CELESTA AUNGM
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
175
   |
Posted - 2014.07.09 13:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
A previous player started a good thread about the current effectiveness/ ineffectiveness of the Turret Installations on the maps. I can't find his thread, but GG to that player for bringing it up.
So now, I'm drooling... The suggestions there had promise, and could be done in a Hotfix (so, Hotfix Charlie, perhaps?).
But only if we can boil it down to a handful of quick vignettes.
Here is mine, and I hope other palyers will try to post theirs like this, (or repost mine with your suggested revisions inserted in it).
When operating an installation MANUALLY,
Everything on level, flat, earth to keep descriptions simple,
In a map size similar to Impact-Ridge map:
Rail Installation reach-to-kill (range): 4-fifths length of this map (longer than ALL large-turrets, to deter HAV stand-off sniping).
Missile Installation reach-to-kill (range): 3-fifths length of the map (but widen the dispersion to weaken the volley at this max range)
Blaster Installation reach-to-kill (range): 2-fifths length of the map.
Rail Installation Squishiness (shield/armour strength): Equal to a Militia HAV (easiest to wear down of all the three installation types).
Missile Installation Squishiness (shield/ armour strength): Equal to a Supply Depot.
Blaster Installation Squishiness (shield/armour strength): Equal to a CRU-installation.
Rail Installation TTK on a 5000HP piece of armour (damage based on one volley before overheat): Kills quicker than an SP-bonuses Prototype 80GJ Rail turret.
Missile Installation TTK on a 5000HP piece of armour (damage based on one trigger pullGÇöall missiles hitting target): Kills equally as fast as a NON-SP-bonuses Advanced 80GJ Rail turret.
Blaster Installation TTK on a 5000HP piece of armour (damage based on 5-second trigger burstGÇöall rounds hitting target): Kills equally as fast as a NON-SP-bonuses Advanced large Missile turret (one trigger pullGÇöall missiles hitting target).
Rail Installation Vertical angle limit (if installation were placed beside friendly redzone, at opposite corner of the map from our friendly MCC): Cannot aim up to our own MCC. (poorest elevation of all three installation types)
Missile Installation Vertical angle limit (if installation were placed beside friendly redzone, at opposite corner of the map from our friendly MCC): Can ain at any part of our own MCC.
Blaster Installation Vertical angle limit (if installation were placed beside friendly redzone, at opposite corner of the map from our friendly MCC): Can ain at any part of our own MCC.
Rail Installation lateral speed limit (lateral tracking): Can barely keep up with a NON-speed-module-boosted Advanced HAV model travelling abeam of the installation, when the HAV is at a distance of 1/2 the InstallationGÇÖs range (2-fifths the length of the map away).
Missile Installation lateral speed limit (lateral tracking): Can easily keep up with a speed-module-boosted Advanced HAV model travelling abeam of the installation, when the HAV is at a distance of 1/2 the InstallationGÇÖs range (between 1-fifth & 2-fifths the length of the map away).
Blaster Installation lateral speed limit (lateral tracking): Can barely keep up with a NON-speed-module-boosted Advanced HAV model travelling abeam of the installation, when the HAV is at a distance of 1/2 the InstallationGÇÖs range (1-fifth the length of the map away).
 To create an added value to hacking and leaving an installation on GÇ£AUTOGÇ¥, give every installation an AI that has 15% SUPERIOR in the Lateral Speed, the Vertical Angle performance, aiming Accuracy, (and perhaps scan-Precision) over what IGÇÖve listed here. (Ranges, TTK and Squishiness should stay the same in manual or auto)
Instead of math descriptions, I focused on encounters and POV when youGÇÖre IN THE FIGHT.  (Math often disguises the problems we most commonly run into, and thatGÇÖs why GÇ£HAVGÇ¥ has been used as the example-adversary, and LAVs and Infantry were left out of my description.
(Besides, LAV players and Foot-mercs should be allowed to be killed during their own daredevil risk-taking against these installations, not killed by strict math. There always needs to be SOME fun room for players to come up with hot-drop or DukesofHazard stunt to beat an obstacle in this game).
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
175
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 19:09:00 -
[2] - Quote
Finn Colman wrote:I really want to say yes to these, but I also really don't want to get my 355,900 ISK ADS shot out of the air near immediately, just because I stayed to fight for too long... I understand the reason for everything you're suggesting, and that the power is probably perfect for dealing with HAVs, but I'd be pretty scared to ever deploy my ADS if the enemy had a single Railgun Installation near their MCC. If it was in the middle of the field, it would be completely fine, but if it is near their MCC than I have a huge problem. But I do like a having a more imminent threat for transport, as it gives way to hot-drops (like you said).
Finn, we are in complete agreement. The TYPE of installation CCP scripts at the extreme redzone areas of the map would be CRUCIAL. I get the feeling you are properly perceiving my deliberate attempt to make the Rail Installations in the middle of the map so squishy that the typical one gets killed off quickly by any HAVers who knows her stuff, or becomes the subject of sudden pitch fights just to add three minutes to its lifespan.
But you're right, a Rail installation at the enemy's redzone is a different animal, and I'm hoping CCP will treat that area as a special zone before planting these new-profile installations.
Maybe certain maps should be lacking rail installatiions in the redzone altogether----maybe certain maps should have just ONE rail installation in each redzone, accompanied by a couple of Blaster installaitons.
But the redzone area shouldn't have any rail installation that can't be reasonably assaulted by a ground vehicle (...in these small maps, it's just unfair to be stone-walled from victory because of a single Rail in the enemy's redzone that can only be assaulted by a lone DS player. It SHOULD be made hard to lay waste to someone's redzone--but shouldn't be made THAT HARD to do it.)
And Doc, I think it should okay (and encouraged a little) for players to want to jump on an installation all through the match if they want. But the intent of my scheme is that they'll be left with the LESS-devastating installations to play with, and even then, that they'll get better results from the installation if they leave it on "Auto".
Universe of good wishes for the 49, especially CCP Eterne...
No story can have life without writers and publishers.
|