|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
CELESTA AUNGM
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
169
   |
Posted - 2014.06.30 18:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
This is a nice comfortable subject (...hey, anything that doesn't go on about how Legion is going to be the "doom of Dust", oh my Lorde, cry-cry-cry... is a comforable Dust subject as far as I'm concerned. It is nice to see the clouds clearing and battelfield talk resume).
When I first started Dust, I feared Installations. It was a good thing. It felt as though the "AI " (the installation's ability to scan your presence and open up on you when it's on automatic and NOT being manned by a player) was shockingly high; it BLOCKED and BOOBYTRAPPED your movements around the map. So you wanted that thing working on YOUR side--you even willingly sacraficed a few clone lives to repeatedly sneak around and eventually hack it.
Once the first Patches came out, it felt (can't confirm) as if their "AI" had been toned down. No matter how much EHP or range or type it has, it can't keep a lone player from rolling up on it anymore. That kills any chance of controlling enemy movement, and the only consistant value the "installations" have now are when a player jumps on one to provide a little support (like me), or when they are being solo farmed for destruction-WP or hacking-WP, not for controling the match.
There will always be random moments when a player drives her vehicle too near a present day installation at the wrong second, and pays for her carelessness... but that should not be misinterpretted as a "good, well-operating installation".
The installations are not strong, effective game pieces anymore.
I have my personal view (which of course I want to see come to reality): that Installations should be PRIZES on the map, as strategically desirable for hacking as the CRU's. We should want to destroy only what we can't REACH.
--They should be DANGEROUS as hell when on "automatic" , with pinpoint accuracy the thing that gets kills in any of the three types. This makes them tools for delaying an enemy's travel across a map, and helpful as a guard-dog and early-warning companion for the player who's momentarily on her own and needs a few minutes of protection).
But CCP has its "Waves of Opportunity" view (which I DON'T endorse, but will respect): that EVERY playing piece on the map should have an exploitable weakness to balance whatever stand-out strength it has.
---Dropships have super access to the map, but have thin, thin protection. HAVs are strong, but they travel slo-- umm, I mean, err. Well, you know what I'm getting at.
So my suggestion here tries to give justice to BOTH points of view:
 Increase the AI of all Installation types. This can be done by giving them better scanning than what we can acheive with our typical dropsuits, or better rotating/tracking ability (but ONLY when on "auto), Give each installation vehicle-scanner precision equal to HALF of its firing range. Pinpoint Accuracy should be on every type of installation AS LONG AS YOU LEAVE IT ON AUTO.
Handicap its agility and accuracy when you switch to "manual", handicaps that ease up only with lots of perseverance and a few of those turret-SP bonuses, to DETER players from exploiting them as some new leaderboard toy.
If it's a missile Installation, give it enough range at one end of the football field to reach 3-fifths across the field---but by then disperse the volley to leave only marginal chance of wearing down vehicles EHP and be effective more for pestering infantry than actaully killing many at that range. It's destructiveness should be dictated by increasing the likeliness of getting hit my ALL the missiles in the volley as you get nearer to the missile installation (4 hits from the volley should be harmful). Its sheild/armour should be weak enough that it'll need repping occasionally, but enemy vehicles have to expose themselves in lengthy TTK to destroy it.
Make players consider the missile installation as the only installation we can use across a handful of situations, but we don't mind if we have to abandon it in a fight.
If it's a Blaster Installation, give it a range of 2-fifths of the map---but It should have the best scanning and tracking in the game to be lethal to individual infantry who approach it. PERHAPS (?) make it the only one to detect cloakers. Give it very little effectiveness against HAVs (LAVs and infantry should be its feast-prey)--but give it the sheild/armour of a Supply Depot, so HAVs will have to waste a lot of game-time to farm it. This will convince you to HACK this gun, not try to kill it, and you'll need to flank it or walk up to it behind an HAV in order to reach it.
Make players consider this the hands-down best Installation for stronghold or redline defense, that you feel comfortable leaving on automatic most of the time and won't rep, because it's the least destroyable of the three types.
If it's the controversial Railgun Installation, of course give it the longest range, and I believe this should be 4-fifths the football field, with no loss in HP---but it's horizontal tracking should be rubbish-poor (to allow enough time for DS/HAV to climb-away/duck-out accordingly). It's gun should always have a noticeably quicker TTK than most HAVs (either through hitpoint or RoF)---but its shield/armour be only slightly stronger than a MILITIA-rated HAV (so each gunfight could potentially end in rali-installation marginal win by bullet, or HAV marginal win by armour). This tracking/EHP combination means a hotshot DS can slip in close to it (but has to hammer it a LONG time to destroy it), while an HAV can destroy it sooner (but have a hard time getting close enough to guarantee it---no more quick drive-by kills).
Make a railgun installation the equivelant of a Fattie.... it should be the piece everyone wants to have close to them, but needs to MANUALLY operate it, and have someone covering its back and nurse it with reppers, to keep it truly effective.
Sorry, was TON of info.
Universe of good wishes for the 49, especially CCP Eterne...
No story can have life without writers and publishers.
|
CELESTA AUNGM
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
170
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 20:50:00 -
[2] - Quote
Nice replies, and nice debate from everybody.
When I'm not operating a Dropship (main concern transporting mercs safely to a spot covered by red-hacked turret installations), I am, err, umm,... hacking and manning installations to, um, use AGAINST HAVs and Dropships.  
I want to think (THINK) that my position gives me insight on both points of view.
I also want to believe that, no matter what role you play as, if the adjustment CCP makes to the current Installations opens up an opportunity for you to VALUE that installation more---AND at the same time poses a new risk or difficulty to acheiving a goal related to that installation... then it's an adjustment in the RIGHT DIRECTION (even if it will make you curse more and throw your PS-controller across the room more than prevous matches).
So, grabbing randomly from some of the stuff you've posted here,
if the Railgun installation can eviscerate an incoming DS with just a few hits, but barely has time to make those hits if a skilled DS operator like Baggins can quickly approach beyond the rail-installation's gun ELEVATION-limit... THAT's GOOD. The elevation of the rail-gun installation should NOT be changed to allow 90-degrees vertical aiming because that would make it less difficult for turret-gunner to acheive his goal. On paper, it will look as though the installation-player has been given a harder job than the DS-player... but IN THE ENCOUNTER, both opponents actually have a target they are drooling to reach, a VALUED device they think they can reach it with, and each player has ONE immediate obstacle has to become good enough to overcome in order to succeed (DS driver must develop skill to jag/weave his way up to a lethal installation---the installation-operator must practice getting perfect lead on a DS in the short period before his gun-elevation limit is reached).
If a lone merc walking out into an open gap between two buildings after just spawning from a CRU, suddenly gets sniped by a hacked missile installation sitting on the hill---that's GOOD. On paper, it feels unfair because no one is getting WP for it, and it's taking hurtful advantage of your momentary carelessnes. But in the encounter, it makes the same sense as the enemy RE or the red-sniper you didn't know about: they are limited, but annoyingly effective, means of denying your travel across the map.
When the DS driven by Baggins reaches the enemy's redzone and (with the help of a skilled door gunner named Aungm) wants to convert red dots into red ooze ,...but the area is littered with three or four installations ---but one is a railgun installation that can't elevate high enough and has shield/armour thin enough to destroy with 9 XT-1s ---but the other two are Blaster installations whose shield/armour is too tough for the DS to waste time on ---but they can only be lethal to Baggins if he drifts into into the airspace where both installations can overlap their fire... as frustrating an experience as this is to have at a redline... IT'S GOOD. Redlining the opposing team should be an acheivable goal, and a player ought to be able to get a vehicle over there and loiter---but it should not be something he can acheive on a whim. So they DON'T need to reduce the number/placement of installations stationed at the redline (it's supposed to be the staging area for the team, so it rightly should feel like the most combat-secured piece of the map). Tebow's view is right that the installations shouldn't be so invincible that the vehicle HAS to shoo away constantly. My own wish is that installations not be so wimpy that they are rubbed out faster than dropsuit Newberrys.
See the flip-flopping set up in this? It's not one of those "balance" creations. It's "imbalance", doled out sequentially to both opponents, so both have to eat an unfair handicap during the encounter. And it would work.
 The vehicle-driver needs to be able to loiter and redline enemy DOTS (that's the victory), but since it IS the enemy's redline, there should be a hard obstacle she has to to grind-down or tactic-through before she can own the enemy's terrain.
The Gun-Installations should be the game pieces players VALUE and WANT TO USE to create that obstacle for the enemy.
And that "use" isn't about stats on paper---like most of Dust 514, it's really about influencing what behavior and actions we players perform when in the match.
Universe of good wishes for the 49, especially CCP Eterne...
No story can have life without writers and publishers.
|
CELESTA AUNGM
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
172
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 17:14:00 -
[3] - Quote
Yes, Litany... you're identifying a tricky thing with Dust 514. We console players are "WICKED", we rapidly detect patterns or glitches in the sessions of a game title, grin to ourselves, and EXPLOIT IT faster than a duck can poop! (Someday, I'd like to find out if PC players are as good at finding 'exploits' in their games as consolers are in ours...could be interesting data).
I THINK (could be wrong) that CCP would want small-turrets (vehicle-mounts) and large-turrets (not to be confused with what we call installations) to always be two slightly overlappng species.
In the small-turret species, there really isn't a drastic champion in range or EHP, because the type of moving platform we choose to fit them on substantially effects how lethal each one ends up. (I think when most players say the XT-1 missile is the "best" turret, they're really just responding to the fact that it's the only turret type that will forgive you for mounting it on the back of a drunk-bucking bronco bull, and will still get reasonable kills for you while you're sloshing around. LOL) .
In the large-turret species, there tends to be an argument that the RAIL is the best turret to mount on your HAV as soon as you can afford it. (The large-blaster and large-missile heads MAY be something most vehicle players resort to because they don't have the ISK/SP to fit the good Rails yet, or because sometimes you just want a "disposable" turret on your HAV).
I suggest treating the "installation" as a distinct THIRD species. Since it's something that (for now?) is not bought or fitted in the game by PLAYERS, like the HAV/Lav/DS turrets, it has a right to be given its own distinct stats that don't need to overlap or relate much to say the HAV's stats.
To deter stand-off sniping, keep the range of any Installation type substantially LONGER than the its HAV (large-turret) version. This would give it an advantage over the HAV turret weapon. (The HAV turret weapon already has an advantage over the Installation by being MOBILE on the map).
Hence, the BLASTER installation would have a noticeably longer reach (range) than the Blaster-turret an HAV driver could buy.
The MISSILE installation would have a longer reach than the HAV's Missile-turret, and the RAILGUN installation longer reach than the HAV's large-Railgun turret.
This way the HAV will always have to risk itself in order to "snipe" most installations.
(This would reinforce MY personal feeling about choosing to use installations and vehicles in a fight: if you want to stay way in the back-edge of the map and sniper at folks with the biggest non-handheld weapon you can find, you ought to be allowed enough reach to kill the enemy 3-fifths across the map, but only harass/frighten/suppress an enemy at 4-fifths distance, and NEVER be able to touch reds at the other end of the football field. If you want to DESTROY someone that far away and stay out of retaliatory reach, only a true sniper rifle should give you that privelege---the rest of us should be foreced to step in closer and risk getting killed in return, if we want to be a merc).
Universe of good wishes for the 49, especially CCP Eterne...
No story can have life without writers and publishers.
|
CELESTA AUNGM
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
172
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 21:01:00 -
[4] - Quote
Hi, Temius!
But, keep in mind...
Railgun installations in Patch 1.7 had a FULL map-reach (5-fifths the length of the map, by my terminology). I remember railguns knocking off railguns from the far ends of the map during the first 30 seconds of some skirmishes---You ARE right that we don't want to do that again. The maps are just too small for that.
But a rail installation with 4-fifths a range AND a thinner shield/armour than other installation types, will make it a weapon that can be VERY dangerous, but only for a short period of time:
 AVers, HAVers, and DS gunners looking to farm will try to concentrate on them earlier because their "squishiness" makes them much easier to kill than the Missile or Blaster types.
Rail installations located in the middle areas of the map will be hacked and destroyed first in a hurried scramble to either hold areas you just claimed, or clear the way for your heavy vehicles to traverse the middle of the map.
The remaining Rail Installations near the extreme (safe) goal posts of the football field will be the only ones to last the entire match, and by way of their distance and limited clear-line-of-fire, will only be able to do what a big, stationary gun is supposed to do,... hammer anyone careless enough to parade her vehicle down the open corridors of the battlefield without forethought.
Making the rail installation as (impotent?) as it currently is... is just not a solution to balancing things. The rail is a slow ROF, high HP device, and with the exception of the shotgun, all weapons in Dust of that profile TEND to sell "very far range" as their bonus quality. The technology presented in Eve lore makes it sensible for the Rail installation to be a super-long reach killer----just curb its invincibility by introducing other offset weaknesses, not by eliminating what is practically its only strength.
Universe of good wishes for the 49, especially CCP Eterne...
No story can have life without writers and publishers.
|
|
|
| |
|