DUST Search - My take on vehicles

All Channels

General Discussions

My take on vehicles

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1871	Posted - 2014.10.04 19:03:00 - [1] - Quote I expect lots of people to disagree with me, but frankly I can't be bothered to give a damn anymore. I'm pretty positive the changes I want to see are possible in a hotfix, and even if not I'm gonna post em anyway. SO, vehicles. Been out of balance in one direction or the other since closed beta. Especially now that my ADS has been neutered, I feel like we need to address the problem of vehicles in general. And the problem is: vehicles have no purpose. There is nothing my tank or ADS can do that a dropsuit can't. No barriers only my tank can bust for instance. It may be able to do some things better than a dropsuit like move faster or have more health, but in the end a tank or ADS brings nothing to the table that a dropsuit can't, save the DS able to move in the air. Therefore, since they bring nothing truly unique to the table, if they are to be priced higher than a dropsuit they should be more effective than a dropsuit. I think the amount of dedicated AV to quickly kill a vehicle (ie: the current vehicle TTK or faster I would consider quick) should increase with the size, and price, of a vehicle. Yes, I am agreeing with the first half of spkr's dreaded and ******** statement "teamwork for thee, but no teamwork for me!" It should break down like this: LAV: 1+ AV to kill quickly MAV: 2+ AV to kill quickly HAV: 3+ AV to kill quickly Yes, yes, let your rage froth and foam, AV players! It should take teamwork for me to kill a vehicle?! HE'S AGREEING WITH SPKR?!? WAILING AND GNASHING OF TEETH!! But before you cherrypick my idea, I also believe that as the number of AV required to destroy increases, so should the amount of people required to operate said vehicle. LAV: 1 to operate (driver can control the rear turret much like the current tanks do) MAV: 2 to operate (one pilot, one gunner. Yes to INCLUDE THE ADS) HAV: 3 to operate (one pilot controls the front gun, one controls the main turret, one controls the top gun) In this way, a vehicle can be a huge force multiplier, with MAVs and especially HAVs taking a coordinated effort to destroy, meaning up to 3+ people must leave the infantry fight (which imo is the main focus of the game, capturing objectives is the primary goal and only infantry can do that) in order to counter a vehicle on the field. However, the other team must give up an equal amount of people in order to fully operate that vehicle. I don't like calling people out on the forums, even for a compliment; but Dergle and Boss SobanRe, two of my good friends on this game, are a perfect example on how an ADS should work. Dergle can thread a needle with his ships, and Boss is constantly feeding him intel, marking targets for him to move on so Boss can eliminate the threat, the two are the best dropship team I have ever seen. They are the perfect example for how an ADS should be. The two together accomplish more than any solo pilot could. This is how vehicles should operate. "Teamwork for thee, and teamwork for me!" To realize this goal of mine, I would implement these changes. LAV: I would tether the back turret to the driver, much like the main turret of the HAV is now. This means one person can operate this vehicle completely, but it is still destructible by a single swarmer or forge with ease. 1 magazine of swarms or 1-2 forge shots should down a LAV. MAV: standard DS already have this behavior set up, with the pilot flying and a side gunner shooting. We should apply this behavior to ADS as well. Untether the front turret from the pilot and add another seat to the ADS that puts the gunner inside the ADS, protecting him from rifle fire. This change comes with a buff to hp, regen, and fitting meaning it will take two swarms or two forges to quickly kill a dropship (ie: two swarmers shooting one magazine each, 2 forges shooting 1-2 shots each in unison or very quick succession or perhaps a breach landing 2-3 solid hits.) which is the same amount of people that are now required to operate that ADS. One dedicated AV can possibly down a dropship, assuming the dropship sits around and let's it hit, but it's going to take awhile and a good chunk of the AVs ammo to do so. HAV: Large buff to health, moderate buff to regen and fitting. This thing should be indestructible to a single dedicated AV. 2 AV should have a chance to destroy it, but it will be an uphill struggle even in ideal conditions. 3 AV can crack it in a single magazine or 1-2 forge shots from each fired in unison or in very quick succession. This is in line with the number of people operating a tank. One person in a tank is kind of worthless. 2 people and the main turret comes into play. Add a 3rd for that top gun with 360 visibility, and you got yourself a monster of a vehicle, fearing only a coordinated AV effort or another equally manned tank. As far as changing these things in a hotfix, only the front turret of the HAV for the driver poses a problem I think. But everything else already has some precedent. LAV turret for the driver has the behavior of the HAV, simply copy and paste it over, and perhaps tweak the camera angle some. ADS can simply copy the behavior of the side gunners onto the front turret, change the angles the turret can look up and down with a 360 field of view (or copy the HAV top turret behavior onto the ADS front turret and angle it down some) And all we need do for the main turret of the HAV is give control of it to someone else, and give control of movement to the front turret slot. The top turret already behaves properly. All in all, we have vehicles that that teamwork to operate and teamwork to kill. Now vehicles can be as powerful as they should be while being balanced with the limited team size we are stuck with until legion comes out. Flame away, I got me some shades. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Crimson ShieId Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1004	Posted - 2014.10.04 19:46:00 - [2] - Quote Party pooper. No flames for you. I rather like this idea, though it's sorta already partially in place with HAV's. Killing a good Gunlogi or Madruger with three people in it is a real ***** if they all know what they're doing. Hopefully Ratatti works on this, along with bringing the old modules back. It could actually allow a few nice buffs to come along for the vehicles and make the one man tank armies a thing of the past. Nova Knives are best sidearm.
Atiim 12717	Posted - 2014.10.04 19:58:00 - [3] - Quote Apparently Gallenteans aren't the only ones who need their keyboards confiscated. Now to point out the many problems with this: (1) What stops HAVs from only fitting 1 Small Turret and still having the power of 3? (2) What stops teams from fielding 6 HAVs and winning due to the enemy not being able to deal with them? (3) What incentives would be in place to use anything other than HAVs? (4) What would be the counter to HMG Sentinels in HAVs? I could point out other issues, but I need not as everyone who clicks on this link knows that this won't happen. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1872	Posted - 2014.10.04 20:37:00 - [4] - Quote Atiim wrote: Apparently Gallenteans aren't the only ones who need their keyboards confiscated. Now to point out the many problems with this: (1) What stops HAVs from only fitting 1 Small Turret and still having the power of 3? (2) What stops teams from fielding 6 HAVs and winning due to the enemy not being able to deal with them? (3) What incentives would be in place to use anything other than HAVs? (4) What would be the counter to HMG Sentinels in HAVs? I could point out other issues, but I need not as everyone who clicks on this link knows that this won't happen. 1) the front turret is not worth it now, having the driver use won't suddenly make it more useful. In addition, this leaves the tank very vulnerable to attack from the rear, so anything that isn't a straightforward rush into its face will get the drop on it. It would need gunners in order to cover its back and allow it to fire the main turret and move at the same time (there's the teamwork for me) 2) the fact that a) again, the front turret is kind of worthless on its own b) it can't catch objectives and that's how you win, and c) imposing an hav specific limit would stop this tactic. 3) the fact that a) again, HAVs cannot capture objectives b) there are areas that HAVs cannot reach that ADS and arguably LAVs can, for instance anywhere above the front turret means AV can fire with impunity, which would force the tank driver to switch turrets, meaning he couldn't move his tank allowing a scout to easily place remotes on it (there's that teamwork for thee) ADS can reach the top of buildings, HAV can't. 4) this is an issue with exit mechanics, and not inherent to HAVs. An exit timer solves this issue, although I'm not sure if its feasible without a client side update. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 3133	Posted - 2014.10.04 22:07:00 - [5] - Quote In short, no To go further in depth, hell no For not a quip every single player should have the capability to kill another player and this "Its team work so it should be untouchable by one person" is flawed at its core and would throw off even more so the balance thats supposed to exist that being AV is the ultimate glass cannon while vehicles dont even blink at most weapons Something that sadly tank players screamed a massive storm about with their "its a tank, nothing at all should touch it" BS that ADS pilots are glomming on to now
Thurak1 Psygod9 1015	Posted - 2014.10.04 22:15:00 - [6] - Quote Nope 1 vehicle 1 av is how it should be. Anything else means not running a tank or enough tanks = your side loses. If you want to argue about how tough a tank is and bla bla bla throughout history AV and armaments have been in a chase to have man portable AV weapons usable by 1 soldier. Nearly every tank these days can be 1 shotted by an av weapon that is man portable and many AV weapons have some type of guidance which would be great to add to forge guns :) If you really want to have a tank require 3+ av players said tank should cost at least 3 proto AV fittings and require several million SP to use said tank.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 18010	Posted - 2014.10.04 23:07:00 - [7] - Quote Atiim wrote: Apparently Gallenteans aren't the only ones who need their keyboards confiscated. Is this your normal response to anyone who dares type something longer than a paragraph? I'd expected a higher degree of... literacy. The forums have ruined me.
TH1EFOFSOuLS Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 46	Posted - 2014.10.04 23:23:00 - [8] - Quote Atiim wrote: Apparently Gallenteans aren't the only ones who need their keyboards confiscated. Now to point out the many problems with this: (1) What stops HAVs from only fitting 1 Small Turret and still having the power of 3? (2) What stops teams from fielding 6 HAVs and winning due to the enemy not being able to deal with them? (3) What incentives would be in place to use anything other than HAVs? (4) What would be the counter to HMG Sentinels in HAVs? I could point out other issues, but I need not as everyone who clicks on this link knows that this won't happen. (1) what stops people from jihading (2) what stops people from ganking AV gendanes and swarms/FG all at once at supply depots (which are always near a point) (3) proxy spam :D (4) 10k HP installs all the blues are camping :) (5) recall times :P (6) ROOF TOP SWARMS DENYING AIR SPACE TO THE POINT!!! XD (7) sky scrapper forge guns (8) You don't like HMG sennys in tanks? no one said you could not spec into your own OP tanks stfu and get good. Im sure you can take a brake from maxing out your proto weapon prof and build a decent rail tank.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3955	Posted - 2014.10.05 01:06:00 - [9] - Quote I've been saying this for a very long time. I'd love to make HAVs into a team vehicle, that yes, requires a team to kill. I've often said the driver should be the front small gun, because it's limited firing arc means infantry can actually flank it. The primary issue with tanks has always been that a single player can wreck the entire enemy team with a HAV. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1873	Posted - 2014.10.05 01:39:00 - [10] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: I've been saying this for a very long time. I'd love to make HAVs into a team vehicle, that yes, requires a team to kill. I've often said the driver should be the front small gun, because it's limited firing arc means infantry can actually flank it. The primary issue with tanks has always been that a single player can wreck the entire enemy team with a HAV. This is what I want to see. I want it to take a team to kill my tank, but it should also take a team to man it, and be that much more effective for it. It encourages teamwork to fight with it and fight against it. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me

Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1873	Posted - 2014.10.05 01:47:00 - [11] - Quote Thurak1 wrote: Nope If you really want to have a tank require 3+ av players said tank should cost at least 3 proto AV fittings and require several million SP to use said tank. I take it you haven't run vehicles before. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Fizzer XCIV Company of Marcher Lords Amarr Empire 390	Posted - 2014.10.05 02:11:00 - [12] - Quote An overhaul like this would really only work well if we had higher player counts in matches and larger paying fields with a better team based flow to them. At least 32 v 32. At least. A side affect of this would be better matchmaking. Maps with a better layout and structure to them that would help . Less Manus Peaks and more Impact Ridges.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3962	Posted - 2014.10.05 02:19:00 - [13] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: I've been saying this for a very long time. I'd love to make HAVs into a team vehicle, that yes, requires a team to kill. I've often said the driver should be the front small gun, because it's limited firing arc means infantry can actually flank it. The primary issue with tanks has always been that a single player can wreck the entire enemy team with a HAV. This is what I want to see. I want it to take a team to kill my tank, but it should also take a team to man it, and be that much more effective for it. It encourages teamwork to fight with it and fight against it. Alena, we agree on a thing. :D CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1874	Posted - 2014.10.05 02:38:00 - [14] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: I've been saying this for a very long time. I'd love to make HAVs into a team vehicle, that yes, requires a team to kill. I've often said the driver should be the front small gun, because it's limited firing arc means infantry can actually flank it. The primary issue with tanks has always been that a single player can wreck the entire enemy team with a HAV. This is what I want to see. I want it to take a team to kill my tank, but it should also take a team to man it, and be that much more effective for it. It encourages teamwork to fight with it and fight against it. Alena, we agree on a thing. :D THE END OS NIGH!!! Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Thurak1 Psygod9 1015	Posted - 2014.10.05 02:40:00 - [15] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Thurak1 wrote: Nope If you really want to have a tank require 3+ av players said tank should cost at least 3 proto AV fittings and require several million SP to use said tank. I take it you haven't run vehicles before. I have and they are a bargain compared to my proto sentinel considering the armor / protection offered and survivability.
Prinny Waters Immortal Guides 0	Posted - 2014.10.05 02:49:00 - [16] - Quote For Alena's original post The main LAV concern would be that LAV's would gain the power of an ADS/Tank small gun while not actually losing anything. LAV's would be genuinely unsatisfying if a single dude could butcher them in one SL volley/Forge shot and anything tankier would basically be what we have now, only the Heavy gets to shoot the guy next to you before popping out & instakilling you. ADS suggestion is just right. Might have to give the ADS a bit of a price reduction to compensate, as gunning while someone else determines movement ain't pretty and I'll be damned if they make them more lethal, but sounds legit. HAV.... Not really a workable option. From what I've seen, the main issue regarding AV is that the vehicle escaping means everything you have done is temporary. If I unload both my grenades and my clip without killing a dude he's just going to hide behind a rock until his health completely returns, at which point I now have to get back my grenades and get into a good spot to try again. Your suggestion of them being obliterated quickly by three dudes, while admirable, would require that this "run and heal" mentality continues; a single AV suit left alone long enough would do just as much as three dudes, meaning that if the HAV doesn't regenerate quickly enough ignore one dude then tanks are still vulnerable to lone AV and therefore teamwork is not required. As the whole "If I don't kill you then your health is going to come back up for free" style of AV is perpetuated the Vehicle vs Anti Vehicle dynamic remains unsatisfactory for both sides. To Soroya, I fear your suggestion of making the driver control the small turret would actually be a buff to full HAV teams. Yes, the main gun would be harder to work with if someone else is controlling directional movement, but I feel like the main reason the front gun is weak is because its limited firing arc is routinely interfered with by the driver. Remove that fault and I am concerned front guns will suddenly start doing work, which means that the overall potential of HAV would dramatically increase. While it would then require two people to achieve the current level of mass murder the raw win of a three-dude premade would skyrocket. As for my recommendation, make vehicle recover armor and shields as slow as dropsuits do and then give them a massive price reduction. I want to see vehicle graveyards, filled to the brim with the discarded chassis of countless machines that grow with every passing moment as they become so cheap Mercenaries don't care about losing them. Once vehicles stop costing a fortune to field then they become a standard battlefield commodity, just as deserving of balance as the rest of us.
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Kyoudai Furinkazan 1238	Posted - 2014.10.05 03:11:00 - [17] - Quote Why does this BS keep coming up ..??.. if I have 20 or 30 min in vehicles , I shouldn't be handcuffed to players who haven't help me accumulate a single skill point in any placement in any area of my vehicle usage . It's like me forcing infantry to have two players , one to operate the suit and the other to shoot the guns . This is the worst idea ever when it comes to this instance , squad play is enough ... every asset shouldn't by tied to extra players who are not helping to accumulate any points to be place in any area's of functionality . If this is the case then the same should go for infantry as well . You people really know how to frack up a good thing and instances like these are part of the reason that this game has been in a negative for a long time now , because of un necessary " enhancements " that actually ruin game play then enhance it . Leave vehicles the way that they are and leave it " optional " for the pilot's or users to equip turrets if they like and not be forced to , to have an effective fit or vehicle . This is just a bad idea . Why should other players get to dictate how I play , when they don't help put in work to acquire the necessary skill points , would know what area's are of concern .. as far as how I operate vehicles , to administer the skill points nor should I have to be shackled to players that shoot at everything under the sun and bail because of spent ammo and another vehicle confrontation ? They have NO TIES to my personal effort , so why should they tell me how to operate my vehicle that I worked hard in earning MY SKILL POINTS to acquire but now because of some " brainchild's " idea , I have to be handcuffed to other players for me to function? Just a flat out bad idea . Delta should come with a SP or infantry SP refund so that a campaign for one is not needed .
Operative 1125 Lokaas True Companion Planetary Requisitions 438	Posted - 2014.10.05 03:13:00 - [18] - Quote Why would more than one person need to operate a vehicle? Tweaking the stats would do the same thing. More than one person counts out a large portion of the player base. Also, the easiest solution for both suits and vehicles is to have a greater contrast between offense and defense. The problem is balancing for vehicles vs. infantry and also having to have balancing for vehicle vs. vehicle. I posted a solution to that. THIS IS THE VOICE OF RÁN
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3965	Posted - 2014.10.05 03:22:00 - [19] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: You people really know how to frack up a good thing and instances like these are part of the reason that this game has been in a negative for a long time now , because of un necessary " enhancements " that actually ruin game play then enhance it . Leave vehicles the way that they are and leave it " optional " for the pilot's or users to equip turrets if they like and not be forced to , to have an effective fit or vehicle . This is just a bad idea . Here's what it comes down to: Vehicles are OP. There are two good solutions. 1: Make HAVs equal in power and survivability to a dropsuit. 2: Make HAVs require multiple players, so they can be more powerful than a single dropsuit. I'm sure you like it the way it is now, but that's because the way it is now is broken and OP. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1876	Posted - 2014.10.05 04:19:00 - [20] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: You people really know how to frack up a good thing and instances like these are part of the reason that this game has been in a negative for a long time now , because of un necessary " enhancements " that actually ruin game play then enhance it . Leave vehicles the way that they are and leave it " optional " for the pilot's or users to equip turrets if they like and not be forced to , to have an effective fit or vehicle . This is just a bad idea . Here's what it comes down to: Vehicles are OP. There are two good solutions. 1: Make HAVs equal in power and survivability to a dropsuit. 2: Make HAVs require multiple players, so they can be more powerful than a single dropsuit. I'm sure you like it the way it is now, but that's because the way it is now is broken and OP. And again, there is nothing vehicles do that a dropsuit can't. All there is is to slay. And if it is the same in power as a dropsuit, why have it at all? So therefore, vehicles should be more powerful than a dropsuit. But in order to balance that power, it must therefore require more than one user to operate, in direct proportion to how much harder it is to remove from play. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me

Joel II X Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 3745	Posted - 2014.10.05 05:59:00 - [21] - Quote In that case, here are the number of Mercs required to operate vehicles: LAV: 1+ MAV: 2+ HAV: 3
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1876	Posted - 2014.10.05 06:05:00 - [22] - Quote Joel II X wrote: In that case, here are the number of Mercs required to operate vehicles: LAV: 1+ MAV: 2+ HAV: 3 And if you read the OP, you will see the entire second half is about doing just that. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Kyoudai Furinkazan 1238	Posted - 2014.10.05 12:37:00 - [23] - Quote It still is a flawed theory . How can you even begin to equate a drop suit of a single player , even a heavy because that's the top in HP's ... to a HAV that has almost 5 times the amount of HP's and you definitely can't compare it to a scout for balance because the scout has the least SP's . Trying to balance a vehicle's effectiveness in comparison to a infantry player is just flat out a bad idea . There are many things that a dropship can do that a HAV can't or a LAV even , now would it be fair to try to balance anyone or all of the three in comparison to each other ? That's just a flawed attempt , much less to infantry . A vehicle cant hack a null , jump over a ledge in the lab , go into the lower lab region to hack a storage depot or sit on top of the MCC and snipe opposing players ... so there are many things that vehicles can't do that infantry can , a vehicle can't come upon you without making any noise ... cloaked and NK and SG you to death . I shouldn't have to have three players in my HAV if it's not in my best interest to do so and it shouldn't be mandatory as well for me to place a turret on any vehicle for it to be effective , if that's not my choice . HAV's are not OP in the least and definitely no where as near as an ADS will be , if anything AV is OP because you can use proto and advanced weapons against militia and standard vehicles and I know that I'm not the only one who could solo a tank or LAV or a ADS even , so this is not a problem and this discussion is not even considerate or reflective of the fact that vehicles take a massive amount of skill points in operation , acquiring turrets and making them proficient , having your core to the point where one's vehicle is effective and to actually operate a vehicle . Now after doing all of that , you would like to make it mandatory for a user to have to have turrets placed and manned on vehicles for them to become effective ? This sounds like one who doesn't use vehicles , trying to dictate to those who have invested in doing so ... how to play and regulating the style of gameplay . This is just a bad idea and should be the choice to the user and not forced by an opinion . This is why players fight to have their roles maintained after they placed a massive amount of SP's into a role and why right now vehicle usage is so bland , because of people and their opinions and random changes made ... that were not needed to begin with . This is just an example of why your not seeing the next tier of vehicles , examples like this topic or the fact that once they are reintroduced and no matter how CCP changes them , the community will cry that they are overpowered and the fact that some of you have said that now , creates a question of ... do they operate vehicles themselves and do the anti-vehicle , because if they did then they would understand how delicate the environment is right now and to complicate it would be a step in the wrong direction , even more so ... after the recent steps forward that have been made . I can swarm and forge any vehicle by my self , without help ... now I'm sure that the next tier won't be that way and rightfully so but creating changes that are unwarranted will do nothing but hurt the environment . LAV pilots say that AV is OP , ADS pilots are talking about how OP AV is now and HAV pilots really don't say anything any more unless someone ruffle their feathers because of how it was while they were OP and after the AV buff . Now it's coming into balance , don't screw with that . You people are forgetting that you are using pro and advanced weapons against , militia and standard vehicles and that AV is somewhat overpowered but rightfully so . You people are more and more trying to change the environment for the solo players and that's just dictatorial . In a game that touts that " one has the option of custom in creating their experience " , it seems that you are trying to take away the choices of the individual . Delta should come with a SP or infantry SP refund so that a campaign for one is not needed .
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2153	Posted - 2014.10.05 14:20:00 - [24] - Quote If you think I'm wrong and can't stand the thought of agreeing with me, you haven't been listening to what I've been saying. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2153	Posted - 2014.10.05 14:38:00 - [25] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: This sounds like one who doesn't use vehicles , trying to dictate to those who have invested in doing so ... how to play and regulating the style of gameplay . This is just a bad idea and should be the choice to the user and not forced by an opinion . This is exactly what's been happening for a very long time. Infantry dictates the direction vehicles are going to go in, while the people that actually use them have literally no say at all. Infantry declared the pilot suit to be OP before we even had a module layout. Even though CCP told us their passive bonuses were placeholder, infantry declared them to be OP. CCP could've nerfed the passive bonuses quite a bit, but introduced modules to make up for some of it. Being a pilot, I would've had absolutely no problem throwing my SP towards that to make my tanks better. But that's not allowed, because vehicle users' voice falls on deaf ears. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Kyoudai Furinkazan 1239	Posted - 2014.10.05 15:21:00 - [26] - Quote I remember that and the reaction to the ideas that were given as an example and a lot in the community did " flip out " at just the ideal and the discussion that was put forth by the DEV's . It was a little dramatic , the reactions were .. just from the discussions alone . Now look at what we have in it's place , nothing and that was just from a over reaction from some in the community and the unwillingness to even discuss the ideas that were brought to the table . Delta should come with a SP or infantry SP refund so that a campaign for one is not needed .
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2154	Posted - 2014.10.05 15:41:00 - [27] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: I remember that and the reaction to the ideas that were given as an example and a lot in the community did " flip out " at just the ideal and the discussion that was put forth by the DEV's . It was a little dramatic , the reactions were .. just from the discussions alone . Now look at what we have in it's place , nothing and that was just from a over reaction from some in the community and the unwillingness to even discuss the ideas that were brought to the table . That's what you get with crazy people. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2154	Posted - 2014.10.05 15:42:00 - [28] - Quote Joel II X wrote: In that case, here are the number of Mercs required to operate vehicles: LAV: 1+ MAV: 2+ HAV: 3 Then it takes two people to use a logi effective. Logi carries everything, buddy uses everything. And if both don't have the skills required, the gear can't be used. Does that sound fair? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 1202	Posted - 2014.10.05 17:22:00 - [29] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: You people really know how to frack up a good thing and instances like these are part of the reason that this game has been in a negative for a long time now , because of un necessary " enhancements " that actually ruin game play then enhance it . Leave vehicles the way that they are and leave it " optional " for the pilot's or users to equip turrets if they like and not be forced to , to have an effective fit or vehicle . This is just a bad idea . Here's what it comes down to: Vehicles are OP. There are two good solutions. 1: Make HAVs equal in power and survivability to a dropsuit. 2: Make HAVs require multiple players, so they can be more powerful than a single dropsuit. I'm sure you like it the way it is now, but that's because the way it is now is broken and OP. Vehicles are OP but they are acceptablly OP now. There is just something psychological involved in this. No one would argue that a dropsuit that has all the advantages a vehicle has AND had the ability to wear it over any other dropsuit was not crazily OP, but when it is a vehicle it seems appropriate. Because, that's why.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2156	Posted - 2014.10.05 17:36:00 - [30] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: You people really know how to frack up a good thing and instances like these are part of the reason that this game has been in a negative for a long time now , because of un necessary " enhancements " that actually ruin game play then enhance it . Leave vehicles the way that they are and leave it " optional " for the pilot's or users to equip turrets if they like and not be forced to , to have an effective fit or vehicle . This is just a bad idea . Here's what it comes down to: Vehicles are OP. There are two good solutions. 1: Make HAVs equal in power and survivability to a dropsuit. 2: Make HAVs require multiple players, so they can be more powerful than a single dropsuit. I'm sure you like it the way it is now, but that's because the way it is now is broken and OP. Vehicles are OP but they are acceptablly OP now. There is just something psychological involved in this. No one would argue that a dropsuit that has all the advantages a vehicle has AND had the ability to wear it over any other dropsuit was not crazily OP, but when it is a vehicle it seems appropriate. Vehicles are not OP. You only think they're "OP" because of lack of any of your teammates having good AV. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2156	Posted - 2014.10.05 17:41:00 - [31] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: I've been saying this for a very long time. I'd love to make HAVs into a team vehicle, that yes, requires a team to kill. I've often said the driver should be the front small gun, because it's limited firing arc means infantry can actually flank it. So how about third person view? Would the physics be adjusted to make sure that tanks get zero air time, so the front gun is always on the plane with the ground, instead of bouncing all over the place? This is an exceedingly bad idea. The primary issue with tanks has always been that a single player can wreck the entire enemy team with a HAV. That hasn't been viable since Chromosome. And anyway, anybody that did that would get one-shot by a Marauder. Have you been here a year? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2156	Posted - 2014.10.05 17:43:00 - [32] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: You people really know how to frack up a good thing and instances like these are part of the reason that this game has been in a negative for a long time now , because of un necessary " enhancements " that actually ruin game play then enhance it . Leave vehicles the way that they are and leave it " optional " for the pilot's or users to equip turrets if they like and not be forced to , to have an effective fit or vehicle . This is just a bad idea . Here's what it comes down to: Vehicles are OP. There are two good solutions. 1: Make HAVs equal in power and survivability to a dropsuit. 2: Make HAVs require multiple players, so they can be more powerful than a single dropsuit. I'm sure you like it the way it is now, but that's because the way it is now is broken and OP. This is incredulous, stupid, and dangerous. I don't know how you got elected to CPM being so hostile to a subsection of the gameplay. This borders on lunacy. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1879	Posted - 2014.10.05 18:45:00 - [33] - Quote Here's the thing about vehicles. If they are as effective as one dropsuit, why have them? Why not just have a dropsuit? Especially for their price which can easily triple a proto dropsuit with proto weaponry, why would it be economically feasible to run them if they have the same power as a dropsuit? We could reduce their price to dropsuit levels, but then we return to why have them at all? The solution is that vehicles must be worth more than a single dropsuit. Now, there is a point where vehicles get so much more effective than a single dropsuit that there is no reason to run a dropsuit. This is where they become OP, like tanks in 1.7. What we need is a balance that is admittedly hard to find, where a vehicle is worth more than a dropsuit, but not so much that dropsuit become obselete. The solution, then, is to require vehicles to take more and more people to operate them, in proportion to how much more effective they are than a dropsuit. This balance is tricky, because if a 3-man tank crew is perfectly equal to 3 infantry, then we again run into why have the tank at all? The 3 man tank crew MUST therefore be more effective together in their tank than running around on the ground. But then this can become OP, because then why run 3 infantry when a 3-man tank crew is better? The root of all these problems is *VEHICLES HAVE NO DEFINED PURPOSE.* There are no barricades only a tank can punch through, or an objective only reachable by drop ship. All vehicles can do is slay. That's it. So we must limit them in other areas so that a 3-man tank crew is better than 3 infantry in some ways, but 3 infantry are better than the tank crew in others. For instance, a 3-man tank crew should have the killing power of, say, 5 infantry in terms of potential damage they can reliably cause. But the tank should suffer in acceleration and top speed, meaning they cannot chase down retreating infantry or escape a scout with remotes easily. So while a 3-man crew has more killing power than 3 infantry, those 3 infantry can more easily maneuver into position and reach areas a tank cannot. Also, the tank needs infantry support because it has difficulty escaping a scout with REs or avoiding sustained AV attack, needing the infantry to maneuver and deal with these threats to allow the tank to continue to operate. All in all, if I as a vehicle pilot am to cost more than a dropsuit, in sp and isk, then I should be more effective than a dropsuit. But the dropsuit should have advantages over me, so we have to work together to complement our weaknesses and be stronger than the sum of our parts. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3972	Posted - 2014.10.05 19:04:00 - [34] - Quote Alena, you're continuing to be spot on. A tank can act as a force multiplier for the team operating it. The fact that it 'costs' three people to use, means it's three less infantry their team has on the field, while three enemy team members need to switch to AV to handle it. The fact that those three people are mildly OP while doing so also encourages the need to counter it quickly, but in the time they have said advantage, they can make progress for their team, like pushing an objective. Spkr4theDead wrote: This is incredulous, stupid, and dangerous. I don't know how you got elected to CPM being so hostile to a subsection of the gameplay. This borders on lunacy. In reality, I'm not hostile to anyone. I am in favor of game balance though, and those are the two viable ways to achieve it. That being said, there's also limits to what can be done in DUST 514. I imagine due to the vehicle community, vehicles will probably continue to be a bit overpowered in DUST. (IWS was pointing at maybe 1 V = 1.5 AV as an ideal case, even though in reality, 1 V should equal 1 AV in a perfect game.) For one, actually making tanks a team vehicle would likely require a respec, because then we really would be completely changing the role of those skill points. I'd like to see it happen, but to be honest, I'm hoping it's something Legion is just designed with from the ground up. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3972	Posted - 2014.10.05 19:06:00 - [35] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: Vehicles are OP but they are acceptablly OP now. There is just something psychological involved in this. No one would argue that a dropsuit that has all the advantages a vehicle has AND had the ability to wear it over any other dropsuit was not crazily OP, but when it is a vehicle it seems appropriate. I would agree with this. Right now it's about finding a middle ground that everyone finds playable. I would, of course, hate for tanks to become equal in power to a dropsuit, because that would be silly. Which is why I am in favor of designs pushing tanks to be teamwork-based vehicles. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.