|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zeylon Rho
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3713
   |
Posted - 2014.03.04 15:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hello. This is meant to dovetail with my EWAR turret thread, with the contrast being that the EWAR turrets all intended as Vehicle to Vehicle EWAR applications. A big part of limiting Vehicle to Vehicle to EWAR is restriction it to small turrets so it (a) demands a "crew", and (b) requires investment in an EWAR-focused skill branch that is separate for the most part from the person that outfits the vehicle. It's about specialization, countering vehicle strengths, keeping the EWAR targeted to deal with the "faster" nature of a moving vehicle, and increasing the group/team aspect of vehicle operation as opposed to the solo bit that's common now.
Anti-personnel EWAR is intended to be in two flavors: vehicle deployed and infantry deployed.
Vehicle Deployed Ewar:
Vehicle deployed EWAR is module-focused instead of turret deployed like vehicle-to-vehicle. The intention here is to limit the ability of a vehicle to deploy infantry debilitating effects from a distance at no risk to themselves. A vehicle wanting to use EWAR effects will have to close the distance with infantry which presents opportunities for infantry to employ AV. It also increases the role of anti-infantry elements on vehicles themselves (people operating things like small turrets as an infantry counter).
In all cases, the module can only be used when a driver is in the front seat, and terminates if the vehicle is destroyed or the driver exits either the vehicle or the driver seat.
Stasis Web Module:
The idea here is to have a stasis web emanate in a pulse from the vehicle which would render a "snaring" or slowing effect on impacted infantry in range for the duration of the effect. Anyone in range of the pulse would get with the effect and have the snare debuff for X number of seconds. The stasis module could emit multiple "pulses" during the duration of its effect before it has to recharge.
The catch here is that the vehicle will also be snared by a percentage that will linger slightly longer the last bits of the effect will be on infantry at tail end of the effect. To put it another way, the infantry that aren't dead will have their speed back after your pulses run out before you get your speed back. Why is the vehicle slowed down as well? For balance purposes, you wouldn't want a very fast vehicle to be able to do drive-bys on infantry to render a snare effect - which would leave crippled infantry in their wake with little to no risk for themselves.
Infantry Deployed Ewar:
Infantry deployed EWAR is an equipment-based, so a unit sacrifices an equipment slot for the ability to use EWAR functions. This puts EWAR dominance squarely in the realm of multi-slot suits like Logistics or Scouts, which is about how you'd expect it to be. Limits here are made with a mind towards avoiding spam, while keeping the EWAR units a reasonable expense/use of a suit.
Stasis Web Broadcaster:
This deployable equipment would generate of field of X diameter that generates a constant snare effect while you're in the field, but immediately drops when you leave it (no permanent debuff). It's a rough equivalent of suddenly entering a marsh or the like in another game. The field is stronger towards the center of the unit and rapidly tapers off towards the edges. The idea is that the more exposed the center of the unit, the easier it is to destroy, but you get the maximum snare effect when people try to pass directly over the center.
In terms of strength of effect, the taper can be visualized thusly:
(111112222555588*9*885555222211111)
The parentheses represent the edges of the field, and the 9 within asterisks represents the center of the unit. The numbers represent the relative strength of the snaring effect, proportional to the total.
As additional "trait" the Stasis Web is cancelled out when it overlaps another Stasis field. So, if a team layered stasis fields near each other the overlap would effectively have no snare effect. If, for example, a team placed one on either side of a doorway, the overlapping "Venn Diagram" area would leave no penalty at all for a person running straight down the middle. This is an anti-spam measure of sorts, but also adds an element of strategy to EWAR placement as multiples can conflict with respect to efficacy.
To cut down on overall deployed number of them, I'd like one of three things to be the case. (a) There is only a single tier/item and it is modified by your skill. Ergo, even a rank 5 master would only be able to deploy one. (b) There are multiple tiers/types granting higher levels of snare, radius differences, and so on, but you can only have a single one active at a time. (c) The item is an activated equipment, like a remote explosive, that must be triggered with a detonator of sorts (keeping the user from easily switching suits after deploying it) and has some duration of effect after being triggered... a minute, 2 minutes, etc.
Dren and Templar equipment stats, wrong since release.
|
Zeylon Rho
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3714
|
Posted - 2014.03.04 16:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:Seems cool, though I would prefer if an equipment webifier could be shot at or latched on (like a repair tool) to a vehicle instead of just deploying it on the ground. I really like the double-edged nature of the vehicle module.
This thread was mostly about anti-infantry. My previous thread covered vehicle-to-vehicle turrets. So, an infantry tool or item that specifically works to snare/work on vehicles is a slightly different beast - just by definition anyway.
I have a couple ideas there, but I've been trying to iron out the balance for specific applications of EWAR (vehicle-to-vehicle in the former, anti-personnel in this case).
Dren and Templar equipment stats, wrong since release.
|
Zeylon Rho
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3770
|
Posted - 2014.03.07 18:40:00 -
[3] - Quote
echo47 wrote:What are your ideas for possible counters.
My only real "intended" counter for infantry stasis webs is destroying the emitter. Making non-exposed webs less effective (like one in the corner near a doorway) is part of that, by forcing them to make them "relatively" exposed if they want them to be useful.
Another possibility is a general "jamming" device that would deactivate opposing EWAR in a certain area for a certain amount of time. That could be unlimited use like an active scanner with a cooldown, but without actually destroying the EWAR. Think of it as similar to the impact of a chaff grenade in Metal Gear Solid, where electronics go temporarily haywire then correct themselves.
Dren and Templar equipment stats, wrong since release.
|
Zeylon Rho
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3770
|
Posted - 2014.03.07 18:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
Cross Atu wrote:Saw this post after commenting on your other;
I'd still like to see some AV-eWar options from infantry, which (unless I misread) isn't included here.
Of the three anti-spam methods I lean most heavily towards C, as it still allows some player flex (you could run a suit with several of these, to trigger in sequence, but you'd have to remain in that suit to make any use of them, this s proper risk vs reward trade off).
I'd also very much like to see, at least for the infantry based AV-eWar the use of activated equipment in the vein of the current Active Scanner. Having the item be triggered while held, have specific triggered effect with range and duration build in (variable by type and meta) and a cooldown. This keeps the AV versions weaker than their turret counterparts, which seems proper, but allows for more effective coordinated AV teams to shape the theater of engagement.
Cheers,
Cross
No misreading, I left out any infantry-to-vehicle EWAR options. The first thread was focused on the vehicle-to-vehicle balance because I was trying to think of how to make that work. For the infantry, it got more complicated as I thought about anti-spam measures and interaction with possible vehicle versions(infantry-to-infantry, and vehicle-to-infantry), so I only posted one version of anti-personnel EWAR.
The big gap in my EWAR idea set so far has been how to approach the AV infantry-to-vehicle element, since I've wanted to avoid completely disabling or taking a vehicle out of a fight easily with a single equipment slot, as such.
Vehicle turrets are limited in that I made them vehicle-to-vehicle only, so it limits the use of the turret, and makes it an active choice for AV combat for a vehicle. Vehicle modules can be similarly limited with respect to area of effect (again, cutting dominance of that aspect) and by cooldown. When looking at the infantry EWAR equipment as placeables, it necessarily limits the EWAR by number of slots and amount that can be carried. Is this appropriate? Would an Active Scanner-type model make more sense? That probably depends on the type of effect I guess.
For vehicle stasis specifically, I'm tempted to follow the RE or proxy example of having a separate AV deployable that specifically has that effect. Given that a hardened vehicle making a getaway is often unfazed by a proxy set, an AV stasis deployed at a chokepoint becomes a powerful boon to a determined AV squad that can continue to render damage to a fleeing tank suddenly slowed. If we followed an EVE example, a propulsion module would provide something like a partial counter at the very least.
Seem workable? There's an obvious problem though. Vehicles getting away is an obvious problem for infantry that isn't easily solved with our mobility limitations. Making a "deployable" neatly avoids any real aerial AV stasis, which is often a vehicle type that is particularly prone to escaping. A targeted stasis...gun or some such would be much more powerful than a fixed deployable for any kind of ground vehicle though. That's part of why I haven't come up with anything comprehensive for that. When I think of something I think works well, I'll start a post, but I haven't actually planned out EWAR-for-everything. 
Dren and Templar equipment stats, wrong since release.
|
|
|
| |
|