CELESTA AUNGM
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
183
   |
Posted - 2014.07.28 18:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:[quote=Apothecary Za'ki][quote=CCP Rattati]Everyone, as you know we want to make them more durable so they become a part of the strategy and tactics of every battle. Our proposal is that turrets will go from Shield 750 Armor 3.015 to Shield 2.000 Armor 10.000 set well below Supply Depots at 2.500 and 15.000 respectively. We will normalize the AI radius and Weapon ranges as well, in correlation with player bought Turrets. And yes, this means that Vehicles will need to manouver and possibly even have teammates hack turrets(teamwork, gasp) before venturing into turret defended areas. And no, we don't hate vehicles, just so that is pre-answered  normalizing means that Installation Turrets have similar range as Large HAV Turrets, and AI radius should be the same as maximum range, not less and not more.
This is significant and GOOOOD! There are a lot of worries posted here (in the form of negative words like "sin" and "ridiculous"), and there are also posts in here where players are reciting the "steps", "methods" and "risks" you'll be forced to take in order to hack or destroy an installation...
...That is EXACTLY the effect I hoped would occur, and it seems to be the aim of the Devs here too. The Devs are right, we have NOT been valuing installations as tactical tools, we have NOT been challenged enough by them that we have to work as a team to deal with them, and we have NOT really been destroying them early in the matches because they were "threats" to us travelling the maps (it was because they were annoying pimples delaying our fun hunting down infantry who were trying to travel the maps--and in the process of swatting nuissance installations we got easy WP).
This is not all the changes I and others were suggesting, but it is often good in this game to take small steps and measure, rather than take a full leap right away.
Boosting the squishiness of installations, and using a Supply Depot as your reference, is a correct move (though I still believe, due to their individualized damage capabilities, Rail -to- Missile -to- Blaster installations each ought to have individualized shield/armour accordingly.
Adjusting (ulitmately I suspect this means "raising") the AI of each turret relative to its range, is also a correct move (though in future hotfixes I think the ranges or dispersions will need to be revisited, once we see how players' BEHAVIOR changes from Hotfix Charlie).
We should know by now, fellow players, that this "balance" thing in the game is NOT acheived by numbers---so let's not get panicked by seeing 700 get raised to 2000 and not to 1800, or not quite 2500, etc.
If raising the "perceived threat" of these installations:
--makes HAV drivers look for new tactics to destroy them (while enemy dots are running past your HAV and hacking nulls because your mind is fixated on racking up installation-kills and not on helping blue dots defend their assets  )...
--makes four blues decide to work together to hack the installation and use its improved AI for cover before they dash recklessly for the null-hack and get ambushed by reds... ( , yes I resemble that remark, and often)
--makes a player choose a brand new role for her hand-repper and for herself (Adi Smitts: Gun Installation Specialist & Repairs Expert  )...
--gives players the desire to DEFFEND a nearby installation (because it can protect them from HAV and ADS better than the proto-AV player who's leaves his fellows unprotected while she's solo-hunting vehicles for personal WP glory  )...
...then it is encouraging our behavior to move in the right direction. Thank you, Devs. This small step looks promising.
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
183
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 20:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
 And just to keep the conversation stirred up:
Rail and Blaster Installations DO overheat when on running on AI. (Sometimes it is the ONLY way a lone player has been able to roll up on a blaster installation...Whew!)
I agree with Rattati's opinion, that installations NOT be removed from the Redzone. (They are the only decent protection a team's home staging area has---we certainly can't hold our breaths relying on our fellow players to cover the LZ). Redlining the enemy is a reward that must be EARNED after tenaciously drilling through and wearing down their barrier of enemy support fire.
And it would not make sense to "try to make installations last longer and be more valuable in the matches", but then make a new peice of equipment like an RE that swats the installation away in two blasts...
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
183
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 14:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
Edgar!!!
I LIKE some of your ideas. Not all, but the ones I do, I like alot.
Part of my suggestions included making the installations behave differently when they are MANNED, than when they are on AI. This way, players who are not good at using turrets and have no interest in them, can see a benefit in hacking them and leaving them on AI mode----ony those players who are practiced at turrets can MAN the installation and use it to levels slightly more lethal than leaving it on AI mode...
Newberry or not, you've got your head in the right direction for this game.
.....(tears)...I remember when I was a Newberry in Dust ...(fade to Sepia)
Universe of good wishes for the 49, especially CCP Eterne...
No story can have life without writers and publishers.
|