DUST Search - [Feedback] Taking a Serious Look at Turrets and Other Installations

KalOfTheRathi wrote:

RydogV wrote:

--- Talks about stuff that goes right over KalOfTheRathi's head ---

You must not be a tanker because you would have noticed they cut the number of turrets in half for most of the large sockets. I haven't played them all as yet but everyone I played has one turret where there were two and often none where there was one.

The idea that tanks should wait until some random Blue Belle to hack a turret is ... well, unique. There are many other FPS games with tanks in them and none of them made that decision. The tower defense games I have played didn't do it either.

As far as your suggestions - frankly they don't sound like Dust at all. Tanks are in the game. They have always been in the game.

You want a change? Get more players in Dust. When there are enough players maybe we will get matchmaking and you can play without vehicles. Don't hold your breath though. Just case we want it doesn't mean the Devs do. Ugh

This is the game CCP/Shanghai wants you to play. So play it.

Note that CCP/Iceland would just say HTFU. I was being polite. Pirate

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
RydogV Shadow Company HQ Lokun Listamenn 692	Posted - 2014.03.26 16:58:00 - [1] - Quote The evolution of installations in the game has been a little off balance and inconsistent in my opinion. While development of small and large 'sockets' has been pretty slow, the end results have genuinely been favorable. On the flip side, the development of interactive installations (Turrets, Supply Depots and CRUs) as been static or in the case of Turrets a devolution of sorts. This should change and it can be done in such a way as to solve a few other issues players of the game have brought up. Large Turret Installations First we have to decide what exactly this in-game assets is suppose to add to the dynamic of battle. Their functionality has been all over the place since closed beta with each iteration of the game. At this point, they serve very little purpose except as cannon fodder and easy War Points for Tanks and Forge Gunners. Most teams make an active decision to not even hack them, so friendly Tanks can take them out in their neutral state, before the initial rush is even over. So the first question should be, why make them destructible at all? The Installation Turrets should be a strategic asset of the game. Control of the Turret should be the primary factor, not which side can destroy it first. Step one is having well placed Turrets that make sense to the map layout. With that, the Turret becomes a more relevant instrument to overall victory. Turrets should help guard open or otherwise exposed objectives. The threat of an enemy controlled turret close to an objective means that Tanks or other vehicles cannot simply roll up and overwhelm the battle space unhindered. Instead, vehicles are relegated to the places they were meant to dominate...the open ground between objectives. If a tank wants to move in close to an objective, then that requires ground-based infantry to move in on foot and gain control of the Turret....first. This also adds an additional mission layer for Cloaked Scouts, especially since hacking Turrets does not show up to on the Tac-net to enemy forces. It also give players an additional AV asset against what are now overpowered vehicles. It also forces vehicle drivers to work with infantry and not just run around unhindered across the entire battle space. Now such a change would involve some balance. The unmanned Turret should be less effective against infantry targets and probably a bit slower against vehicle targets. If a Turret is manned then it should have slightly faster traverse speed and rate of fire. This also leaves an open niche for the inclusion of small player-deployed Turret Installations down the road. These small Turrets will provide more tactical support and can be destroyed by the enemy. Supply Depots Many of these were removed from the maps over time. Right now I think there are about the right number of Supply Depots on most maps. However, this number is contingent on making them more durable. At least as durable as CRU's are now to hinder players from destroying them for a few War Points. Again they are a strategic asset, not a tactical one like Nanohives. To be fair, there should be a cool-down timer for a player being able to switch dropsuits over and over at a Supply Depot. This will encourage players to create more versatile fittings and have better balanced teams, instead of one player swapping into four different dropsuits to litter the battle space with multiple hives, uplinks, remotes and prox mines. Clone Reanimation Units (CRU's) The number of CRU's has shrunk on nearly every map. While they are pretty durable,some tankers still make the effort to destroy them. In the large 'city' installations this becomes a means to deny the enemy access to the interior objectives. The problem is that once this happens, game play stagnates and the redline phenomenon ensues. I say make CRU's indestructible and make them more coveted and in need of a proper defense. This should provide at least some help with teams getting redlined and giving Cloaked Scouts the ability to open new fronts without having to carry CPU and PG heavy Drop Uplinks. All and all I think these changes can help make the game play more dynamic, instead of treating these valuable strategic resources as just an after thought. Thanks.
GVGMODE WorstPlayersEver 151	Posted - 2014.03.26 17:29:00 - [2] - Quote Why make them destructible at all? Because you are supposed to pay ISK for them, they are meant to be disposable items that can be deployed upon request of the buyer on certain sockets in the map Pilot: (Tanks / Assault Dropships) Skype: GVGMODE
RydogV Shadow Company HQ Lokun Listamenn 692	Posted - 2014.03.26 17:36:00 - [3] - Quote GVGMODE wrote: Why make them destructible at all? Because you are supposed to pay ISK for them, they are meant to be disposable items that can be deployed upon request of the buyer on certain sockets in the map Your comment is vague. But I assume you are talking about somewhere down the development pathway when players will be able to deploy their own installations. If that is in fact the case, then you have no argument from me on making such things destructible. Everything I discussed referred to fixed installations present on the battle space when the game begins. No one pays for those.
anaboop NECROM0NGERS Caps and Mercs 9	Posted - 2014.03.26 20:35:00 - [4] - Quote While I do agree somewhat with the fixed installations not being destructible, how about a downtime once it has been for lack of a better word killed, goes into an idle state for a period of time then returns to neutral state to be hacked again. So it gives players a chance to shoot it down get in remove infantry gain control of the turrent without the constant pressure of a turrent mowing them down. The same could be done for supplies and CRUs , especially if the opposing side is playing cheapskate cat and mouse with the supply depot, take it out goes idle no repair fit changing push in clear out and hack once the idle state is done.
KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1064	Posted - 2014.03.26 21:09:00 - [5] - Quote RydogV wrote: --- snip lots of QQ about why tanks shouldn't have anything to shoot at --- You must not be a tanker because you would have noticed they cut the number of turrets in half for most of the large sockets. I haven't played them all as yet but everyone I played has one turret where there were two and often none where there was one. The idea that tanks should wait until some random Blue Belle to hack a turret is ... well, unique. There are many other FPS games with tanks in them and none of them made that decision. The tower defense games I have played didn't do it either. As far as your suggestions - frankly they don't sound like Dust at all. Tanks are in the game. They have always been in the game. You want a change? Get more players in Dust. When there are enough players maybe we will get matchmaking and you can play without vehicles. Don't hold your breath though. Just case we want it doesn't mean the Devs do. This is the game CCP/Shanghai wants you to play. So play it. Note that CCP/Iceland would just say HTFU. I was being polite. And so it goes.
RydogV Shadow Company HQ Lokun Listamenn 696	Posted - 2014.03.26 21:22:00 - [6] - Quote KalOfTheRathi wrote: RydogV wrote: --- Talks about stuff that goes right over KalOfTheRathi's head --- You must not be a tanker because you would have noticed they cut the number of turrets in half for most of the large sockets. I haven't played them all as yet but everyone I played has one turret where there were two and often none where there was one. The idea that tanks should wait until some random Blue Belle to hack a turret is ... well, unique. There are many other FPS games with tanks in them and none of them made that decision. The tower defense games I have played didn't do it either. As far as your suggestions - frankly they don't sound like Dust at all. Tanks are in the game. They have always been in the game. You want a change? Get more players in Dust. When there are enough players maybe we will get matchmaking and you can play without vehicles. Don't hold your breath though. Just case we want it doesn't mean the Devs do. This is the game CCP/Shanghai wants you to play. So play it. Note that CCP/Iceland would just say HTFU. I was being polite. Dude you really crack me up. This did not have much to do with Tanks at all. I have no real issue with Tanks to be honest. The post is directed at the strategic relevance of Installations, namely Turrets. They serve little purpose in their current state. They are not much of a defensive asset or a source of interactive game play in what is an objective-based game. Bottom line is make them important or just take them out of the game. Because you sound like a tanker who can't find enough other vehicles or infantry to shoot at. If you are going to honestly try and debate the 'nail-biting' back and forth action that exists between tanker and automated turret that is yellow the majority of the time they are blown up, then save your breath. And if you don't think Armor should have to depend on Infantry in game-play they you don't really know much about tactics. I honestly don't think you really read or understood what I was saying. Anyway, plenty of threads out there where people are legitimately QQing about tank spam. Why don't you take your 'HTFU' swagger into one of those and let the adults talk about how to actually incorporate some dynamic features to try and improve the game play a little. K thanks!


Pages: 1 :: [one page]