DUST Search - Thoughts on 1.8 weapons/TTk Dev Blog from CPM0 (and CPM1 candidates)

All Channels

The Council's Chamber

Thoughts on 1.8 weapons/TTk Dev Blog from CPM0 (and CPM1 candidates)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 781	Posted - 2014.03.06 18:33:00 - [1] - Quote With the formal release of the first 1.8 Dev Blog I was wondering what the context or light the CPM could shed on their interactions with CCP in reference to the new weapon introductions, damage mod changes, and generall TTK overhaul. Broadly, I like the TTK steps and and trying to stay away from the precarious adjustments to weapon mechanics. I am a bit concerned, or at least curious, what the CPM & CCP believe the role of infantry AV should be in the game. The damage mod reduction was needed (although I would have preferred to just sharply increase the stacking penalty or CPU/PG requirement) but it does have a fairly significant effect on current AV systems available to infantry. The new weapons appear to be nice additions to round out the sidearm arsenal and I'm quite interested in seeing them in action. Thoughts from the CPM on where these fit with the current weapons would be welcome. Again...I'm trying to ellicit a discussion on how the CPM helped or what feedback was provided for this aspect of 1.8. I'll post up similiar threads for the equipment and dropsuit Dev Blogs when they are published. Of course, comments for the CPM1 candidates are very welcome as well. "Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 781	Posted - 2014.03.06 21:47:00 - [2] - Quote I appreciate the commentary; this a nice practical discussion on how the CPM interacts with the Devs in realtion to updates to the game and where things may have over / under delivered. The current state of AV vs Vehicles is concerning but ultimately I see several ways to address it that are quite feasible for the Dev team. I for one certainly don't mind HAVs being juggernauts on the battlefield BUT they need to clearly represent a significant ISK risk for the capability they bring. That is one of the hallmarks of New Eden...risk vs reward. ps...I can't resist giving some good natured hate face to Kevall over his comments on the Rail Rifle. "Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 781	Posted - 2014.03.06 21:59:00 - [3] - Quote I appreciate the commentary; this a nice practical discussion on how the CPM interacts with the Devs in realtion to updates to the game and where things may have over / under delivered. The current state of AV vs Vehicles is concerning but ultimately I see several ways to address it that are quite feasible for the Dev team. I for one certainly don't mind HAVs being juggernauts on the battlefield BUT they need to clearly represent a significant ISK risk for the capability they bring. That is one of the hallmarks of New Eden...risk vs reward. One comment on "balance" and refactoring weapons and equipment that pertains to a long term concern I have with this game is one they are experiencing EVE side to a degree: being too balanced. Sounds odd, but you can get to the point where things have been "balanced" to the degree that they have all become vanilla and ultimatly mild variations of one another vice distinct options for the players. I don't think we are there yet but you could see how that path might form for Dust in the heated discussions over racial rifles and dropsuits. ps...I can't resist giving some good natured hate face to Kevall over his comments on the Rail Rifle. "Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 796	Posted - 2014.03.10 14:31:00 - [4] - Quote Canari Elphus wrote: I think swarm and av damage is fine if they just fixed the ability for tanks to run rotating hardeners or dual reps constantly. Vehicles desperately need capacitors as this would reduce the use of these tactics and really give a 'window of opportunity' that infantry was supposed to get. Modifying straight damage will never truly balance vehicles and infantry as it will always lean one way or the other. I think you are onto the meat of the issue. We all want vehicles to be a value add to the game and provide some serious tactical scenarios for players. To that end i think there are couple points we can all agree on: 1) HAVs should reflect the ISK risk vs reward structure. Most of us have non-PC quality drop suits that easily cost more than many of the HAVs running around. 2) Actually provide the described "waves of opportunity". HAVs shouldn't be able to run hardeners near constantly or rep / harden through an Orbital Strike. As Canari noted, the damage is probably fine, but there is no real opportunity to use the existing AV weapons between hardener cycles, speed of HAVs / Dropships, and the current Swarm Lock range, lock time, and slow missile speed. High end forges are still viable but situational and requires a more significant investment of SP and ISK (weapon and suit) whereas the infamous militia tank requires none of that. "Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 802	Posted - 2014.03.12 01:56:00 - [5] - Quote Judge Rhadamanthus wrote: I'm not on the list of candidates in this forum, but even so; but this seemed a good place to ask this question. You all mention vehicles and AV. Many complain about swarms. How much damage do swarms do now? and what change to damage would you make if any? As noted above, the raw damage is probably fine. Missile flight time and lock-on range probably need to be increased a fair touch to even things up as a baseline. I do have a thought that you could perhaps create an Anti-air swarm variant that his longer lock on time but significantly increased range; again faster missile flight time is required. Other variants could be a very short range, higher damage model to change things up. Additionally, having something that can effectively engage a shield tanked vehicle is pretty key as well...but that might be a bridge too far at the moment. To be clear, I'm in favor of minor touches and adjustments...even if it takes a patch or too to get this right. "Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 820	Posted - 2014.03.17 18:29:00 - [6] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Well, hopefully CCP will do something about the AV balance in the next patch after 1.8. In preparation for that debate I have created a Tank alt, so I can gain some experience and perspective on the other side of the argument. I thought I was completely horrible at tanking, from trying the default Sica fit with no skills, but once I trained Large Rail Turret to 5, I was no longer horrible. That turret rotation speed bonus makes all the difference in the world. It sort of shoots down the argument that Melita tanks are an AV choice available to anyone. Without full turret skills, anyone in a militia tank is a sitting duck against other tanks. The issue is you that you can spam militia tank fits that are far more lethal threats than all but the most blinged out AV fits and cost a fraction of the ISK. Proto swarms vs militia rail tank...hmmm "Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 820	Posted - 2014.03.17 18:44:00 - [7] - Quote Judge Rhadamanthus wrote: Jaysyn Larrisen wrote: Proto swarms vs militia rail tank...hmmm I have a chart for that. This the chart. The beige bar is the vehicle. IT starts at full health. The vertical axis is remaining health. The bottom axis is hits to kill. When beige hits the bottom the vehicle is dead. This is modeled on them taking a few hits, hiding for 15 seconds then taking a few more and so on. This image is from my next video about how broken swarms are. Its a monster of analysis. If you like charts it WILL be the video for you. Good analysis. Btw my comment was more centered on AV viability of the militia rail tank vs the viability of infantry with proto swarms...either way the charts you produced are relevant to both takes on the comment! "Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 830	Posted - 2014.03.18 17:26:00 - [8] - Quote Killar-12 wrote: Judge Rhadamanthus wrote: I'm not on the list of candidates in this forum, but even so; but this seemed a good place to ask this question. You all mention vehicles and AV. Many complain about swarms. How much damage do swarms do now? and what change to damage would you make if any? Not a Candidate but 200ish per missle I'd like to it incresed to 300ish per missle but higher level SL's have the same number of missles as the basic one and a moderate 50-75m range buff. Haven't heard that suggestion before...I like it. I think a mild dmg increase per level would be warranted but I really like increasing range per tier. "Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.