DUST Search - CPM Proposal on fixing ADS AV ability

Victor Moody Stahl wrote:

True Adamance wrote:

Those certainly are solid suggestions but I do not see the fundamentals of HAV being resolve through variation of content.

Personally as I see it a re-designation of roles and turret types will be required to shape the hull, I won't deny that the customisability of the old HAV needs to return and that modules will need to all contribute/ determine the HAV's capabilities...but in terms of "fixing" the class it need to have its design philosophy set out and that philosophy needs to be kept to.

Okay, I see. In all honesty, the vehicles do need to have more solidly defined roles... but as odd as it seems, I almost feel like the player-per-match numbers need to be increased in order for us to really get vehicles nailed down.

I'm sure that many people almost feel like previous balance iterations were built around certain mechanics or items being in-game that... well, weren't in-game. One of those mechanics, is, IMO, a higher player count. Even just increasing from 32 to 48 (from 16v16 to 24v24) seems like it would represent a fairly simple change, and an enormous effect on how matches play out.

Of course, as IWS commented, increased players/match is pretty much off the table for now. Which makes me sad.

I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17409	Posted - 2014.10.21 17:42:00 - [31] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Horrendous anti-equipment capability? So why would I use this turret? Rail will be better for AV Missile will be better for infantry/equipment/general harassment It's effectively another attempt at the blaster turret. Which is terrible on dropships because their ranges don't synergise. I'll past thank you. I'd much rather have a rocket pod which fires in a simialr way to the large missile turret. High Direct Low AOE Good for AV/Anti-equipment roles. Burst damage style (hit n run) Problem is if its good for anti equipment its going to be too good for infantry. Equipment has a fair amount of HP and there is no way you can skew the damage effectiveness between infantry splash and still remain effective AV. I rather have standard launchers be the goto for anti equipment. As for making it fire like the large missile turret that is a good idea actually. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Taurion Bruni D3ATH CARD RUST415 280	Posted - 2014.10.21 18:16:00 - [32] - Quote CommanderBolt wrote: Why dont we just let dropships of all kinds fit Large turrets? Of course that would be a good idea! Just think about it, an Incubus firing large rail rounds.... it would boost itself back after every shot. A python with a full rack of large missiles.... You know its a great idea The incubus would only be able to line up one shot at a time XD Python Pilot // Minmatar Assault Adapt or Die!
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 834	Posted - 2014.10.21 20:12:00 - [33] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Problem is if its good for anti equipment its going to be too good for infantry. Equipment has a fair amount of HP and there is no way you can skew the damage effectiveness between infantry damage, equipment damage, splash and still remain effective AV without making it fair for infantry. I rather have standard launchers be the goto for anti equipment. As for making it fire like the large missile turret that is a good idea actually. Equipment no longer has more health than scouts: off the top of my head they have around 30 - 50 HP which does not seem difficult to balance around... Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1422	Posted - 2014.10.21 20:30:00 - [34] - Quote So a burst blaster is essentially a GAU-8 Avenger? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk1HU5WShpU Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17419	Posted - 2014.10.21 20:51:00 - [35] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: So a burst blaster is essentially a GAU-8 Avenger? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk1HU5WShpU AV Small blaster (more appropriately the autocannon if it ever comes out) would be very akin to that. The autocannon would emphasize range and coverage (hit area) while the blaster will focus on damage and precision (hit line) Low ammo reserves so after nailing a hav or popping a few lighter vehicles with it you have to rearm and reload at a supply depot. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17419	Posted - 2014.10.21 20:53:00 - [36] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Problem is if its good for anti equipment its going to be too good for infantry. Equipment has a fair amount of HP and there is no way you can skew the damage effectiveness between infantry damage, equipment damage, splash and still remain effective AV without making it fair for infantry. I rather have standard launchers be the goto for anti equipment. As for making it fire like the large missile turret that is a good idea actually. Equipment no longer has more health than scouts: off the top of my head they have around 30 - 50 HP which does not seem difficult to balance around... I was told it was around 200 when I complained about my lower level fluxes popping none of the equipment I threw it on >< I dont normally target intel the equipment as I am more focused on getting the red indicator as soon as possible. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Darth-Carbonite GIO Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 1003	Posted - 2014.10.21 21:06:00 - [37] - Quote Apothecary Za'ki wrote: Darth-Carbonite GIO wrote: Apothecary Za'ki wrote: dont blasters on an incubus already mince other ADS with longer range weapons? this just makes me feel that ads pilots are lazy and want to kill at both long and short range with the same weapon.. CHOOSE! long or short. They do not. Small blasters are useful for infantry, and not much else. And even for infantry they still struggle. small blasters on inf? i doubt it.. rails if you can aim.. missiles if you cant but can predict/track your targets.. blasters for air to air RAEP (granted its on the front as id expect rails or missiles on sides) You say "I doubt it". Have you even tried small blasters on an Incubus? Side and front guns? What about on an LAV? Go get some first hand knowledge, then come back and tell us everything is fine. The Incubus is Broken Judge Rhadamanthus is my Hero
DeadlyAztec11 Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 5520	Posted - 2014.10.21 21:25:00 - [38] - Quote Lore wise The HMG is meant to be able to cut through Dropships and LAV's with relative ease. The AV creed, "We don't do it because it's easy; we do it because it's hard!"
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13721	Posted - 2014.10.21 21:35:00 - [39] - Quote DeadlyAztec11 wrote: Lore wise The HMG is meant to be able to cut through Dropships and LAV's with relative ease. Lore wise the HAV are suppose to anchor ground assaults and take down low flying vessels like MCC...... your point? "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17420	Posted - 2014.10.21 21:37:00 - [40] - Quote DeadlyAztec11 wrote: Lore wise The HMG is meant to be able to cut through Dropships and LAV's with relative ease. They certainly swiss cheese the hell out of the preclone tech. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13722	Posted - 2014.10.21 21:43:00 - [41] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: DeadlyAztec11 wrote: Lore wise The HMG is meant to be able to cut through Dropships and LAV's with relative ease. They certainly swiss cheese the hell out of the preclone tech. No they don't. Lore wise the Swiss do not exist. As such no cheese is named after them. "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Isa Lucifer Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 69	Posted - 2014.10.21 21:45:00 - [42] - Quote Love the discussion above. I hope CCP is reading. Thanks Iron Wolf Saber for your input. I like the new weapon you bring to the table. Now with all this very productive talk about Vehicules, why not adding more terrain to the maps, upping the # of players per battle, making larger buildings and new game modes? The resurrection of Dust514! Amarr Victor
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17421	Posted - 2014.10.21 22:34:00 - [43] - Quote Isa Lucifer wrote: Love the discussion above. I hope CCP is reading. Thanks Iron Wolf Saber for your input. I like the new weapon you bring to the table. Now with all this very productive talk about Vehicules, why not adding more terrain to the maps, upping the # of players per battle, making larger buildings and new game modes? The resurrection of Dust514! # of players is ways off; new maps is a major unknown we'll have to wait and see. As for the variants the proposal is out I am exceptionally open on any quirks the three needs to feel different but needed and still focused on being good av but terrible ai. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 39	Posted - 2014.10.21 23:30:00 - [44] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Victor Moody Stahl wrote: Overall, vehicles with weaker base health, more module slots, more vehicle mods in general, and greater turret variation will be a more difficult but ultimately more balanced route to take- it might take a lot more up-front work, but in terms of nailing down the balance it will be well worth it and will absolutely be easier to maintain than the mess we have now. Debatable. I'd like to know what you consider debatable and why you consider it to be debatable. Since I'm not a serious tanker, and am a bad (and also poor) ADS/derpship pilot, I'd like to get your thoughts on that. I'll admit to being good at theorycrafting (until someone smarter than I am comes along, of course), but my practical experience- as far as vehicle go- is generally limited to "I'm new and bad at xyz".
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13725	Posted - 2014.10.21 23:38:00 - [45] - Quote Victor Moody Stahl wrote: True Adamance wrote: Victor Moody Stahl wrote: Overall, vehicles with weaker base health, more module slots, more vehicle mods in general, and greater turret variation will be a more difficult but ultimately more balanced route to take- it might take a lot more up-front work, but in terms of nailing down the balance it will be well worth it and will absolutely be easier to maintain than the mess we have now. Debatable. I'd like to know what you consider debatable and why you consider it to be debatable. Since I'm not a serious tanker, and am a bad (and also poor) ADS/derpship pilot, I'd like to get your thoughts on that. I'll admit to being good at theorycrafting (until someone smarter than I am comes along, of course), but my practical experience- as far as vehicle go- is generally limited to "I'm new and bad at xyz". Those certainly are solid suggestions but I do not see the fundamentals of HAV being resolve through variation of content. Personally as I see it a re-designation of roles and turret types will be required to shape the hull, I won't deny that the customisability of the old HAV needs to return and that modules will need to all contribute/ determine the HAV's capabilities...but in terms of "fixing" the class it need to have its design philosophy set out and that philosophy needs to be kept to. "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3547	Posted - 2014.10.21 23:40:00 - [46] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Horrendous anti-equipment capability? So why would I use this turret? Rail will be better for AV Missile will be better for infantry/equipment/general harassment It's effectively another attempt at the blaster turret. Which is terrible on dropships because their ranges don't synergise. I'll past thank you. I'd much rather have a rocket pod which fires in a simialr way to the large missile turret. High Direct Low AOE Good for AV/Anti-equipment roles. Burst damage style (hit n run) Problem is if its good for anti equipment its going to be too good for infantry. Equipment has a fair amount of HP and there is no way you can skew the damage effectiveness between infantry damage, equipment damage, splash and still remain effective AV without making it fair for infantry. I rather have standard launchers be the goto for anti equipment. As for making it fire like the large missile turret that is a good idea actually. You could Gû¬ Add a damage modifier against equipment Gû¬ Reduce equipment eHP They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 40	Posted - 2014.10.21 23:49:00 - [47] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Those certainly are solid suggestions but I do not see the fundamentals of HAV being resolve through variation of content. Personally as I see it a re-designation of roles and turret types will be required to shape the hull, I won't deny that the customisability of the old HAV needs to return and that modules will need to all contribute/ determine the HAV's capabilities...but in terms of "fixing" the class it need to have its design philosophy set out and that philosophy needs to be kept to. Okay, I see. In all honesty, the vehicles do need to have more solidly defined roles... but as odd as it seems, I almost feel like the player-per-match numbers need to be increased in order for us to really get vehicles nailed down. I'm sure that many people almost feel like previous balance iterations were built around certain mechanics or items being in-game that... well, weren't in-game. One of those mechanics, is, IMO, a higher player count. Even just increasing from 32 to 48 (from 16v16 to 24v24) seems like it would represent a fairly simple change, and an enormous effect on how matches play out. Of course, as IWS commented, increased players/match is pretty much off the table for now. Which makes me sad.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2219	Posted - 2014.10.21 23:54:00 - [48] - Quote We already have one of these. It's called the blaster turret. But wait, the rate of fire was nerfed on the Incubus. Oh well Oh, and its aiming is a circle of prayers, rather than a certain strike zone. 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. 2219	Posted - 2014.10.21 23:58:00 - [49] - Quote Victor Moody Stahl wrote: True Adamance wrote: Those certainly are solid suggestions but I do not see the fundamentals of HAV being resolve through variation of content. Personally as I see it a re-designation of roles and turret types will be required to shape the hull, I won't deny that the customisability of the old HAV needs to return and that modules will need to all contribute/ determine the HAV's capabilities...but in terms of "fixing" the class it need to have its design philosophy set out and that philosophy needs to be kept to. Okay, I see. In all honesty, the vehicles do need to have more solidly defined roles... but as odd as it seems, I almost feel like the player-per-match numbers need to be increased in order for us to really get vehicles nailed down. I'm sure that many people almost feel like previous balance iterations were built around certain mechanics or items being in-game that... well, weren't in-game. One of those mechanics, is, IMO, a higher player count. Even just increasing from 32 to 48 (from 16v16 to 24v24) seems like it would represent a fairly simple change, and an enormous effect on how matches play out. Of course, as IWS commented, increased players/match is pretty much off the table for now. Which makes me sad. 20 v 20 would be a good start. Even 18 v 18, two more per team. Keep squad size the same, but then that would be 3 six-man squads against my squad of up to 4 and then 14 randoms. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim


Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page