DUST Search - [PROPOSAL]Sentinel battle role

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[PROPOSAL]Sentinel battle role

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1153	Posted - 2014.11.03 07:58:00 - [31] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Why would anyone use them .?. think they get shot gunned and knifed now .. how is this helping " define " their role .?. if anything , this will lead to their being less viable and visual on the battlefield . Seriously come play a PC for FA as a heavy and tell me that scouts are as big of a problem as you think. Protip: 80% of your deaths will be heavies. People would use mediums more if heavies were a suppressive role. Scouts and assaults should be for pushing points while heavies and logis should be defense. Currently heavies and logis do whatever, assaults sit back and give cover fire while scouts thin out points, hack or provide scans. The biggest problem CCP has for balancing is the huge differences in competitive play and pubs. There are so many muppets rolling in pubs with no clue what they're doing compared to a mostly balanced 16v16 where everyone knows what they're doing and there's a proper game plan on both sides. I would much rather see heavies lose base HP across all tiers much like Chromosome where STD heavies had 700 total HP. But I'm happy for anything that makes anything other than a heavy more viable. Do you really not find it ridiculous when people sit in 10,000 ISK suits with 900-1300 armor+300-400 shields with, what I would say is the best weapon right now? Even when they're getting slapped around by good heavies, they're still bound to get a 1.0 KDR. Amarrica! It's Not Safe to Swim
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 4362	Posted - 2014.11.03 08:55:00 - [32] - Quote Tweaking EHP has always caused more issued than it fixes. Changing the way you can deploy a sentinel will open more of the cqc areas. The burst HMG haa the disadvantage in sustained defense but it is a superb line breaking tool. If you make the other HMG and make them longer range, slower rotation you keep them useful in support but it makes it so that the sentinel's weaknesses, low mobility, large hitbox, sensor-blindness, mean something. you could trash at range but if you don't pay attention you can be killed by assault in cqc. The logical weakness of a slow'moing, easy target should be a fast moving enemy. Can you overcome this by putting two sentinels back to back in a corridor? Yes. But immobility in CQC invariably is a losing prospect. Every time I fight a sentinel who puts his back to a wall and stays there I invariably kill him. But the HP in cqc isn't the problem. It's the ability to do long-term, sustained fire at high DPS that combines with the HP that creates the spam. Instead of nerfing something to crap, why not change the role and how it is deployed? A longer range, slow turning sentinel makes it harder to sustain a defense in the lab or in orbital artillery while making them viable point defenders and zone controllers in maps like manus peak and line harvest. It also exposes them to more weapons that can counter them. You can't evict heavies from firing positions with a sniper while they are in cqc. But you can when they cannot park in a spot that makes a sniper meaningless and still be effective. Make the assault and standard long range and keep the burst fast turning and close-up for doir kicking. Sentinels should define the line a force draws in the sand, not be the be-all, end all of that line. And dropping heavies below 1000 HP basically means we go back to square 1 where they are as useless to a team as the commando and everyone swaps to assault for cqc ANYWAY, which STILL achieves my objective for this proposal. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Meee One Amakakeru-Ryu-no-Hirameki 1244	Posted - 2014.11.03 18:33:00 - [33] - Quote I can see them now... Sentinels on rooftops camping with HMGs... Official Blueberry of the Forums. Title given by my #1 fan Sgt Kirk.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 4389	Posted - 2014.11.03 18:36:00 - [34] - Quote Meee One wrote: I can see them now... Sentinels on rooftops camping with HMGs... And charged sniper Rifles instapopping the ones stupid enough to do it. Forge Guns finding easy targets. It wouldn't be any worse than sentinels on a roof with an assault forge. Only difference is the HMG won't be able to kill vehicles while being a rooftop tard. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
G Felix 100	Posted - 2014.11.04 00:23:00 - [35] - Quote There's alot of experience with sentinels in this thread, and Breakin especially has made a lot of points that resonate with me, but is it possible that the real issue with a great deal of the heavy spam is actually uplink spam? It's not hard to kill a sentinel if you engage properly, I run sentinel fits at least 50% of the time and it's not particularly good for my kdr. What's very hard to do is kill 4-6 sentinels before they have started to respawn. More and more I am of the opinion that uplinks are what's really breaking this game. Dust can be frustrating. (Gò»°Gûí°)Gò»n+¦ Gö+GöüGö+)
Magnus Amadeuss Bragian Order Amarr Empire 1202	Posted - 2014.11.04 00:24:00 - [36] - Quote Here is something nuts..... Don't allow sentinels to get into vehicles. EWAR tool
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 93	Posted - 2014.11.04 01:27:00 - [37] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Meee One wrote: I can see them now... Sentinels on rooftops camping with HMGs... And charged sniper Rifles instapopping the ones stupid enough to do it. Forge Guns finding easy targets. It wouldn't be any worse than sentinels on a roof with an assault forge. Only difference is the HMG won't be able to kill vehicles while being a rooftop tard. I have to agree with Breakin as to how that will work out; roof camping is one of the few things that, IMO, should be a binary situation (unlike, say, EWAR or AV). I will elaborate. Let's assume something like the proposed changes happen, and suddenly HMG rooftop camping is a thing. In pubs, the following will happen: 1. Nobody will do anything, at which point HMG roofers will be murderizing lots of things, much the same way that they would do so with any other fit and any other long-range weapon. 2. Somebody will do something, which will result in a significant impedance to outright denial of an HMG roofer team doing anything useful. I can safely say that even one person with as little as L2 Sniper Rifle Ops, a Tac SR, and a moderate degree of intelligence in terms of awareness of target areas and basic positioning can quite handily suppress multiple enemies attempting to roofcamp. For reference, I can say this because I've actually done it. Had a fairly entertaining match on Manus Peak Skirm (which I usually hate), where I sat at C with a TacSR and picked off a few enemy snipers on the B-side mountains, while also harassing some swarmer on a B-point socket roof, and generally making an unpleasant time for various enemy players who attempted to approach C-point, or camp on the B-point roofs that faced C. Magnus Amadeuss wrote: Here is something nuts..... Don't allow sentinels to get into vehicles. I somewhat disagree, depending on your meaning. What I think you mean is that sentinels should not be allowed to drive vehicles, which is a somewhat valid idea. If you are being quite literal... then I thought you were much more reasonable and analytical than that Magnus. Now, for the latter possibility, there's not a lot that I'm interested in saying simply because most of it boils down to insulting you heavily for something so obviously dumb. I'm assuming that the latter isn't what you mean, and so I won't waste any more of my time or yours on such. So, for the former, more likely, meaning: I disagree somewhat. I'm actually fine with sentinels being prohibited from flying dropships or driving HAVs, but quite frankly the main flaw of the generally hated "HMG Heavy in an LAV" problem is that it ultimately stems from forcing the sentinel into the CQB dominance role. Heavy suit users look at their HMG, and just how unhelpful it is on larger and/or more open maps (IE, Border Gulch, Manus Peak), and they look at how slow their suit can walk/sprint places. So somebody way back in the misty sands of time that shroud the closed (or open) beta era decided to buy some LAVs to drive around in while carrying an HMG as a heavy. Lo and behold, we have the original incarnation of the so-called "Murder Taxi". It's very simply just the result of somebody coming up with a way to take advantage of DUST's sandbox nature to counter some of their dropsuit's weaknesses. In a way, we should applaud this sort of breakthrough in player thought and intelligence. It's the sort of thing that would pretty much never happen in Battlefield or Planetside 2- the part where players figure out how to work around weaknesses using other mechanics, that is. I'd actually argue that changing the HMG to a long-ranged weapon role will generally remove the attractiveness of the drive-by HMG heavy as a tactic; the weapon will lose some of its CQB dominance, meaning that it will be more likely that a heavy would use an LAV to get into position or rapidly change position to react to changing combat conditions. Or maybe he still drives around, but instead he only occasionally runs people over or stops and switches to the turret mount to shoot stuff. Either way, HMG heavies doing a drive-by using an LAV becomes something of a relic of a forgotten era- something like the stories of dumbfire swarms. With that said, I'd like to pose two questions to Breakin: 1. How would we differentiate the Assault and "basic" HMG variants? 2. Would a turn-speed penalty be absolutely necessary? For the latter, I'm not sure that it's needed- obviously it existed in Chrome, and was bad, but that was due to the ultimately flawed decision to chain heavies to CQB dominance- a role they are not necessarily suited for. But HMG heavies being a long-ranged fire support platform, somewhat in the vein of a LR user, it doesn't quite click with me that such a penalty is actually necessary. After all, heavies are slow. This will by nature make them more defensive in deployment, which will in turn indicate a more static deployment strategy- you'll probably throw some HMG heavies in an LAV/derpship to get them from point A to point B really fast, but other than that, you'll want them in a good position that provides excellent overwatch potential. This will also mean that they will end up having a limited field of fire- simply because they will mostly pay attention to the direction enemies are most likely to approach from. Which in turn means they are very open to flanking maneuvers; it also means that HMG heavies will be more desirable in outdoor areas rather than the current building-humper paradigm. Buff Logis \| Nerf Scouts
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 14109	Posted - 2014.11.04 02:17:00 - [38] - Quote Magnus Amadeuss wrote: Here is something nuts..... Don't allow sentinels to get into vehicles. Technically no suit other than say...... a pilot suit should be able to use specialist vehicles. GÇ£How does this all work then?GÇ¥ GÇ£Like so Choirboy.GÇ¥ Mila to Kador, Sub Zero Club, Shoashu Sasaanko
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 4440	Posted - 2014.11.04 05:20:00 - [39] - Quote Turn speed penalty for a couple reasons. 1: because making an HMG useful at ranges even similar to a BAR or RR (I'd go for longer) would mean dispersion needs to be cut to a quarter or less what it is now. Not adding a turn speed penalty makes it instant death at point blank CQC. 2: because the only thing that changes between a long range HMG heavy and a short range HMG heavy is that a long range heavy can easily exert the current level of dominance at all ranges. This leaves no counter that isn't dependent upon a sentinel screwing up. Any counter that is dependent upon the enemy screwing up is not a counter. 3: because CCP made the HMG remarkably similar to my 240 Golf I hauled around serving in the marines. Trust me when I say you want sentinels to have an exploitable weakness. Currently you have to either dogpile a heavy, deploy your own heavy or hope the heavy is wounded or really screws up when you get to him. This isn't a counter. Right now the only real counter is borderline broken scouts and remote explosives. 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 4440	Posted - 2014.11.04 05:34:00 - [40] - Quote In short, not putting turn speed penalty on a long range heavy means there is no impetus to STOP spamming them in buildings. We get the new FOTM whose only weakness can be subverted by dropping an LAV. Enter the omni-slayer. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Aeon Amadi Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 6908	Posted - 2014.11.04 05:50:00 - [41] - Quote People will complain that it's a "viable strategy" to spam heavies and in one person's own words the "HMG is the least complained about weapon in Delta" but IMO it's just defending the current meta, which has been needing to change since 1.8 was released. I remember very fondly that there was a -glorious- balance in 1.7 when the HMG received a Rate of Fire increase and proper dispersion (before it had laser-like accuracy so it wasn't actually getting any spread as it fired). Once the HMG received that, there was a proper balance between it and the rifles. It shelled out DPS by the boatload and it was challenging to fight against but it wasn't one-sided as long as you knew what you were doing. Then they made a sweeping 10% damage nerf to the entire line-up of weapons with only one exception: The HMG. Ever since then, Sentinels and HMGs have been spammed to high heaven with no end in sight. A handful of us protested that and I even brought it up in a thread back in March before the release of 1.8. Because the HMG took over in CQC territory, and the cloak was implemented, Arkena Wrynspire's prediction in that thread was hitting the nail right on the head. Someone argued that the "HMG -should- be the king of CQC with no rival", which makes sense until you think of the fact that... if it -is- the king of CQC with no rival, then the only viable counter is another HMG. Cloaky scouts wound up working a lot better then expected (well, I say that, but CCP wanted to make it so that you could shoot while cloaked until the CPM intervened) so it wasn't -entirely- one sided but when you're only options in the 0-40m range are HMG or Shotgun, your choices are insanely limited and entire playstyles die out (CQC Gal Assault). In essence, my theory is that people don't have a problem with Sentinels... People don't have a problem with HMGs. People have a problem with there being -so many at once- that they become unmanageable. You just have to provide an option that allows people to have an advantage at times without having to go into a niche playstyle. The problem with turn speed or manueverability changes is that people will just find ways around it. They already do with LAVs. Important Legion Transparency Post Lv5
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1971	Posted - 2014.11.04 06:57:00 - [42] - Quote So you want to make heavies even more susceptible to fast moving scouts and turn them into long-range killers ala Heavy RR scrubs? I can't say I agree with that. What's wrong with a heavy playing point defense as a role? Really? Do you, by chance, play solo a lot? Because when you're in a half way decent squad it's pretty rare that the other team gets dug a spot so much as you can't get them out...except perhaps Domination if you're going against an entire team. And in PC if they get dug in like that, it's generally because they are simply better. I fail to see a problem to solve here, but I do appreciate your out of the box thinking.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 4444	Posted - 2014.11.04 07:48:00 - [43] - Quote Point defend is not the same as CQC defense. Long range sentinel in sat orbital artiller would have two options for viability: 1:Burst HMG for short work without a turn penalty. 2: post at the entry areas of the CQC areas and deny entry. But my problem with heavies as undisputed kings of CQC against all comers posits the question: Why do gallente assaults exist? Gallente are supposed to be the brawler kings, but one class of suit denies across-the-board utility of all other dropsuits in CQC. None of a heavy's weaknesses matter in CQC because an HMG is more capable of sustained engagements with more DPS than ANY OTHER WEAPON. The change I'm proposing would change heavy meta from "I win CQC" to "If I see you coming you're dead. But if you get up on top of me, I am dead." Only the burst HMG has an exploitable weakness. It's the biggest ammo hog ever and it overheats faster than ANY OTHER WEAPON. It's a good cqc weapon. By the same token the boundless HMG is the best weapon in CQC. It has no drawbacks in close. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 94	Posted - 2014.11.05 00:55:00 - [44] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: In short, not putting turn speed penalty on a long range heavy means there is no impetus to STOP spamming them in buildings. We get the new FOTM whose only weakness can be subverted by dropping an LAV. Enter the omni-slayer. Mostly I'm just quoting this part because it's a succinct summary of your explanation, but you've adequately explained your reasoning. I fully admit I still don't like turnspeed penalties very much... but in the interests of balance and overall gameplay experience I will fully understand and probably advocate it. That being said... you didn't give any ideas about Assault HMGs. Which, having settled the turnspeed issue, seems to really be a big thing to figure out as part of this proposal. Assault variants of a weapon tend to nearly always have a higher rate of fire. Then it filters down into one of two paradigms: One is a higher-capacity, lower-damage version, such as the assault variants of the racial rifles and the assault MD. Assault forges mostly fit on this side of the fence, trading clip capacity for splash damage. The other side that is reduced capacity, but slightly increased range. Which is where the scrambler pistol and SMG fit in... and quite frankly I find it rather strange that an assault variant would be associated with "reduced damage, reduced capacity, increased range", since all three don't really go together. It's sort of a pick two-out-of-three thing, IMO. So, that leaves us with a bit of a quandary. Given that weapons that have what could be considered a "long" range and also sport assault-type variants never use the second paradigm, and your proposal is for the HMG to be a long-range fire support weapon with a turnspeed penalty and the Burst HMG to be a door-kicker heavy weapon of choice, that then leaves us with a slight pickle of where to put the Assault HMG. Perhaps for the Assault HMG we keep the current damage but give it a 50% increase in clip capacity, putting it at a solid ~650 round capacity? If we assume that the current spread mechanic of the regular HMG is kept (which I think would be cool), then the Assault could have a similar time-to-max-accuracy, but a significantly slower accuracy decay, then this makes the Assault HMG a superb pure-suppression weapon- it would literally be the highest-capacity weapon in the entire game, but with somewhat low-ish DPS and an incentive to fire to nearly-overheating and then backing off a bit. It seems like it might give the Assault HMG an interesting dynamic with the regular and Burst variants. What have you considered for differentiating the Assault and regular HMGs? Buff Logis \| Nerf Scouts
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 94	Posted - 2014.11.05 01:10:00 - [45] - Quote So, double-posting here because I'm replying to some other people rather than giving suggestions about certain parts of the OP. Aeon Amadi wrote: snip really well-written, informed, and thought-out post So, I'm not sure quite what you're saying as relates to the OP's proposal. At first it seems like you're somewhat in favor, but then it seems like not... which is it? Also, I'm curious as to how people will "find a way around" a turnspeed penalty? Quite frankly, the current drive-by HMG heavy phenomenon would probably vanish overnight if HMGs were more limited to long-range fire support and door-kicker's best friend, depending on the variant equipped. Leadfoot10 wrote: So you want to make heavies even more susceptible to fast moving scouts and turn them into long-range killers ala Heavy RR scrubs? I can't say I agree with that. What's wrong with a heavy playing point defense as a role? Really? Do you, by chance, play solo a lot? Because when you're in a half way decent squad it's pretty rare that the other team gets dug a spot so much as you can't get them out...except perhaps Domination if you're going against an entire team. And in PC if they get dug in like that, and your team can't get them out, it's generally because they are simply better (or you didn't bring enough clones). If getting heavies dug out of their entrenched positions is really our goal, a DPS/dispersion nerf and/or a rep tool nerf (along with an assault suit bonus to something like damage) would seeming be an easier way to accomplish it without completely changing the heavy's role on the battlefield....and the assault suit with it. I agree with Aeon. I don't know about Breakin, but I personally do play mostly solo. With that being said, I will agree with him- Point Defense isn't the same as CQC dominance; the latter is really what heavies are right now, not the former. This was actually something I believe was brought up during the beta- that you can't do point defense if you cannot keep people away from a point. HMGs being the CQC "god gun" means that a heavy who's busy humping a point is not "point defense", he's really just "I shoot you while hacking the point"... which is helpful, to be sure, but isn't point defense. Point defense would be an Amarr Assault/Commando with a LR burning dudes down from 70+ meters away from the point, preventing them from ever getting close in the first place. Moreover, right now the heavy role is quite frankly stupid. You're either the supposedly most-awesome AV around... which is cool, and Forges are undeniably awesome... or you're supposed to be busy point-humping and shooting hackers off the console. Sure, most squads will generally keep people from getting to the console to hack it anyways, and they usually use heavies to do it... but that also tends to include digging in. A heavy in an entrenched position should be difficult to displace, certainly- but the nature of that entrenched position should not boil down to "point humper". It's also the case that the proposal laid out in the OP suddenly means that CQC Gallente Assault will suddenly become a thing, which is good. I honestly don't notice GalSalts around that much- it's either scouts, the odd CalSalt/whatever Logi, or heavies. Sometimes there'll be a pretty good AmSalt/MinSalt, or a Commando, or a murderlogi, but mostly it's the others. Part of that is scout balance problems, but that's not relevant to this thread/proposal. The other part is that HMG heavies are ultimate murder-death-kill machines in CQC, when it quite frankly makes more sense that they would be long range fire support in the style of the LR. Buff Logis \| Nerf Scouts
Zindorak G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1221	Posted - 2014.11.05 01:48:00 - [46] - Quote Wat change HMG range to be the same as rifles? lo i wonder how that would work out Pokemon master and Tekken Lord Gk0 Scout yay :)
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 4510	Posted - 2014.11.05 04:37:00 - [47] - Quote I laid out that I would make the assault HMG the advancing fire support version. In between the burst and standard for range and raw damage with a lesser turn peenalty. Also making the weapon like a heavy rifle is not the intent. The only universe in which the rurn speed penalty is justified is if the unholy DPS is left as-is. Lowering the DPS would beg the question "why bother?" And as to doubling the laser rifle optimal? HELL YES! I always thought that the Laser Rifle should have been the amarr snip EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Cat Merc Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 13019	Posted - 2014.11.05 05:17:00 - [48] - Quote I like this, but it will require a shift of thinking on the part of the community. Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 4515	Posted - 2014.11.05 05:24:00 - [49] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: I like this, but it will require a shift of thinking on the part of the community. And this is why they don't like it for the most part EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 94	Posted - 2014.11.05 05:34:00 - [50] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I laid out that I would make the assault HMG the advancing fire support version. In between the burst and standard for range and raw damage with a lesser turn peenalty. Also making the weapon like a heavy rifle is not the intent. The only universe in which the rurn speed penalty is justified is if the unholy DPS is left as-is. Lowering the DPS would beg the question "why bother?" I think we ended up sort of saying the same thing but in a slightly different way. Incidentally, do you think a magazine capacity buff would be well-suited to the "Assault HMG=advancing fire support" concept? It might fit pretty well, since advancing fire support would want to continue firing for as long as possible, and a higher capacity might be a way to do it. Breakin Stuff wrote: And as to doubling the laser rifle optimal? HELL YES! I always thought that the Laser Rifle should have been the amarr snip Well, it's not quite doubling the optimal; currently the evidence is pointing to something that starts at 40 or 50 meters and then ends at about 105 meters. So it'd be more like a 20-50% increase over the current. So we definitely agree on LR optimal getting longer, though I don't necessarily agree that the LR should be the Amarrian sniper weapon; it seems a lot more likely that it was always intended as the precision vs AoE counterpart to the MD IMO. Cat Merc wrote: I like this, but it will require a shift of thinking on the part of the community. Well, I wouldn't say a shift in the community's thinking, so much as just convincing Rattati that this is a great way to diversify some roles and even bring a few underused ones (like CQB GalSalt) into greater usage/prominence. Buff Logis \| Nerf Scouts

Aeon Amadi Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 6982	Posted - 2014.11.05 13:02:00 - [51] - Quote Victor Moody Stahl wrote: So, double-posting here because I'm replying to some other people rather than giving suggestions about certain parts of the OP. Aeon Amadi wrote: snip really well-written, informed, and thought-out post So, I'm not sure quite what you're saying as relates to the OP's proposal. At first it seems like you're somewhat in favor, but then it seems like not... which is it? Also, I'm curious as to how people will "find a way around" a turnspeed penalty? Quite frankly, the current drive-by HMG heavy phenomenon would probably vanish overnight if HMGs were more limited to long-range fire support and door-kicker's best friend, depending on the variant equipped. Take it as you will. I can't say that I'm for anything that affects Heavies or Scouts in any negative way because the community will automatically outcast me if I do. /sarcasm Legion Transparency Me and My Girl
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 4521	Posted - 2014.11.05 13:05:00 - [52] - Quote the community of angry neckbeards with a raging hardon to defend their playstyles at all costs regardless of whether it's healthy for the game as a whole? Or the player community who is tired of seeing nothing but heavies whenever two bricks are pressed closer than five feet together and swarms of scouts? EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 426	Posted - 2014.11.05 22:26:00 - [53] - Quote After reading the OP and the subsequent responses, I'm a no at this point. I don't see the cqc/point defense "issue" as stemming from the heavy frame or its attachments, I think its a matter of playerstyle. Some players want to point defend right up close to the point, some from farther out. The heavy, from what I've seen of them in both PCs and PUBS, accomodates either of these playstyles just fine with no other accomodation being needed. If the HMG isnt giving you the range you want to be able to not "hump the console" put on your RR and block everyone else in the match so as to not get the hatemail bombardment you'll be due. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 4531	Posted - 2014.11.05 23:30:00 - [54] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: After reading the OP and the subsequent responses, I'm a no at this point. I don't see the cqc/point defense "issue" as stemming from the heavy frame or its attachments, I think its a matter of playerstyle. Some players want to point defend right up close to the point, some from farther out. The heavy, from what I've seen of them in both PCs and PUBS, accomodates either of these playstyles just fine with no other accomodation being needed. If the HMG isnt giving you the range you want to be able to not "hump the console" put on your RR and block everyone else in the match so as to not get the hatemail bombardment you'll be due. And you have completely missed the point. It's not "the HMG doesn't have enough range." It's "the HMG heavy makes no logical sense in CQC and because of the asspull leaps that must be made to balance it, any time you have two bricks nearby each other you'll find a sentinel between them." The meta in cities among people that pay attention (not sub-10m SP newbros) is as soon as you enter the building go fat or go home. Why is it that people are complaining that heavies are being spammed? because they are. Why are they not being screamed about being OP? Because Rattatti somehow managed to do what no other Dev could. This right here frightens me. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 427	Posted - 2014.11.05 23:50:00 - [55] - Quote The two bricks with a heavy between as critisism makes as much sense as complaining people are using vehicles to cover large open areas faster. Thats what they're for. Maybe the real issue is the map design putting most control points within some sort of tightly controllable area? Heavies are the guardians of the gates. Where theres gates, there will be heavies. Many heavies then maybe = many gates? Or the overwhelming urge on the part of teams to protect those gates fully, with multiple heavies? I still don't see the problem here, heavies have counters (flux and smg to the dome is my fav), plenty of counters. EDIT before needing to EDIT: not a 10m SP newbro. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 427	Posted - 2014.11.05 23:52:00 - [56] - Quote As far as heavies being OP, they are still second to scouts soooooooo one problem at a time? Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 4531	Posted - 2014.11.06 00:10:00 - [57] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: As far as heavies being OP, they are still second to scouts soooooooo one problem at a time? Heavies aren't OP, quit looking at a thread and assuming it's a complaint. Just because you consider your personal crusade against scouts > all doesn't mean you need to come in here, read part of the proposal by skimming and then threadcrapping. This is a role change not a call for a nerf. If you have to make scouts the center of attention go make more scout threads, God knows there are dozens, all equally ignored. But heavies in CQC negate the value of assaults in CQC. Bottom line. Are heavies supporting assaults? Or are Assaults supporting heavies? It looks to me like assaults are supporting heavies in the current meta, and that's bass-ackwards. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 95	Posted - 2014.11.06 00:13:00 - [58] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Take it as you will. I can't say that I'm for anything that affects Heavies or Scouts in any negative way because the community will automatically outcast me if I do. /sarcasm The problem is that I refuse to "take it as I will", because I asked what you actually think about the issue at hand. If I did as you suggest, then at that point I'm basically just deciding what you think for you, or even going as far as claiming that you're saying something that you aren't. Yes, yes, I realize you're being a bit sarcastic, but really. You can't just say straight up what you think about it? el OPERATOR wrote: The heavy, from what I've seen of them in both PCs and PUBS, accomodates either of these playstyles just fine with no other accomodation being needed. If the HMG isnt giving you the range you want to be able to not "hump the console" put on your RR and block everyone else in the match so as to not get the hatemail bombardment you'll be due. The heavy suit as a weapons platform has traditionally been defined by, gasp the ability to carry heavy weapons. Saying "just throw a RR on that sucka and ignore the hatemail if you want range" is asinine. The point is that the HMG is ultimately a flawed weapon concept, for two reasons: 1. Logical consistency; HMG-analogues have never been a close-encounter ordnance, and likely never will be; they are heavy, cumbersome weapon systems with fantastic range and firepower that are far more usefully deployed in more open terrain conditions. 2. A lack of additional heavy weapons. This isn't quite as big a deal in terms of HMG role, but there would honestly not be as many complaints about this issue if the Sentinel class had more heavy weapon variety. Moreover, light weapon heavies are only a thing because there is no long range anti-infantry heavy weapon. There's also the issue that the whole "durable enough to go toe-to-toe with vehicles" thing that's part of the description seems to imply more of a "I keep people far away from the point", not "I hump the console and shoot hackers in the back". There currently is not any ability for a heavy suit user to be an effective long range combatant, unless they do one of two things: 1. They fit a light weapon to their heavy suit. Which is something that CCP is trying to discourage through the use of the heavy weapon fitting bonus and the accompanying reduction in fitting resources that Sentinel suits have. 2. Use a different suit that is more suited to light weapon deployment. In other words, for a heavy to, in current patch state, be useful over range, they have to either sacrifice heavily on their fit to accommodate something like a RR, or they have to change role entirely. Is this seriously acceptable to you, or are you too busy hating scouts? I mean, I get it, I don't much like scouts in the current patch state either, but it's possible to work through multiple issues simultaneously you know. Breakin Stuff wrote: Why are they not being screamed about being OP? Because Rattatti somehow managed to do what no other Dev could. This right here frightens me. Out of curiosity... what is it that Rattati did? I wasn't playing between just after 1.8 dropped and just before Hotfix Delta dropped, so I am probably out of the loop on that. Buff Logis \| Nerf Scouts
Kensai Dragon DUST University Ivy League 40	Posted - 2014.11.06 00:17:00 - [59] - Quote I get the point about heavies and turn speeds, similar to a tank on the field vs a motorcycle, or a battle cruiser less maneuverable than a speed boat. I wasn't around when they were working out the turn speed penalties before, but I think it could be doable. Aside from turn speeds though, I'm not quite seeing how a heavy should NOT be able to perform at CQC with a proper normalized mechanic such as the turn speed. Again, I'm going back to a boxing and MMA analogy, a heavy weight will murder a featherweight if he keeps the distance and lands his shots. A featherweight, as long as he uses his maneuverability advantage, can circle and strike at his choosing to take down the fatty. Especially if / when stamina is a factor. I like the idea of getting the Sentinels outside of strictly CQC, but not eliminating CQC from the repertoire. Additionally, as I read you're description of Sentinels defending the point from afar my mind is filled with images of 'murder taxi'. Trying to get out of the way in a heavy is certainly less than ideal, which leads to depending on your team to protect you, much like a A/V is now. Maybe I missed your point, can you give a better idea or example of how you envision point defence from afar?
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 95	Posted - 2014.11.06 00:28:00 - [60] - Quote I don't know about Breakin, but personally I consider "point defense from afar" to be within 50 meters of a point and then keeping other players away from the point. I will use Manus Peak Skirmish as an example; When defending C, the heavy will most likely be within 20-30 meters of the console; I will assume that the socket in this example is the mini-bridge/wall thing that basically keeps the console/null cannon and CRU on the side closest to the ridge, while the side facing the A/B points has the supply depot and turret. With this proposal, I would envision the heavy on top of the bridge, firing at long range to prevent enemies from getting close to the point. The heavy is still "on the point", defending; however, rather than staying behind the wall and gunning down randumbs that try to hack the point, he's actually on the wall preventing said randumbs from getting that close in the first place. Buff Logis \| Nerf Scouts



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.