|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Vrain Matari
Mikramurka Shock Troop
Minmatar Republic
2281
   |
Posted - 2014.11.03 15:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
Aero Yassavi wrote:Will the flux strike hit stuff under surfaces? Because let's not pretend that major positions of uplink spam aren't under a roof.
How well this work in FW? Different times for higher tier strikes maybe?
Lastly, I love this don't get me wrong, but Caldari and Amarr logis will hate you. They get a bonus to consumable equipment and now it's easier to destroy? Maybe new bonuses, but what if instead deployable equipment regenerated over time? Use something like the active scanner timer. You drop an uplink, then you wait for the red ring to go around the circle before you can drop another? Two positives here: 1) Caldari and Amarr logis now will never run out of their specialized equipment and 2) You can't go to a supply depot and spam all the equipment on your fits because after each drop you have to wait to drop another. Of course keep the same max active limit and higher tiers/specific variants can have a shorter cooldown.
Like this a lot. +1 Aero.
Just some ideas to try and flesh it out:
1) ONLY LOGIS get regenerating equipment. This could be a central role advantage.
2) Deploying equipment still costs ISK. Basically, what the Logi is paying for is nanites - thinking bigger, nanites really should be a primary resource in DUST and would be a good candidate for PC geopolitics.
3) Logis should have the ability to destroy their own equipment. Remotely.
4) Logi role bonuses for equipment efficacy should be better than and non-logi class suit. <-- Just throwing this in, it's really an old point from other conversations 
PSN: RationalSpark
|
Vrain Matari
Mikramurka Shock Troop
Minmatar Republic
2281
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 16:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
+1 for the title, OP
+++ for the content.
To analogize as awkwardly as possible, i want to call this the 'CCP/CSM Dust Tactiacal Ewar Strike Stew'. So many ovelapping systems and game mechanics. To separate it all and analyze it rationally would be a big job. But it sure smells tasty.
Existing Issues
Uplink/Equipment use will become considerably more tactical and assume more importance, as will countering said gameplay. There's a few thing we might want to take care of first:
[list=1]
Untouchable equipment. We've all seen uplinks/REs deployed under Null Consoles or in terrain where they become untouchable. This could be a big frustration/waste of resources for 'Tactical Anti-Equipment Hunters'.
Aural location of equipment(especially uplinks, it seems) - this is where you hear an uplink right next to you but in reality it is far above or below you, even though the way the sound changes as you you approach the uplink implies it's very close to you. This was an old discussion that i don't think we resolved. The consensus in the thread, ifrc, was that the z-axis was not playing a role in the aural location of equipment sounds.
The Off-Screen Assets Menu & controls. Too awkward and dangerous for mass consumption. I think it's fair to say that players experience CCP's current implementation as frustrating and dangerous. The idea of having to find a quiet corner in the middle of a pitched firefight to use an orbital asset is anti-gameplay: players are forced to sacrifice one form of entertaining gamplay for another. Death and loss while you're in a menu trying to support your team sucks.
Menu lag. For example, loading map or opposing team roster - can take a long time and that time can be unpredictable - makes players shy away from that functionality.
TACNET lag. Not a deal breaker for what's being proposed, but still annoying in a game where every second counts - when you scan with your active scanner and the results don't resolve on the minimap for 3-4 seconds - this can change risk assessment, decision-making and choice of tactics. Annoying when your scanner tells you 3 seconds into your sprint that yes, there actually was an entire freakin' squad around that corner. Perhaps too difficult to resolve but worth mentioning.
We should prolly address equipment spam through proper game mechanics before implementing solo OBs - much of the attraction of solo OBs is in reaction to equipment spam.
TACNET Gameplay
The entire content of Rattati's proposal is revolving around TACNET gameplay. Imo there is a lot of valuable and entertaining gameplay to be had in thinking about the TACNET as a content-generator. We've been too busy in DUST taking care of old business, but as we look forward to generating new content/gameplay/depth the neglected TACNET is a diamond in the rough. There are some great archive thread discussing possibilities: Prolly worth having A tacnet-only thread sometime soon.
There's a heap o' nitty-gritty details to be worked out but all in all it sounds like hella fun.
PSN: RationalSpark
|
Vrain Matari
Mikramurka Shock Troop
Minmatar Republic
2281
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 17:10:00 -
[3] - Quote
Cat Merc wrote:Aero Yassavi wrote:Cat Merc wrote:Aero Yassavi wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:
Until we get that "one per equipment category" setting I want
So if I want to carry a Wirykomi Triage Hive but also something for ammo I won't be able to? I'm just trying to help That's what Allotek hives are for :P Specialize in either ammo, reps, or take the middle route that isn't as effective as either. But why should I not be allowed both for maximum efficiency if I'm willing to use two slots? Because the PS3 hardware doesn't care about your maximum efficiency. The poor thing can barely handle itself without you :P
There are less draconian ways of limiting equipment spam than imposing fitting/gameplay restrictions on Logis. I'd rather see a global 'maximum # deployed' limit for a particular equipment category for that Logi together with the logi's ability to destroy or tun off their own equipment.
PSN: RationalSpark
|
Vrain Matari
Mikramurka Shock Troop
Minmatar Republic
2284
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 19:27:00 -
[4] - Quote
And another thing.....
Way back when the idea was to 'pay' for vehicle deployments with warpoints.
Imo this is still a good idea - the cost doesn't need to be steep(maybe 50 WP for lav, 75 for DS, 100 for HAV, etc.), but giving the player broader and deeper decisions to make re: spending WP would be adding another interesting layer to the game.
For solo players the decisions would be fairly easy and would prolly be dictated by tactical need & playstyle choice.
For squads, however, the decision to spam HAVs/DS could impact their ability to invoke large orbital assets later in the game. That tension would be interesting, and may lead to squads supporting their vehicles when vehicles are deemed necessary.
PSN: RationalSpark
|
|
|
| |
|