|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cross Atu
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
2420
   |
Posted - 2014.06.19 00:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
Mossellia Delt wrote:The sentinel and heavy frame could be good, the commando I don't agree with at all.
Raises a good point, honestly I don't believe all three should be treated equally. I'm not opposed to some degree of reduction for all three but I wouldn't scale it the same. Likely (from lowest speed to greatest) Sent > frame > Commando.
Further the racial paradigms should still apply (though to a somewhat lessor degree) likely in this order (again lowest to greatest) Gal > Amarr > Cal > Min. [Note: for anyone who cares I run the Amarr Sent]
0.02 ISK
Cross
P.S. ~ As to the concerns raised by Fox, tracking for average earnings across all three groups (Sent, frame, mando) should be observed in the wake of any such change and measures taken to correct for shortfalls if the data demonstrates any.
Cross Atu for CPM1- An emergent candidate
|
Cross Atu
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
2431
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 03:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Some discussion going on in the Skype channels about a simple concept of reducing the heavy frame's hacking speed modifier, providing an intuitive change that would encourage tactical decision making without being confrontational to what the Heavy is all about (point defense).
Would like to get outside opinions, so feel free to comment. Does this apply to both Hack and Counter Hack? What is a Sentinel supposed to do if they are defending an objective solo and they donGÇÖt kill the guy in time to stop the hack?
Side note here, while it absolutely does happen with any class I don't think we should be supporting 'solo play' compared to squad play. Dust is a team game and while being viable in a 1v1 situation shouldn't be removed by any means balance and refinement should support squad play more fully than solo play. Anyone who's defending a point solo, regardless of suit, is acting as a force multiplier. This should be a tactical asset with tradeoffs not a standard protocol that's supported by game balance.
0.02 ISK
Cross
Cross Atu for CPM1- An emergent candidate
|
Cross Atu
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
2436
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 03:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
Apothecary Za'ki wrote:Cross Atu wrote:Mossellia Delt wrote:The sentinel and heavy frame could be good, the commando I don't agree with at all. Raises a good point, honestly I don't believe all three should be treated equally. I'm not opposed to some degree of reduction for all three but I wouldn't scale it the same. Likely (from lowest speed to greatest) Sent > frame > Commando. Further the racial paradigms should still apply (though to a somewhat lessor degree) likely in this order (again lowest to greatest) Gal > Amarr > Cal > Min. [Note: for anyone who cares I run the Amarr Sent]0.02 ISK Cross P.S. ~ As to the concerns raised by Fox, tracking for average earnings across all three groups (Sent, frame, mando) should be observed in the wake of any such change and measures taken to correct for shortfalls if the data demonstrates any. EDIT: Worth considering looking at a scaled hacking higherarcy of mild intensity to increase niche play. Low to high; Heavy types > Assault > Logi > Scout types. [This assumes the needed buff to assault slaying power is also implemented]. there is already a niche.. minjas (minmatar scouts) as i posted they can get -50% or higher on hacking speed time and yet people still preferr amarr scout for slot layout.. caldari for superior CPU for cloak and shotty and w/e else.. and gallente for being invisable form scanning.
Yes the MinScout is present, there's some debate about how viable it is, but it's present.
The specific of what I was saying however is "to increase niche play" which extends beyond a single suit.
You see if we scale things with a mild base hack speed disparity by both frame type and racial paradigm then the number of niches (even if only an understated part of them) increases. Further if the more 'combat monster' fits/frames are less capable of hacking and counter-hacking that makes squad play stronger. There's less reason to "lone wolf" or go 'all guns' if your squad/team loses a notable asset by doing so, in essence if there's a trade off.
Apothecary Za'ki wrote:
how about we broke it up into basics... lets say default hack time for a point is 15 seconds
light
basic 12
scout 10
medium
basic 15 seconds
logi 12 seconds
assault 12 seconds (giveing more emphasis to assaults)
heavy
basic 20 seconds
sent 18 seconds
commando 15 seconds (giving more usefulness to commandos)
Leaving aside the literal times I'd have a few conceptual comments.
In essence the more combat viable a frame the slower the hacking speed (by a mild degree).
Having the Commando be faster than the Sent makes sense but I wouldn't bring it to the same level as the med per se, close is fine but it still has more HP, the LW flex and the dmg/reload buffs.
Logi is less combat viable than the Assault (again proposal assumes proper buff to Assault dps output) and should hack faster on a race by race basis. Scouts are most fragile with infiltration and evasion as their theme, fast base hack times make sense.
What this accomplishes is encouraging more diverse squad compositions whether on point defense or roaming.
It allows for some racial diversity (Min is lower HP and could hack faster for example).
Apothecary Za'ki wrote:
hows these numbers sound? but this would mean devaluing or removing hacking skill, hacking per level(from min scout) and hacking moduals.
I'm not in favor of devaluing any of the MinScout role skill, Code breakers, or infantry hacking skill.
Specific numbers and hack times should be scaled in such a manner than there can be an arc to hacking speeds without removing the validity of these already present assets (development resources are slim currently, we need to keep use of all the assets we currently possess in game).
It is important to note however that my entire concept is predicated on an asymmetrical approach. Suts/fits will not be equally capable of all things if this method is used and there will be an inverse relationship between killing power and hacking speed. This relationship will not be 1:1 due to hacking being not quite as potent as slaying, and further since neither of them are the sole other factor to balance against. It would however afford us the opportunity to create more shades of grey within the game, more diversity. Where we talk about Cal Assault, Min Heavy, Gal Logi, Amarr Scout, - or other racial specifics rather than discuss things so often in terms of "Assault", "Heavy", "Scout" as is currently the case.
Am I making any sense or do I need to take another crack at explaining myself?
Thanks for the continuing conversation
Cheers,
Cross
Cross Atu for CPM1- An emergent candidate
|
Cross Atu
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
2436
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 16:02:00 -
[4] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:Cross Atu wrote:Fox Gaden wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Some discussion going on in the Skype channels about a simple concept of reducing the heavy frame's hacking speed modifier, providing an intuitive change that would encourage tactical decision making without being confrontational to what the Heavy is all about (point defense).
Would like to get outside opinions, so feel free to comment. Does this apply to both Hack and Counter Hack? What is a Sentinel supposed to do if they are defending an objective solo and they donGÇÖt kill the guy in time to stop the hack? Side note here, while it absolutely does happen with any class I don't think we should be supporting 'solo play' compared to squad play. Dust is a team game and while being viable in a 1v1 situation shouldn't be removed by any means balance and refinement should support squad play more fully than solo play. Anyone who's defending a point solo, regardless of suit, is acting as a force multiplier. This should be a tactical asset with tradeoffs not a standard protocol that's supported by game balance. 0.02 ISK Cross It is standard Squad tactics to leave one person guarding outlaying objectives, while the rest of the squad operates in more hotly contested areas. - Can defend against minor threats. - Can assess and communicate threat leaves so that the rest of the Squad can react before the enemy start hacking. - Can tie up enemy troops in outlying areas, keeping them out of the main battle. If one guy can keep 3 to 5 enemy occupied in outlaying areas, it gives your team the advantage of numbers where the main fighting is happening.
All of which can still be accomplished with the proposed change, it just requires more tactical/squad planing to pull off.
Either the defender has to have a higher level of player skill such that the objective remains hacked and thus hacking skills are not required, the defender needs to become defenders working in concert with each other, one providing support/eWar/hack and the other being front line, or the defender must shoulder somewhat greater risk in counter hacking if they are unable to keep hostile forces off the panel.
The tactical application is still present, just not as easy to execute. Which I honestly thing is a very good thing.
I run that role frequently in my squads (as recently as last night for example), and I've done it in more than one suit type, race and fittings configuration. I do not have the best 'gun game' in dust and I am still consistently able to thwart pushes onto an objective. This is especially true in my Amarr Heavy where even three hostiles walking through the door towards me usually won't survive. A heavy is great point defense so I'm totally fine with being able to kill greater numbers of opposing forces who make the mistake of pushing against a heavy head on, however it feels somewhat incongruous to be able to use the objective panel as bait to ambush the opposing forces and then counter hack it (for extra points) and resume a hiding spot before the hostiles have spawned back in for another push.
Solo point defense is a force multiplier, it's a useful tactic, and yes it is standard practice in many ways. None of that however means it is something which game balance should be built around. Everything powerful and effective will naturally become standard practice. The question isn't "does this get used a lot" but rather "how does this make sense/not make sense". If you're in a squad with high enough player skill it becomes standard practice to break into small fire teams and keep guys on every objective, it's effective, it's a force multiplier, it provides map "omni" awareness, but that does not directly translate into a need for such tactics to be mechanically preserved/protected via in game balance choices.
Fox Gaden wrote:Thokk Nightshade referenced a suggestion that had come up in an early post I had made on this subject. I was planning to post it here anyway.
I suggest the following:
- Sentinel Hack speed changed to match counter-hack speed.
- Sentinel Counter Hack speed unchanged (or possibly buffed slightly)
- Sentinels given an additional 10 WP for kills (5 WP for Assists) within 30m of a friendly objective.
This would reinforce the role of Sentinels as defenders, and reward them for playing that role.
Proposal seems mostly solid, at least 1 & 3 I readily support. Point 2 I'm more dubious about, I know outright that buffing counter hack feels conceptually dubious, leaving it the same ... maybe... I don't know I'm conflicted.
Honestly the counter hack speed more than the base hack speed, contributes to Sentinels (alone or sometimes groups composed only of them) "lone wolfing" objectives without meaningful drawback.
The objective is where they fight so mobility matters less, self reps are powerful so they don't need support there, the objective is a spawn point, and presuming there are limited entry points eWar also has no substantial relevance.
If the only suit type needed to effectively hold down an objective is a heavy suit that seems to at lest flirt with, if not outright wade into, marginalization of other niches/roles.
Conceptually, why should a heavy counter hack quickly, especially if they're getting bonus WP for kills and assists near a friendly objective? Isn't that reward specifically in place for defending the objective from being hacked? (To be clear, questions are non-rhetorical)
Cheers,
Cross
Cross Atu for CPM1- An emergent candidate
|
|
|
| |
|