| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aero Yassavi
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8037
   |
Posted - 2014.04.20 00:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
In Dust, unlike other shooters, everything you use is a paid for asset. Similarly in EVE, everything you use is a paid for asset. Now somewhere along the way CCP realized that crashing your paid for assets into other player's paid for assets in an attempt to destroy them does not create good gameplay. So honestly, CCP, why must we reinvent the wheel here?
I propose we remove vehicle-to-vehicle collision damage and instead have players simply "bump off" like in EVE when you collide. Doing so would improve many gameplay aspects, which although some players of the trolling nature may enjoy, we all know are bad gameplay.- When an enemy tank simply drives into a LAV to destroy it.
- When a friendly tank doesn't care about his surroundings and moves directly into a LAV and destroys it.
- When an LAV drives directly into a dropship trying to deploy/land and destroys it.
- When an enemy calls in a cheap dropship with the sole intention of ramming it into another dropship to destroy it.
- When a player places a cluster of remote explosives on the hood of an LAV, crashes into an HAV, and uses the destruction of his own LAV to trigger the detonation of his remote explosives.
All of these are bad gameplay. A couple of them a simply unnecessary hazards for LAV drivers, and a couple of them are super cheap and effective ways of dealing with an enemy vehicle presence that their team refuses to combat with traditional anti-vehicle options (AV weapons, remotes, and other vehicles). Note that on the subject of "jihad jeeping," I'm not saying it should be completely removed, but rather using the collision destruction of your LAV to detonate the explosives should be removed. You could still do such tactics by using proximity explosives or manually detonating your explosives.
Amarr are the good guys.
|
KalOfTheRathi
Nec Tributis
1222
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 00:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
While I applaud your ideas, this is Dust. Which is in New Eden, which is filled with undesirables that play EVE.
CCP/Iceland aka Mothership beget EVE and other things (although no vampires, weird huh?) that all fumble around in New Eden. Their corporate motto is HTFU. They even have video.
The promo for Dust has a pod peep bailing on a contract with a Merc team. Decisions have consequences indeed.
So, I doubt if this will find any traction in a dev studio that is driven by a company that revels in man's inhumanity to man.
Or to clones. Even their precious pod peeps.
Good game play? How about game play that is not fundamentally broken? That would be step in a direction. 
And so it goes.
|
Aero Yassavi
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8039
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 00:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
When you say "this is Dust" are you implying "this is not EVE so we don't need all the same things?" Because what I am stating is not something that only applies to any single game. If you're paying any sort of in-game currency for something, as in they are not magically spawning entities, then being able to destroy them simply by crashing into them is not just bad gameplay, it is fundamentally broken gameplay as well.
You want man to be inhumane to man? Sure, go ahead! But do it without broken gameplay.
Amarr are the good guys.
|
Seymor Krelborn
L.O.T.I.S.
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
2004
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 00:33:00 -
[4] - Quote
I hate this tactic...
I've also used the jihad jeep in desperate situations.
just because you don't like it isn't a good reason to remove it, it's probably the worst reason... maybe even a decent reason to keep it...
but by your logic I hate proto gear (though I also use it occasionally) so should we remove proto gear?
I also hate how scouts can jump and how heavies cant jump up a 1 inch step... so can we remove jumping?
I get you think its poor gameplay and you hate it, but it's not game breaking like PC is right now for example and it isn't an exploit.... so I don't see how you justify the removal of vehicle collisions.
this game makes me sad....
|
Aero Yassavi
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8039
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 00:37:00 -
[5] - Quote
Seymor Krelborn wrote: I hate this tactic...
I've also used the jihad jeep in desperate situations.
just because you don't like it isn't a good reason to remove it, it's probably the worst reason... maybe even a decent reason to keep it...
but by your logic I hate proto gear (though I also use it occasionally) so should we remove proto gear?
I also hate how scouts can jump and how heavies cant jump up a 1 inch step... so can we remove jumping?
I get you think its poor gameplay and you hate it, but it's not game breaking like PC is right now for example and it isn't an exploit.... so I don't see how you justify the removal of vehicle collisions.
I've used jihad jeeps before too as well as rammed an ADS with a MLT dropship.
I knew this argument would come up when I created this thread, "You only want to remove it because you hate it." No, that is not the case at all. I hate when I go up against teams of full proto in pub matches but I don't want to remove it and I definitely don't support gear-restricted matches. So please, if you're going to argue against me here please do so with actual reasoning instead of "You just hate it."
And yes, PC is pretty broken but that doesn't mean this isn't broken either. Multiple things can be broken at the same time, and I'm pretty sure the team that works on PC is not the same team that works on vehicle gameplay.
Amarr are the good guys.
|
Aero Yassavi
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8040
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 00:39:00 -
[6] - Quote
And for the record, why don't you read the entire OP and see that I'm not totally against jihad jeeps, just not in their current form.
Amarr are the good guys.
|
Seymor Krelborn
L.O.T.I.S.
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
2006
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 03:10:00 -
[7] - Quote
Aero Yassavi wrote:Seymor Krelborn wrote: I hate this tactic...
I've also used the jihad jeep in desperate situations.
just because you don't like it isn't a good reason to remove it, it's probably the worst reason... maybe even a decent reason to keep it...
but by your logic I hate proto gear (though I also use it occasionally) so should we remove proto gear?
I also hate how scouts can jump and how heavies cant jump up a 1 inch step... so can we remove jumping?
I get you think its poor gameplay and you hate it, but it's not game breaking like PC is right now for example and it isn't an exploit.... so I don't see how you justify the removal of vehicle collisions. I've used jihad jeeps before too as well as rammed an ADS with a MLT dropship. I knew this argument would come up when I created this thread, "You only want to remove it because you hate it." No, that is not the case at all. I hate when I go up against teams of full proto in pub matches but I don't want to remove it and I definitely don't support gear-restricted matches. So please, if you're going to argue against me here please do so with actual reasoning instead of "You just hate it." And yes, PC is pretty broken but that doesn't mean this isn't broken either. Multiple things can be broken at the same time, and I'm pretty sure the team that works on PC is not the same team that works on vehicle gameplay.
I did come at you with actual reasoning....
if your only reason is that you hate it it isn't a good reason to remove collision... you have yet to give a reason besides you hate it, even when confronted with the argument you said you were prepared for it....
so, if the real reason you want vehicle collision removed ISNT simply because you hate it, then lets hear the real reason why vehicle collision should be removed...
because so far all I've heard you say is remove it because I hate it and then demand a real argument against why it should not be removed instead of giving a reason why it should be removed which is the proper forum etiquette since this is your QQ post.
TELL US WHY VEHICLE COLLISION SHOULD BE REMOVED...
this game makes me sad....
|
Aero Yassavi
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8056
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 06:33:00 -
[8] - Quote
Seymor Krelborn wrote:if your only reason is that you hate it it isn't a good reason to remove collision... you have yet to give a reason besides you hate it, even when confronted with the argument you said you were prepared for it....
Seriously man, how am I supposed to argue with you if you can't even read the damn thread? Please quote one time where I said I hate it as my argument? That's right, I never did. I provided my reasoning and you choose to ignore it and substitute it with an argument for me.
Amarr are the good guys.
|
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro
PAND3M0N1UM
Top Men.
339
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 06:39:00 -
[9] - Quote
Seymor Krelborn wrote: I hate this tactic...
I've also used the jihad jeep in desperate situations.
just because you don't like it isn't a good reason to remove it, it's probably the worst reason... maybe even a decent reason to keep it...
but by your logic I hate proto gear (though I also use it occasionally) so should we remove proto gear?
I also hate how scouts can jump and how heavies cant jump up a 1 inch step... so can we remove jumping?
I get you think its poor gameplay and you hate it, but it's not game breaking like PC is right now for example and it isn't an exploit.... so I don't see how you justify the removal of vehicle collisions.
Don't be daft. If my mlt dropsuit ran into your proto suit and broke its legs so we both died would you like that? Because that is what we are talking about. So HTFU and understand what we are even talking about.
FAME
Click for Vehicle Support
Click for Recruitment
|
Tonka Legacy
Zincress
Caps and Mercs
87
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 06:42:00 -
[10] - Quote
Aero Yassavi wrote:
When a player places a cluster of remote explosives on the hood of an LAV, crashes into an HAV, and uses the destruction of his own LAV to trigger the detonation of his remote explosives.
[/list]
I applaud anyone who does this. They are doing their team a favor, not being a troll for using their minds. Sometimes, this is what it takes to kill a tank.
Sentinel: I am heavy weapons guy...
Commando: I got a RR and a CR, Im so good.
Logi: In it 4 the points and points only.
|
|
|
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro
PAND3M0N1UM
Top Men.
339
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 06:44:00 -
[11] - Quote
Aero Yassavi wrote:Seymor Krelborn wrote:if your only reason is that you hate it it isn't a good reason to remove collision... you have yet to give a reason besides you hate it, even when confronted with the argument you said you were prepared for it.... Seriously man, how am I supposed to argue with you if you can't even read the damn thread? Please quote one time where I said I hate it as my argument? That's right, I never did. I provided my reasoning and you choose to ignore it and substitute it with an argument for me.
Aero, beware. The troll is strong with this one. A good critic will always see both pros and cons of a proposed change. You seem inexperienced in real world matters Seymor.
FAME
Click for Vehicle Support
Click for Recruitment
|
AmlSeb
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
58
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 06:47:00 -
[12] - Quote
Collision needs to be revamped as a whole not only vehicle to vehicle. The problem probably lies in the engine as afaik UR3 can't work with masses that well so that collision damage based on speed and mass is hard to implement
@AmlSeb on Twitter
BPO exchange: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1852003
|
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro
PAND3M0N1UM
Top Men.
339
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 06:51:00 -
[13] - Quote
AmlSeb wrote:Collision needs to be revamped as a whole not only vehicle to vehicle. The problem probably lies in the engine as afaik UR3 can't work with masses that well so that collision damage based on speed and mass is hard to implement
Yea, I found out the other day as a heavy you don't even need to use inertia dampeners. Hit the ground like a boss and barely lost any armor. It repped up anyway. The true stealth drop.
FAME
Click for Vehicle Support
Click for Recruitment
|
Hecarim Van Hohen
Bullet Cluster
Lokun Listamenn
1104
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 06:54:00 -
[14] - Quote
I only disagree with your first point, if a tanker can ram an LAV (way superior agility) that LAV deserves to be destroyed.
All in all good thread with good points, +1
"Now I am become Dev, the locker of threads."
-CCP Logibro
t¢«
|
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro
PAND3M0N1UM
Top Men.
339
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 06:58:00 -
[15] - Quote
Hecarim Van Hohen wrote:I only disagree with your first point, if a tanker can ram an LAV (way superior agility) that LAV deserves to be destroyed.
All in all good thread with good points, +1
Then what about tank on tank rams!? Those guys just cuddle puddle all over each other. It's ludicrous. If it is going to stay, then all must be affected. Anyway, if LAV destruction is what you want, then more than just little taps are going to be needed.
FAME
Click for Vehicle Support
Click for Recruitment
|
alias lycan
Arrogance.
22
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 08:34:00 -
[16] - Quote
I don't feel that vehicle collisions are game breaking but they do need some work. Dropships are an obvious example but there are others. When vehicles collide they should both receive damage. Tanks also shouldn't be able drive over each other either. I don't see anything wrong with removing friendly collision damage from pubs though since it seems like another form of friendly fire. |
Hecarim Van Hohen
Bullet Cluster
Lokun Listamenn
1105
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 09:05:00 -
[17] - Quote
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro wrote:Then what about tank on tank rams!? Those guys just cuddle puddle all over each other. It's ludicrous. If it is going to stay, then all must be affected. Anyway, if LAV destruction is what you want, then more than just little taps are going to be needed.
That **** (tank ramming) is just stupid, collision should happen between HAV's unlike our current "Imma drive over that tank there because lolcollision" (WoT has awesome ramming system)
When I tank (rarely and poorly) I don't tap LAV's, I crush them under my treads, or that's how I see it.
"Now I am become Dev, the locker of threads."
-CCP Logibro
t¢«
|
Seymor Krelborn
L.O.T.I.S.
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
2011
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 10:11:00 -
[18] - Quote
Aero Yassavi wrote:Seymor Krelborn wrote:if your only reason is that you hate it it isn't a good reason to remove collision... you have yet to give a reason besides you hate it, even when confronted with the argument you said you were prepared for it.... Seriously man, how am I supposed to argue with you if you can't even read the damn thread? Please quote one time where I said I hate it as my argument? That's right, I never did. I provided my reasoning and you choose to ignore it and substitute it with an argument for me.
you say it's bad gameplay, but you don't go into specifics of why its bad, other than your opinion... is it OP?
is it a bug? is it an exploit? is it not working as intended in some way?
the only thing close to an explanation is you saying its hazardous to LAVs... well, so are tanks... should we remove tanks?
seriously man if you cant back your argument up and can only accuse people of not reading your crappy thread GTFO....
I'm trying to have a real discussion with you, even though you clearly don't deserve to be taken seriously.
so heres one last chance, tell us why vehicle collision should be removed.....
this game makes me sad....
|
Finn Colman
Immortal Guides
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 13:12:00 -
[19] - Quote
I agree with some of the others here. It shouldn't be removed, just fixed up a bit. |
Godin Thekiller
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
2030
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 17:49:00 -
[20] - Quote
KalOfTheRathi wrote:While I applaud your ideas, this is Dust. Which is in New Eden, which is filled with undesirables that play EVE. CCP/Iceland aka Mothership beget EVE and other things (although no vampires, weird huh?) that all fumble around in New Eden. Their corporate motto is HTFU. They even have video. The promo for Dust has a pod peep bailing on a contract with a Merc team. Decisions have consequences indeed. So, I doubt if this will find any traction in a dev studio that is driven by a company that revels in man's inhumanity to man. Or to clones. Even their precious pod peeps. Good game play? How about game play that is not fundamentally broken? That would be step in a direction.
EVE doesn't have suicide rammings, so your argument is invalid.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Seymor Krelborn
L.O.T.I.S.
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
2014
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 18:34:00 -
[21] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:KalOfTheRathi wrote:While I applaud your ideas, this is Dust. Which is in New Eden, which is filled with undesirables that play EVE. CCP/Iceland aka Mothership beget EVE and other things (although no vampires, weird huh?) that all fumble around in New Eden. Their corporate motto is HTFU. They even have video. The promo for Dust has a pod peep bailing on a contract with a Merc team. Decisions have consequences indeed. So, I doubt if this will find any traction in a dev studio that is driven by a company that revels in man's inhumanity to man. Or to clones. Even their precious pod peeps. Good game play? How about game play that is not fundamentally broken? That would be step in a direction. EVE doesn't have suicide rammings, so your argument is invalid.
no but you can bump ships out of alignment preventing them from warping, while your buddies blow him up
collision in eve has consequences as should collisions in dust.
I still haven't heard an actual reason from the OPQQer why it needs removal.
this game makes me sad....
|
Finn Colman
Immortal Guides
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 19:08:00 -
[22] - Quote
Seymor Krelborn wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
EVE doesn't have suicide rammings, so your argument is invalid.
no but you can bump ships out of alignment preventing them from warping, while your buddies blow him up collision in eve has consequences as should collisions in dust. I still haven't heard an actual reason from the OPQQer why it needs removal.
I can tell you for certain that a little bump in a DS would send you flying like a ping-pong ball, and that is certainly a (potentially lethal) consequence. As for ground-vehicle collisions, I have no idea. |
TheEnd762
SVER True Blood
General Tso's Alliance
465
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 00:13:00 -
[23] - Quote
Making jihad jeeps incredibly impractical or nearly impossible to use (by requiring the REs to be manually detonated) is the same thing as removing them completely. Let us use the detonator without having to exit the LAV and maybe. Otherwise, hell no. |
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
3445
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 11:45:00 -
[24] - Quote
Id be fine with that OP
I play EVE and i cant suicide into another ship
With my ADS landing is a ***** because enviromental damage is high and if anything takes me out its not AV its a MLT DS but the problem is even if we bounced off each other whats to say i wouldnt spiral into the ground and lose the ship anyways?
With the LAV it doesnt matter, it bounces off the tank and the tank doesnt move |
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
2073
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 17:19:00 -
[25] - Quote
Ramming in DUST is a completely valid tactic, and what makes sense in EVE, auto-thrusters to avoid collison, doesn't really make sense on the ground. Vehicle drivers should cry less about the fact that they're nearly indestructible except against other vehicles, and accept that other vehicles, including cheap ones, can and should kill them.
I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
|
Kilo Shells
G.L.O.R.Y
RISE of LEGION
45
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 18:17:00 -
[26] - Quote
I have to say that OPs message was pretty clear to me.
Destroying a vastly superior vehicle with the cheapest vehicle you can find and ramming into it is broken. Sure this is new Eden but what happened to risk vs reward.
Imagine paying half a million isk to be rammed by someone who can pay nothing to instantly destroy you're investment.
Was this LAV or DS driver better than me?
Did he out play me?
Did he have more SP?
Did he spend more isk than me?
Maybe he just put more effort and teamwork into it?
But no, not a single one of these things is needed to run an LAV into a tank or ram an enemy Dropship
True Caldari Assault
forget to tell you, I left some remotes on your tank....
|
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
2073
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 18:33:00 -
[27] - Quote
Kilo, gear level should offer an advantage, but not that huge of one that being rammed into doesn't destroy your vehicle. Skill and gameplay need to be what wins out, not gear and money. And suiciding a cheap vehicle to destroy a more expensive one is a perfectly valid gameplay tactic. Militia suits and weapons kill proto suits all the time.
This is another instance of vehicle drivers assuming they should be immune to death and loss.
I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
|
Kilo Shells
G.L.O.R.Y
RISE of LEGION
46
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 20:19:00 -
[28] - Quote
Now that I think about it I find getting rammed never happens to me, but I don't find it particularly "fair" someone in a starter fit doesn't kill a proto fit or any other fit by simply making contact with it.
Having a single counter to every tank and dropship seems like a bit much
True Caldari Assault
forget to tell you, I left some remotes on your tank....
|
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
2077
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 20:28:00 -
[29] - Quote
Shotguns are a counter to pretty much every heavy suit. Heck, REs are a counter to pretty much every dropsuit period.
I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
|
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro
PAND3M0N1UM
Top Men.
347
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 20:36:00 -
[30] - Quote
You still have to be decently good with any infantry based gear to get kills consistently against high tier suits. And 1 v 1 is even trickier. For a kamikaze DS all you have to do is crash....
At least make it so it takes a few rams or that you can only take down low HP vehicles. So if you have a gunner take the vehicle down a bit then you could crash into it.
FAME
Click for Vehicle Support
Click for Recruitment
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |