... we already have these in the form of Large Blaster Turrets, Railgun Turrets, and Missile Turrets and we know these can be deadly to Dropships. However what I'm proposing is that we make then 'smaller versions (probably medium sized, or double small) installations.
The idea behind the Turret Fitting I have here is that Turrets are not pre-equipped with AI. That is actually a fiting choice. So you take a turret and fit an AI module. Higher level Ai modules have better firing capabilities. The trade-off, as you might have guessed, is using one of your slots, thus making it a weaker turret overall.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
1041
|
Posted - 2014.02.24 12:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
KalOfTheRathi wrote:Funny, CCP/Shanghai wanted tanks to be simpler and have to play to a very specific play style. They accomplished that with 1.7, not that I agree with anything in their goals, solutions or methods but it has been accomplished: Tanks are easier to use. Simpler to operate and cheap enough to play early on.
This makes it better for a F2P game as New Berries can decide if they want to skill into vehicles without wasting the huge amount of SP required to do so.
The numbers balancing idea is just the clueless grasping at straws. It will make no difference in the short term nor the long term.
We have no information except the seat of our pants QQ-ing from so many Kittens. CCP keeps all the information secret as they don't want any other company to find out the monetary value of Dust514. At least one might suggest that regardless of the fact is we don't believe there are enough Mercs to matter all that much. The only value that matters is how much RWC (Real World Cash) is being spent at the PS store.
All the QQ in the world will make no difference if their income is enough or goes up.
I'm not actually proposing any radical changes to tanks in any way. They will still be as 'easy to use' as they are now... Will still be relatively easy to Skill into, Price should probably go up somewhat. But what I'm proposing is expanding the amount of things Infantry can do to mitigate HAVS.
Now, if you take the cynical CCP will only server their bottom line ideal, this would help them immensely in doing so. Why? Because even more play styles become viable... more play styles mean more people wanting to play, more people wanting to play... generally makes more money.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
1041
|
Posted - 2014.02.24 12:39:00 -
[8] - Quote
Demo Isher wrote:So basically you are just asking for more divers maps that hold player interaction and to be able to call down buildings/fortification. Hmm you know we have something like that in the game called Starthawk but I see where you are going with this because I have seen something similar to it done before and it worked well to fight off vehicles and infantry it really made people have to work as a team or they would all die no matter how good they were.
I have seen Starhawk also, but it was not actually the original inspiration for this idea... but could be held as an example of how such a system could be done, and has been done.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
1041
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 03:04:00 -
[9] - Quote
Bumping again to keep this above the nerfbat threads.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
1043
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 21:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
Bumping to keep it ahead of the 'nerfbat' threads and QQ.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
|
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
1043
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 23:44:00 -
[11] - Quote
Demo Isher wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:Demo Isher wrote:So basically you are just asking for more divers maps that hold player interaction and to be able to call down buildings/fortification. Hmm you know we have something like that in the game called Starthawk but I see where you are going with this because I have seen something similar to it done before and it worked well to fight off vehicles and infantry it really made people have to work as a team or they would all die no matter how good they were. I have seen Starhawk also, but it was not actually the original inspiration for this idea... but could be held as an example of how such a system could be done, and has been done. Thanks for making a comment to me about that also I have a idea that you might like here is a link to it https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=143952&find=unread
The idea of introducing NPC allies into a warzone is a nice one. One that could potentially be epic.
However... first off it's not in CCPs general overall designs. They try to make things as player centric as possible. EVE is mostly player run with NPCs almost exclusively being hostiles or mission givers.
Secondly, each one of those Ai entities would have a brain... brains require calculation, calculation requires memory. With everything that currently draws on memory already causing technical issues, I don't think it would be advisable as yet.
Now good point here, is that it expands conflict, allows players to delegate an NPC 'Squad' to do something, freeing them up to do other things. But where do you stop? If you're equipping these NPCs why can't you outfit your entire 'squad' in Tanks? Can you imagine the infantry rage if suddenly full teams could be augmented by full squads of tanks on top of the team, rather than using one of the team to drive said tanks? Or Assault Dropships?
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
League of Infamy
1044
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 13:22:00 -
[12] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:I'll leave this here. Also, the idea of having these ways of blocking HAV's and slowing their process is good.say wait for a HAV to wonder into a compound, and the enemy closes the gates, and you have to send in a team via hot drop to rescue the infantry or HAV, unless the HAV can eat through a gate fast enough.
Gates were a part of the original plan. but they would be built into maps with facilities generally (unless deployable walls with gates are instituted) and would required nominal control to get through (or blasting them with REs or Ordnance), so there'd be hack points on both sides of the gate to acquire control.
Also the ability to 'disable' but not destroy tanks was there, but I took that idea out of the complete outline to avoid adding too much complexity and depth all at once. The matter of deployables being able to block, or trap, HAVs, LAVs, and any future ground vehicle will also push people into higher usage of Dropships, pushing the full theatre theme even more.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
League of Infamy
1044
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 09:34:00 -
[13] - Quote
Bumping it above the HAV nerfbat threads again.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
League of Infamy
1044
|
Posted - 2014.03.07 10:38:00 -
[14] - Quote
Bumping again to keep the thread above the nerfbat threads!
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
League of Infamy
1044
|
Posted - 2014.03.07 11:04:00 -
[15] - Quote
Korvin Lomont wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:I have been arguing against the numerical 'nerf hammer' being cried for by people all over the forums in relation to Vehicles. Specifically Heavy Attack Vehicles which are 'dominating the field' at the current time. This has earned me many bad looks, an opinion that I favour HAV and Vehicle Drivers over Infantry. An allegation that is false, misleading, and completely innacurate. I do believe, however, that a 'quick fix' numerical balance will not solve the inherent problems in Vehicle Vs. Infantry Gameplay, but simply 'patch it' until another change comes along. What I'm campaigning is a more permanent fix which may include a numerical alteration, but not as the be all and end all of the discussion. First, the Maps MUST be balanced. Currently every map has at least 80% or more coverable by Vehicles. Heavy Attack Vehicles account for 60-70% dependant on the map, with an overlap for Assault Dropships making up the additional coverage. A well-designed map has greater variance in each unit's ability to perform it's job. Open Plains with scattered cover favor Heavy Attack Vehicles. This is where they 'dominate'. A cluttered installation interior, with buildings (interiors included) and gaps too small for a Heavy Attack Vehicle to get through (and fire through effectively) favors the Infantry when combating Heavy Attack Vehicles. Dropships are capable of three dimensional movement, and thus are greatly desired if maps are designed with steep up and downs, such as cliffs, valleys, and hills that ground units find hard to traverse. Currently, there is little actual diversity in the overall map. If a Heavy Attack Vehicle cannot get to the point itself, there is alot of open space around each point that they can cover. Effectively covering the point strategically and tactically. Anyone in there is unlikely to be able to get out to support their allies, and reinforcements are unlikely to get in. Secondly. Infantry need more options to deal with Vehicular Threats. Currently non-Anti-Vehicular Equipped Infantry have a mere handful f options. All involving damage and / or destruction (AV Grenades, Flux Grenades for Shield Tanks, Proximity Explosives, Remote Explosives, and already deployed, but non-replaceable Turret installations). What is needed is content designed to allow infantry to shape the battlefield to their advantage. Things such as Hedgehogs, Walls, Deployable Turrets, Shield Generators and Gates. Not only would these add greater options to dealing with Vehicles, they would also introduce multi-level theatres. As an example (I wont say quick, because my examples never are quick): Quote:Team A in a Skirmish is defending a Point accessible by Northern, Eastern, and Southern routes. They need to free up some forces to move on to the next point, but 3 access ways is alot of ground for 1 or 2 men to cover. So they deploy some defences. The Northern Path is wide enough for a Heavy Attack Vehicle to get in and cover the point (or seriously impact the ability to hold the point) so they lay out 3 strategically placed Hedgehogs. This will slow down Heavy Attack Vehicles who must destroy the Hedgehogs in order to penetrate the defender's position. Each hedgehog has HP equivalent to a Supply Depot, so they are not easy to kill.
The Eastern route is a covered walkway. The soldiers deploy 2 'Cover Shields' to allow 2 people to stand and fire with some easily accessible cover nearby. The third route is he landing platform. Accessible only by air. So they deploy 2 Automated AA Guns to deter aerial assault.
Now you have a point, highly defensible, with the ability to counter the 'most likely' threats from each position. The Northern Route can still be traversed by Infantry and the Eastern Route is heavily Defensible from Infantry. Taking apart these defences would require more than just rocking up in a Heavy Attack Vehicle or Dropship. The two infantry defenders do not need to carry any particular equipment to counter threats (making personal choice once again matter), but would be advised to carry at least 1 repair tool to keep the defences from being destroyed or overrun too easily. Giving us the options and the tools to counter both lethally and non-lethally Vehicles and / or other threats makes the game far more complex, involved, and allows balance by proxy. Maps, deployable installations, and being able to 'dynamically change' the battle field on the fly make for a much more interesting gameplay experience than a simple numeric balance. A simple numerical balance right now will not solve the long term issues that having vehicles and infantry on the field at the same time will have. Nor will complex mechanics restricting Heavy Attack Vehicle usage. It's quite simply a case of getting the content to balance tanks, the maps to balance tanks, and not touching the numbers until this is in place. I have to agree but map design is not the only problem its also the role currently HAV and Infantry have basically the same role, that's why HAVs are so much more powerful in the eye of Infantry men. Now throw in ridiculous movement options for HAVs (they can in some maps climb hills that even infantry can't climb and get to positions that should be restricted to infantry)
Agreed, and as pointed out in following posts, there was indications to give vehicles roles as well as map design, but I restricted the concept to giving Infantry and Maps something to offset the overall power of the HAV for the time being.
Giving HAVs roles beyond killing infantry, of course, is all part of the grander ideals, but working within the framework we have and getting the new counters for infantry in is slightly (and only just slightly) higher priority in my pages when it comes to Vehicle Vs. Infantry Balance.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
League of Infamy
1045
|
Posted - 2014.03.13 08:42:00 -
[16] - Quote
Bumping it above the nerf hammer threads.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
League of Infamy
1065
|
Posted - 2014.03.17 10:16:00 -
[17] - Quote
Isa Lucifer wrote:I completly agree with the tank ideas as well with the map balances/changes you want. I do not know the style of maps you talk about in ArmA. I would rather prefer more big maps in style with PS2 (havent played it thou, just heard it is a big map).
Now a question, how the laser tank will function? Will it be a sustained beam of light like laser rifle or a rail gun but instead of rail munition and animation be lazers?
Sorry for the late reply, been rather busy doing all sorts of things.
I'm glad you agree with the tank ideas and options laid out. With reference to Map Design, I think Large maps ala PS2 style would be nice, but keeping it within the realm of 'able to be done soon-ish' demands a level of small step setting. PS2 has huge maps, but alot of it is empty. It's roads. hills, maybe a few trees here and there, but the action always happens around the facilities.
Unless we have a planned use for those large maps, such as random PvE Events, or even PvP Events of some description, I think it would be a) wasted space, and b) memory intensive for little gain.
Thus getting the map sizes we have, to be more conductive to balanced play by adding in areas where HAVs are just inneffective, Dropships are ineffective, or Infantry are less effective. (Each one being 1, or 2 of these options.)
Now to the laser turrets for tanks.
Well here we already see demonstrated 2 different applications of Energy Based Weapons. The 'Pulse Laser' with the Scrambler Rifle... Automatic, medium range, or the Beam Laser, longer range, based on 'time-fired' to increase damage.
Now with either of these mechanics we can assume a Heat build up, similarly to Rails, but te question is what form of laser would we want? In a perfect world, we'd like to have both... A Short-Medium Range Blaster-like Pulse Cannon, and a Medium-Long Range Rail-like Beam Cannon, each with their advantages and disadvantages.
Now, introducing these weapons at the moment would somewhat level the playing field in Damage Types, but we do have to consider what role do we want the turrets to fill, and what other turrets there will be.
The Minmatar Weapons have me excited, not for their actual usage (I like Rails and Missiles) but for the game play tactics that 'could' be introduced if the 'Artillery-style' cannons where indirect fire weapons, and the Autocannon style guns were Anti-Infantry with almost no punch against other tanks.
Before I post another wall of text, I'll summarise what turrets I would like to see in game and how they would operate.
Artillery Turret - The 'Big Gun' Highly indirect fire weapon that gets less and less accurate the longer the arc. Good for bombarding the hostil based from a great distance. (Really would shine if maps were much larger.)
Rail Turrets - The Anti-Tank Weapon. Designed to combat enemy tanks.
Beam Turret - Medium-Long Range Weapon that increases damage based on firing time. Designed to take down Shield Tanks from further out.
Rockets - What Missiles are now.
Missiles - Lock-On Missile Salvos based on the Swarm Launcher.
Pulse Turret - Fast Firing Energy Weapon. Good for Short-Medium Range fights. Good against Shields.
Blasters - Close-range middle ground weapons. Designed to hurt up close, but ineffective at range.
Autocannon Turret - Designed purely for Anti-Infantry Work, low damage, high rate of fire and moderate dispersion. If you want to kil infantry, this would be the turret of choice.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
League of Infamy
1070
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 03:24:00 -
[18] - Quote
Isa Lucifer wrote:Your post gave me the chills, Kal.
Black Jackal, I agree with most of your turret ideas, but I would simplify first and later add some ideas likes missiles and Pulse/Beam. Better combine them at first. I honestly like them all but do not know if they would be balanced.
I also agree with your view about the maps. Maybe im thinking of longer gameplay in each map. Add more time or more objectives, thus making the map bigger. Also adding the "Command Nodes" and "Defense Relays" to the maps and doing something that adds secondary objectives would be interesting.
That's pretty much the ideal situation for Map Design.
Multi-Stage Objectives Skirmish 1.0 had this with the Canyon Map and 2 Defence Relays that had to be destroyed before you could move on. Destroying them was done by Anti-Material Capable fire (HAVs, Small Turrets, or Forge Guns), or by Hacking them and guarding the hack point until it expired and the point blew.
Then the map would move on, opening up the area that is now the only piece of the puzzle we get with Skirmish 2.0 as a singular map of the facility with Null cannons. Even here it was different, as there was only 1 MCC, the Base Null Cannons would simply switch off when hacked, so they no longer targeted your MCC.
While Skirmish 1.0 had many issues, it also showed a different way to resolve conflicts on a wider scale. Tanks were powerful, but with the winding canyons they weren't Over Powered in Stage One, and in Stage 2, all the Null Cannons were contained within the facility, where HAVs were not nearly as effective.
A combination of this, with the addition of wider map variety (simply adding in entities like buildings, residences, armouries, or whatever flavour you wanted), would make the maps feel tighter, more densely packed, and give the gameplay more room to move around.
I'll get onto my 3D Program and get some renders in a day or 2 to outline exactly what I mean by map design.
EDIT: Also on Turret ideas. These were just the ones that came to mind with mechanics we already see in game. Balance would be more about how powerful they could be, making maps conductive to having multiple turret types, and / or the ability to destroy scenery.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
League of Infamy
1071
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 13:46:00 -
[19] - Quote
MRBH1997 wrote:One thing that's simple and I feel makes all tanks hard to kill now is how modules actively were changed. Yes active modules once down leave a vehicle extremely vulnerable. But all modules are the same in effectiveness except for their recharge time. So a fully fitted militia tank can role up sucking the damage of a proto tank as get just as many kills but has to pull back longer for longer recharge times. The recharge times are sensible to be better the higher lvl of operation the module is. But CCP made all modules do the same level of resistance or damage. Adding a difference in efficiency from militia to proto would also help even the odds sensibly for AV facing tanks. This would make only proto tanks seem OP because they are fully protod and have the experience and skill to wreck havoc.
Fully agree with this. The downtime AND the bonus should scale down with lower tier levels...
Currently there is little reason to run anything Complex... In fact most successful tankers can do it with 2-3 Standard / Basic Hardeners. Which of course means that Militia Tankers can do it 'fairly' well without investing skill points.
I would like to see this scaled back harshly.
First off, removal of Militia HAVs... HAV driving should require SOME SP investment to get into one.
Secondly, Scale back the resistance bonuses given by the lower tier Hardeners.
Basic - 35%
Enhanced - 45%
Complex - Retains 60%
With these numbers, (or close to) suddenly running tanks with 'low fit' modules will seem less appealing and actually make a difference the more SP you invest to get greater PG, CPU, Hardeners, Enhancers, etc.
Also.. please someone fix the Shield Booster.. it's STILL busted. :D
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
League of Infamy
1072
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 10:20:00 -
[20] - Quote
Bump.
Keeping on top of the nerfbat threads.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
|
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
League of Infamy
1072
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 00:49:00 -
[21] - Quote
And another bump.
Let's get the Map balance right before we go screwing with numbers!
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
League of Infamy
1072
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 13:14:00 -
[22] - Quote
Going to bump this. 1.8 didn't address this issue, and I want to keep on pushing Map balance.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
League of Infamy
1072
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 05:07:00 -
[23] - Quote
Keeping this above the dotted lines.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
League of Infamy
1073
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 01:41:00 -
[24] - Quote
That's exactly what I'm trying to get at. On a vehicle-wide basis, vehicles have few roles that cannot be done by another, or at least approximated in such a way that vehicles are rendered unrequired. Vehicle play has no depth.
A cliff face with a winding path up and around it, is as daunting to a HAV driver as a squad of Proto Forge Gunners. Not for fear of death, but the fact that it will take him a lot longer to get to the top than it would a dropship.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
League of Infamy
1075
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 14:23:00 -
[25] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:It seems CCP disagrees, as a numerical change was their solution to the problem.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
League of Infamy
1076
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 14:52:00 -
[26] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:It seems CCP disagrees, as a numerical change was their solution to the problem. When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Damn, dude, you drop one-liners like I drop orbitals. Constantly.
I like things short and succinct sometimes....
Not often, but sometimes....
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
League of Infamy
1099
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 00:58:00 -
[27] - Quote
Been a while, so I'll bump this topic up again.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
League of Infamy
1099
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 02:07:00 -
[28] - Quote
l3uzzzoff wrote:i only find vehicles being a problem in ambushs. they can be dealt with in domination and skirmish maps are bigger and u have a ncc to spawn from to request a vehicle. y i think they shouldn't allow vehicles in ambush.
While I agree they are a bigger issue in Ambush, the fact that you state "you have an MCC to spawn to request a vehicle" illustrates that the point is valid. Vehicle Vs. Vehicle is currently the only balanced component of Anti=Vehicle (discounting Militia Vehicles which I still maintain should be removed).
Anti-Vehicle shouldn't require an MCC spawn and vehicle call-in to deal with. You should be able to block, impede, disable, and / or destroy vehicles without the aid of another vehicle.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
1171
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 00:15:00 -
[29] - Quote
Bumping this for serious consideration when designing maps for Legion.
Lest we make the same mistakes in the game we want, as opposed to the game we have.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
|
|
| |
|