DUST Search - Thoughts on balance and oddities therein [Wall of Text Warning]

Horizon Limit wrote:

Breakin Stuff wrote:

Horizon Limit wrote:

Do not agree on the large rail cannon, it's way too difficult now.
BP does not have travel time and BP spool time is way faster, but more than this turrets aren't mobile as rifles, you can't do 360-¦ spin, you can't aim downward, if you shoot 4 times in a row it overheats, you are not free to shoot whenever you want (if you charge half, you have to wait a cool down).

No, i would not define the large rail easy and no, it's easier to use an assault forge gun, at least in my opinion.

I said firing mechanic, not performance.

Right now the railgun is a POS across the board both light and heavy. Why do you think I state that vehicles aren't in a good spot? Its bad damage application via upscaled infantry weapons that are intended to kill vehicles but aren't good at doing it. Railtanks tend to hang back and snipe because closing and engaging isn't really doable.

But the current HAV turrets mimic designs intended as infantry weapons. They don't act like their own class of weapon, which they should be. A tank turret should not behave like an infantry weapon. Nor should it behave like a light turret. A light turret should behave similarly to a heavy weapon that a heavy might carry but with a differing grade of performance.

I can understand what you have in mind for large turrets, but i don't think large rails are similar to any infantry weapon.
BTW how do you imagine a large blaster to be?

EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3798	Posted - 2014.10.21 16:35:00 - [1] - Quote This is a thought exercise on where I think weird artifacts in DUST balance exist. THis isn't accusation, nor indemnification of the Dev team, but more an exploration about what works and what seems to fall flat and create needless difficulty in balance. I recognize that CCP doesn't necessarily like doing it any way but theirs, and they're more than welcome to, but I would like to point out a few places where some of the things in DUST seem to fall flat. First off, there's the EVE connection and the meta that it breeds of Long-range alpha strikes that do massive damage and short-range, fast-firing weapons that do less damage per hit, but atrocious damage over time. This makes sense as EVE has similarities to modern naval design. Weapons that will reach long distances cost large amounts of money and either take up massive amounts of space (a battleship 16-inch gun shell) or are highly technical and expensive to deploy (cruise missiles). Short range weapons tend to fire fast, penetrate the hulls of enemy ships and explode, causing secondary damage, exposing as much of the internals of the ship to secondary damage, killing crew and perforating a hull at the waterline to maximize water coming in, and minimize compartmental defenses and negate damage control crews. This would translate in EVE to blowing holes in the ship to expose crew to vacuum. But what it results in overall is the massive single hit alpha at long range we are accustomed to and the fast firing DPS we see in close. But the problem is this system falls flat when translated to infantry. It works for vehicles, because while the tactics are different, certain principals hold true. Why is this? Because Alpha damage is the superior method to utilize in close quarters combat. It winds up being why rail rifles and Scramblers are so effective in CQC, but combat rifles tend to perform better in longer ranges. Before I continue, I have to break down weapons into types: DPS weapons are light, fully automatic, and don't tend to hit as hard, making up for the loss in volume of fire. DPS weapons in Infantry combat perform better as long-range weapons. The reasoning behind this is if you fight at long range, you want to avoid getting enemies in close, disrupting your lines. The most efficient way to achieve this is a wall of lead that one cannot afford to blithely walk through. Volume of fire substitutes for accuracy or raw damage. Alpha weapons are slow-firing, tend to be heavy and pack a lot of stopping power to put a target on it's ass RIGHT NOW! Alpha weapons are generally going to be superior in CQC. Power in CQC is more important than precision, and Rate of fire means nothing if a round isn't heavy enough to drop a target instantly. A classic example is both the shotgun and the M1911 Service Pistol. Both of them have two qualities that make them excellent close range tools. They do massive damage to a body, and the force of the shots will put the target on the floor. It doesn't matter WHERE you hit the target, they're hitting the floor most likely and odds are they will not get back up. Precision weapons are the oddity to the above rules. using the range of a DPS weapon and the damage of an alpha, they tend to be lumped in with alpha weapons when they are their own category entirely. Encompassing sniper and hunting rifles of all stripes they tend to be the go-to tool of the sniper. Not particularly forgiving weapons to impatient operators, they require a certain level of finesse to use/ Suppression Weapons traditionally encompass things like machineguns and grenade launchers. Their primary purpose is to provide a lethal deterrent to enemy action, forcing them to keep to cover or die, providing allied forces to flank and attack with impunity. Now currently examples of weapons in DUST we all know but I will list a few. Alpha weapons: Shotguns, flaylocks, bolt pistols, Rail Rifles, Scrambler Rifles are just a few. DPS weapons: Assault Rifle, Combat Rifle, (in theory) the HMG, and the MagSec SMG as well as the normal SMG. Precision Weapons: Tac rifles of varying types, there is scrambler rifle overlap here, Forge guns are precision AV weapons, Sniper Rifles and there isn't a whole lot else. Suppression Weapons: Mass Driver, Laser Rifle. Now if we accept for the sake of argument that Alpha is better in CQC and DPS at range, why then is the reverse true in DUST? Because reasons. I dunno unless a Dev speaks up. But as far as situations go the RR and Scrams are consistently outperforming in close according to many and myriad complaints. This would be because it's easier to apply a few big hits in CQC than it is to apply many small hits usefully in close. The HMG is the outlier but unless a target has over 700 HP it might as well be an Alpha weapon given it's average TTK. It only behaves as a DPS weapon when confronted with other heavy dropsuits with deep HP pools. The Burst variant is pure Alpha, though applied erratically. But when addressing CQC and brawling Alpha weapons would be the type you'd attack a shield user with fragile armor with, and DPS would be the best way to shave off the heavy protections of armor from long range. What we have right now is a weird reversal of how Infantry work, and I wanted to point it out. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3798	Posted - 2014.10.21 16:36:00 - [2] - Quote Reserved for Dropsuits EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3798	Posted - 2014.10.21 16:37:00 - [3] - Quote Reserved for vehicles. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3800	Posted - 2014.10.21 17:17:00 - [4] - Quote In closing, I gotta say, I love the game, but there are a few things I listed that take verious in-game features and make their roles and function blurry and cause balance to stand on a razor's edge. As far as my qualifications to comment, I've done time as a USMC Machine Gunner, and have utilized just about every type of man-portable weapon you can conceive and have played a lot of FPS games ranging from bloody awesome to utter crap. If you made it this far, thanks for reading. TL;DR: Goldfish are overpowered, nerf their active memory from 30 seconds to 13 seconds. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3808	Posted - 2014.10.21 20:02:00 - [5] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Can you produce an audio version? No recording Software EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3809	Posted - 2014.10.21 20:15:00 - [6] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: Can you produce an audio version? No recording Software If I read it will you give me ISK? I won't even promise you'll like reading it. And you know I'll wind up stealing your ISK if I pay you. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3833	Posted - 2014.10.22 07:08:00 - [7] - Quote Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote: Respecfully, i couldn't disagree more. High RoF is king of CQC. This is a hollywoodism translated into the majority of FPS games. It doesn't wash with how weapons work. A mossberg pump shotgun is better in CQC than an M-249 SAW. The SAW has a much higher rate of fiere but the mossberg is more likely to get a killshot in CQC. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3833	Posted - 2014.10.22 09:37:00 - [8] - Quote @ jathniel To clarify it's not RR/ScR DOMINANCE. They are overperforming because alpha in close. With the RR if you hold the weapon on a target for an average of one second out of 5 you are applying your damage better because each shot hits harder and applies more to target. If a DPS weapon misse at close ranges it'spissing away it's high damage over time which means slow and steady is winning in a brawl via attrition. It's wasting less ammo and applying more immediate damage to target with a major buffer. Alpha weapons are less likely to suffer hit detection artifacting in close. But in a DUST CONTEXT which is likely to kill you faster? The gallente AR or the gallente shotgun at 5-10m? This is a practical application question, not a math check or comparison of individual skill. This is "all considerations are equal except the weapon type" tactical question. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3837	Posted - 2014.10.22 12:44:00 - [9] - Quote Horizon Limit wrote: Do not agree on the large rail cannon, it's way too difficult now. BP does not have travel time and BP spool time is way faster, but more than this turrets aren't mobile as rifles, you can't do 360-¦ spin, you can't aim downward, if you shoot 4 times in a row it overheats, you are not free to shoot whenever you want (if you charge half, you have to wait a cool down). No, i would not define the large rail easy and no, it's easier to use an assault forge gun, at least in my opinion. I said firing mechanic, not performance. Right now the railgun is a POS across the board both light and heavy. Why do you think I state that vehicles aren't in a good spot? Its bad damage application via upscaled infantry weapons that are intended to kill vehicles but aren't good at doing it. Railtanks tend to hang back and snipe because closing and engaging isn't really doable. But the current HAV turrets mimic designs intended as infantry weapons. They don't act like their own class of weapon, which they should be. A tank turret should not behave like an infantry weapon. Nor should it behave like a light turret. A light turret should behave similarly to a heavy weapon that a heavy might carry but with a differing grade of performance. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3837	Posted - 2014.10.22 13:35:00 - [10] - Quote Horizon Limit wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Horizon Limit wrote: Do not agree on the large rail cannon, it's way too difficult now. BP does not have travel time and BP spool time is way faster, but more than this turrets aren't mobile as rifles, you can't do 360-¦ spin, you can't aim downward, if you shoot 4 times in a row it overheats, you are not free to shoot whenever you want (if you charge half, you have to wait a cool down). No, i would not define the large rail easy and no, it's easier to use an assault forge gun, at least in my opinion. I said firing mechanic, not performance. Right now the railgun is a POS across the board both light and heavy. Why do you think I state that vehicles aren't in a good spot? Its bad damage application via upscaled infantry weapons that are intended to kill vehicles but aren't good at doing it. Railtanks tend to hang back and snipe because closing and engaging isn't really doable. But the current HAV turrets mimic designs intended as infantry weapons. They don't act like their own class of weapon, which they should be. A tank turret should not behave like an infantry weapon. Nor should it behave like a light turret. A light turret should behave similarly to a heavy weapon that a heavy might carry but with a differing grade of performance. I can understand what you have in mind for large turrets, but i don't think large rails are similar to any infantry weapon. BTW how do you imagine a large blaster to be? It's a perspective thing. If you took the firing and targeting mechanic of a large railgun and made it into something resembling a caldari tactical rifle it'd be effective because it's not bad. But to answer your question I'd envision a large rail as something that was around 1500-1600 (pre-skill/mod) raw damage with about a six-second refire delay and a 5-meter blast radius at about 400 damage. Heavy hit, scares the random yard trash, makes them dive for cover and provides meaningful support to allied infantry. also great for clearing a doorway. But for blasters, imagine something that fires about as fast as an Assault Forge Gun with much shorter range. Since it's an unstable plasma discharge it's direct damage is going to be lessened but the blast will be about as big and only a little less damaging than the impact. Since it's shorter range and the blast is meant to be meaningful call this one in at about 650 damage per shot with a similar 400 damage blast because it's not a penetration strike. it's a saturation strike intended to affect as much shield surface as possible. Both weapons hit the same area of effect for about the same damage, but the Blaster starts to pull ahead as it's firing a fourth or fifth shot by the time a rail has lobbed off the second shot. Now is this necessarily a good vision? Who the hell knows? but the slow-ass cannon shot is present in both cases. And since I would not touch the Forge Gun damage, it would literally make tanks the most efficient means of terminating tanks on the field, and make armored warfare more brutal, tricky and fast-paced while leaving efficiency at killing infantry firmly in the hands of... say a mass driver which can lunk off six shots during a railgun refire cycle. In short I'd like to see tanks used to hammer defensive hardpoints and soften them up for an attack, or as a finisher in support, not the initial attack, the main thrust and finisher all at once, or the current jokeworthy Infantry killing power it has now. The problem with arranging vehicles so they CANNOT effectively kill infantry is that it makes them less and less able to fight back effectively against infantry AV. I feel that Infantry AV should be effective, yes, but in a 1v1 the mechanical advantage should be in the vehicle driver's hands. Mechanical advantages can always be trumped via creative application by a good AV gunner. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3854	Posted - 2014.10.23 08:33:00 - [11] - Quote I use a mouse. No aim assist. I get better mileage out of alpha hipfire and ADS in CQC than I do via DPS. It's not the aim. It's the fact that one landed alpha shot does more damage than two landed DPS shots. Hitting harder is critical in CQC but volume of fire is more useful at range. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3854	Posted - 2014.10.23 09:55:00 - [12] - Quote Heavy Blasters cannot be balanced for the Dev team objective of making it AV only without it being used as an infantry farming tool without nerfing it so hard that it's too frustrating for most people to use. That's why the machinegun firing pattern needs to go. Machineguns were conceptualized as infantry killing tools. It's the very nature of the design. For the heavy blaster to be AV it needs to be a cannon profile that does more damage over time faster than a rail while lacking the horrendous range and alpha. Both turrets need to be usable in support of an infantry push or to break an attack or else we are simply pushing vehicles into a corner where they can only effectively play with each other and occasionally be preyed upon by infantry AV for the funzies. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3893	Posted - 2014.10.24 08:00:00 - [13] - Quote EWAR is a ball of crap I dont want to touch. You can't wash out the smell. It doesn't need tweaks. It needs to be taken out back and put down like Old Yeller. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3893	Posted - 2014.10.24 09:01:00 - [14] - Quote Powerh8er wrote: Ive been saying almost the same about the HMG for ages, it makes no sense designing the HMG as a CQC weapon. It sometimes feels almost nightmarish to be in that role the heavy is now, only able to engage infantry(scrubs) at very close range. Also i think heavies should have the best passive scans. What, armor too thick for the dropsuits sensors? Sentinel CQC being the meta in PC was inevitable. All it needed was the correct maps. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.