|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
41
   |
Posted - 2014.10.22 00:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
So, I think I'm going to have to reread this several times to really distill my thoughts, but on the outset, I don't really see anything I outright disagree with; the only thing that irked me was the ADS comparison (because Mi-24 Hind), but that's really just a personal bugbear of mine.
On infantry weapons, and CQC Alpha>CQC DPS, with the inverse being true for ranged armaments... that makes a lot of sense, and also explains why even a mass driver is a useful CQB weapon (besides being able to sort-of fire around a corner). The HMG being an alpha weapon also makes sense- the DPS is so high that anything with less than six or seven hundred eHP tends to just evaporate instantly.
I think that the current intended design of "high DPS=CQC, high alpha=long range" isn't just a side-effect of EVE's design mentality. It's often the case in all those other FPS titles that guns with high DPS tend to be better at close range- but said games also have player health being pretty much universal.
Battlefield 4, which I admit to sort-of liking, is actually a pretty good example. The high-RoF guns, such as the FAMAS*, absolutely dominate at close range over almost every other type of gun in the game... but player health is universally 100 (as opposed to the wildly variable values in DUST), shotgun- IE alpha weapon- users with good aim are still more likely to win**, and long-range weapons tend to have much lower recoil to compensate for their rate of fire, making the long-range guns incredibly easy to control.
So it seems like it's a legacy thing of "other FPS games do it this way", in addition to "EVE does it this way". Of course, that still makes it something that ultimately does not work in DUST.
Side note: I'd like to say that I personally hope the RR never goes above 600 rpm, simply because the ARR- as bad as I am with it- is basically my space railgun AK. Also, buff logis, nerf goldfish active memory (we WILL turn that into a DUST legend).
*BF4 player thinks 1000 rpm is "high"? MEET MY HMG, 2,400 RPM OF ULTIMATE MURDERDEATHKILL. /wishes to be able to play DUST HMG heavy in BF, the tears would be delicious beyond belief
**Of course, that assume that the lawlRNG shotgun mechanics of BF4 go in the shotgunner's favor... gg DICE, gg. |
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 00:04:00 -
[2] - Quote
So, I've collected a few thoughts after thinking about this a bit:
I like the idea of CQB-oriented guns being changed for a more alpha-damage style. In particular, with the Gallente blaster rifle, this much more accurately matches the blaster turrets in EVE- said turrets do not have an especially high rate of fire, but do have the highest per-shot damage (and the shortest range); since they do have a fairly moderate rate of fire, the high per-shot alpha means they end up with the highest DPS... but it all ends up being in big chunks of alpha, rather than a continuous barrage of lower-damage shots.
So changing the Gallente weapons to be more breach-style rather than "assault" style is, IMO a good idea. Perhaps a little bit because it would likely prompt the "AR" to be changed to the "Blaster Rifle", which would be awesome.
So, given that EVE-blasters are basically DUST-breach weapons, changing the AR to be much more alpha-oriented is actually quite logical. It's even consistent with the shotgun and the charge mechanic of the ion pistol (the latter needs some work though). Caveat: this likely means that rails will because the assault archetype. Please do not make RR firerate higher than 600-650 RPM. I like my space railgun AK with that sort of firing cadence, it just sounds better. But that's just a personal thing.
I do think that blaster turrets should not act like giant plasma cannons, however. It doesn't feel consistent with what they're called and the EVE analogues (yes yes, DUST != EVE). What I'd like to see is just have a really low firerate, perhaps around 120-180 rpm. This gives a turret that's sort-of-okayish at killing infantry (with the current dispersion mechanics and a reduced firerate, you'd be relying heavily on lucky hits), and is reasonably good at killing lighter vehicles.
However, this would likely mean that blaster turrets would be... suboptimal, for killing other tanks. IMO, however, that's not necessarily a bad thing. If large blaster turrets are adapted to be more of a slow-firing modern autocannon analogue, then we could potentially add a "plasma turret" that functions more similarly to the plasma cannon, and the large blaster turret is then used as the turret of choice for HAV pilots that fit their vehicles to be speed/scout style, the idea being it's supposed to hunt down and destroy lighter vehicles, like LAVs and the eventual MAVs.
Of course, that could all be undone by a. MAVs not being in the game, and/or b. medium blaster turrets functioning as I described a potential large blaster concept.
The other angle, of course, is dropping rate of fire even lower- say, comparable to current small rails, just without spool times or the pinpoint accuracy. This means using a large blaster on infantry isn't impossible, but is more like playing the lottery. Of course, I'd also like to see large blasters get a little bit of splash damage- not a lot, but just enough that infantry will want to get behind cover a little more than they might usually do.
I do, however wonder about a 6-second firing time for large rails. I'm certain that you know, but for posterity's sake (you know, those suckers who don't like math) I'll note that this is pretty much 10 rpm on the dot. I really don't like that sort of figure for large rails. Mostly because rails have never been an especially slow firing, high-alpha weapon that that RoF would tend to correlate with. I don't know offhand what large rail firerate is, but I'd say something around 20-30 (or even 40!) rpm would perhaps be more appropriate; simply balance this with a larger heat buildup so that it isn't generally practical to actually achieve and maintain that sort of firerate.
This then also allows for the eventual artillery turrets to be more distinct in having higher alpha and slower firerate.
Overall though, I like what you're getting at with CQB/long-range weapons being switched from DPS/alpha, respectively, to alpha/DPS, as well as your thoughts on vehicles.
Side note: I absolutely agree that heavies should not be "CQB point defense" (or at least not just that*), but I'd like to see the HMG be more of a sort of medium-range weapon rather than an actual long-ranged weapon. This then opens the door for other heavy weapons to diversify the ability of heavy suits to function in different conditions... but does require said heavy weapons to be brought in *looks at CCP*.
I do think heavies as CQB point defense should be something doable- and even, perhaps, desirable- but that that should be merely one of, and likely not even the best use, of a heavy in a defensive role. After all, a core aspect of the heavy suit is it's supposed ability to engage vehicles on an equal footing- and it's difficult to do so except in a defensive fashion, and almost implies that heavy weapons are quite deadly to vehicles regardless of whether or not it's an AV weapon.
Perhaps HMGs should be more lethal to LAVs and derpships... mostly just LAVs, I think.
*Mostly because I like the whole "enemies lemming into wall of HMG MURDERDEATHKILL" part of point defense... when they happen to stop by, anyways. |
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 01:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
Perhaps I should have clarified; when I say "highest per-shot damage", I mean of the short-ranged turrets. Autocannons have incredibly high rates of fire, pulse lasers have great range- blasters have megadeath damage.
How they accomplish that is moderate rate of fire, with high(er) per shot damage than the other turrets. As far kiting a Catalyst goes... well, yeah. Since blaster turrets generally have an optimal range of about 1-1.5 km at the small turret size, and a falloff of only about 4 km, then there's something of an inability to project damage even as far as scram range for a blasterboat, like the Catalyst.
The reason why I describe blasters as being "alpha" weapons is the same reason that Breakin describes RRs as being "alpha" weapons- they tend do most of their damage in big heaping chunks rather than a steady stream of fire. It may have been a while since I played EVE (I prefer to not have a monthly subscription when I am unemployed), but I certainly remember how blasters work. |
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 23:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
I suppose my big issue is that large blaster turrets functioning more akin to gigantic plasma cannons... for some reason it just doesn't jive with me.
TBH, it really just comes down to a preference issue; maybe it's like how I think that, despite the fact I feel like it's somewhat broken, Ganjas should keep their damping bonus... but OTOH, I also feel like Canjas should lose their damping/scan range bonuses in favor of a precision bonus*. On the Ganja part, it's mostly because the traditional Gallente Scout bonus is that it's the damping scout, and taking that away is kind of like taking away the sidearm slot of the Amarr Logi. People WILL freak out and complain, and I'm not entirely sure it would be unjustified to complain about taking away the Ganja damp bonus.
*Of course, I also think no scout should have more than one EWAR bonus, and that the Amarr should be the biotic scout with an efficacy bonus to biotic modules (NOT just stamina, but also kincats and maybe myofibs), the Minja is the speedhacker/stabby-stab scout, and the Caldari scout is the precision scout. Canja being max precision with Ganja being max damp creates an interesting interplay...
Though I also think that EWAR bonuses should be to module efficacy, and the EWAR skills should also be module efficacy, and that a 4 damp Ganja should only avoid a 4 precision Canja by using a proto cloak (because both are already sacrificing, and a Canja by default would lose the scan range bonus and has only two lows at ADV/PRO so is difficult to get long passive scan range anyways). |
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
48
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 17:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote: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.
I'm not going to dispute that EWAR is a terrible terrible thing right now. I do think, however, that it's pretty much the best we'll get in DUST, so we pretty much have to figure out a way around it.
Which sucks, because it seems like we've had a lot more problems with EWAR being brokenly good for scouts than anything else- active scanners were pretty bad and all, but you knew when you were scanned, most people ran the ADV Quantum scanner (because they wanted long paint times but were too cheap for proto scanners), and it was possible to actually get under it if you fitted for it.
Quite frankly, I almost wonder if we set it up so that the EWAR core skills were module efficacy bonuses, the EWAR scout skills were module efficacy bonuses, we wouldn't fix a lot of issues. OTOH, I also feel like it's the scan range bonus that is the most broken one, and should probably be dropped wholesale.
Buff Logis | Nerf Goldfish
|
|
|
| |
|