DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] HP Modules and Strafe Speed

Alaika Arbosa wrote:

Vitantur Nothus wrote:

KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:

Armor plates should have a strafe penalty.
Shield extenders should have a signature profile penalty. I recall in your EWAR thread you suggested giving HP modules a dampening penalty.

Neither shields nor armor should have both of these penalties. Shields and armor should have important differences that makes one preferably for one type of playstyle than others, giving them both the same penalties diminishes their differences, and thus diminishes gameplay diversity.

There is but one small problem with this particular drawback. Perhaps two.

There can be no question that the CalScout's hitbox is imbued with special magics. On paper, the MinScout is the superior strafer; in game, however, his best effort at bulletweaving cannot touch the proficiency five gyrations of the CalScout.

The CalScout - Slap on a couple Reactives, add a Fine Rifle and become Saxonmish vs Noobs.
The MinScout - Better run straight damps in your lows if you ever want to stab anything.

So if and when we add the Sig Penalty to shield extenders, which will be most affected? Will it be the struggling and perpetually squishy MinScout? Or will it be the best wiggle-wiggler Assault Lite has to offer?

PS: In all seriousness, I don't know how we can fix CalScout Assault Lite without detrimentally impacting the MinScout. Very much open to ideas and suggestions.

Encourage people to stop tanking their Scout in any fashion aside from Sig Tanking.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
Vesta Opalus Bloodline Rebellion Capital Punishment. 187	Posted - 2014.11.20 17:36:00 - [181] - Quote Yay for making strafing less rediculous
Kensai Dragon Dust University Ivy League 94	Posted - 2014.11.20 18:03:00 - [182] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Kensai Dragon wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Kensai Dragon wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Ok, so this might be a stupid question but I have to ask it. Can someone please define "gungame"? I tried googling it and all I got for hits were references to a CS mod Gun game - My S&W sending 5 shots in 5 seconds into a 6" target at 10 yds. So aim/rate of fire is gungame? Cause that is what your example is telling me It's basically the catch-all phrase for 'I can shoot you better'. Generally applied to shooting while moving, but also to whatever aspect you're better at than the opponent. So it is something nebulous that is easily attributed to luck? To put this in the context of strafing, strafers will say that maintaining your target while moving is a skill. Specifically to that point, there is merit to the argument. The problem is inherent limitations in internet games, specifically dealing with the coordination between where I see you, where you actually are, and whether the game recognizes that you were in my line of fire. This is CCP's current issue to solve, what we affectionately call the 'wiggle dance'.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5185	Posted - 2014.11.20 18:11:00 - [183] - Quote the only reason people are favoring an EWAR penalty for shields is the fact that shield suits are the easiest to abuse hit detection failures using the strafing thing. I'm sorry, but this is transparent as hell. Allow me to say: Nerf my calscout please. Seriously, the calscout is goddamn easy mode even for me and I'm only good at AV. Put strafe penalties on all HP mods. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2227	Posted - 2014.11.20 18:17:00 - [184] - Quote The problem is not with Cal Scouts, but rather any fast moving suit. Because Cal Scouts are the most popular, I think people misidentify this problem as one of Cal Scout hitbox rather than more broadly as fast moving suit hit detection. In short, I've found that fast moving targets hitbox seems to lag behind the visible target. Next time you see a fast moving scout, shoot just behind them and see if you don't hit them more.
Luk Manag of Terror TRE GAFFEL 575	Posted - 2014.11.20 18:28:00 - [185] - Quote Caldari Scout is the main problem. Even though the Minmatar Scout is faster, it has less HP. Fast/tanky/hitbox-lag trifecta...I would be willing to bet it is actually a bug with the Caldari Scout that makes it nearly unhitable. I'm all in favor of a strafe nerf, but any nerf to shields and you're going to see a shift to armor and anti-armor weapons. Extenders will be traded for damage mods, and everyone will spam explosive and projectile damage types. If shields make me slow, then I want a logibro with a remote shield restoration tool. Full parity with armor tanking ->or it is a massive Caldari nerf. There will be bullets. ACR+SMG [CEO of Terror]
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 11630	Posted - 2014.11.20 18:50:00 - [186] - Quote Armor plates should have a strafe penalty. Shield extenders should have a signature profile penalty. I recall in your EWAR thread you suggested giving HP modules a dampening penalty. Neither shields nor armor should have both of these penalties. Shields and armor should have important differences that makes one preferably for one type of playstyle than others, giving them both the same penalties diminishes their differences, and thus diminishes gameplay diversity. Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 4986	Posted - 2014.11.20 19:00:00 - [187] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: Ripley Riley wrote: HP modules, as in, shield extenders and armor plating? im assuming only for armor plates, as extenders dont have movement penalties extender stacking is also under the scope Can the drawback for Extenders be a larger hit box for shields? Movement penalties don't make sense for Shield Extenders, and the big problem with Caldari Scouts is how small their hit box is, so how about when you extend your shields, it makes them bigger, as in easier to hit? Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 4986	Posted - 2014.11.20 19:04:00 - [188] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: In DUST, not EVE, why would shield power generators not have weight/mass, even though the shield, being energy, would be weightless? The idea would be to normalize the strafe penalty on HP added. Why would that be unfair? With Extenders granting lower HP than Plates, obviously we would be talking about way lower penalties. Dual brick tanking should, however, be extremely slowing. Someone said, just make them all strafe slower, but that "is" punishing everyone for the sins of the few. Still say that making their Shield Hit Box bigger would be better as a shield extender penalty. Can you at least check to see if that is possible to do? Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2242	Posted - 2014.11.20 19:21:00 - [189] - Quote Kensai Dragon wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Kensai Dragon wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Ok, so this might be a stupid question but I have to ask it. Can someone please define "gungame"? I tried googling it and all I got for hits were references to a CS mod It's basically the catch-all phrase for 'I can shoot you better'. Generally applied to shooting while moving, but also to whatever aspect you're better at than the opponent. So it is something nebulous that is easily attributed to luck? Sometimes, especially if it's the other guy who got lucky, but never if you're the lucky one, lol Also sometimes used as troll bait. Like I said, it's a catch all. If I use cover more effectively and pick you off, it's gun game. If I move/strafe and kill you first, it's gun game. Anything I can do well is gun game. If you do it well, it's only gun game when I approve of the style, lol Ok so why do people feel the need to hold on so tightly to something that is totally arbitrary and subjective? I would think that solid data and fact would have more of a place here than something that amounts to "he said, she said" perception. Gò¡Gê¬Gò«(Gùú_Gùó)Gò¡Gê¬Gò«
Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 492	Posted - 2014.11.20 19:26:00 - [190] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Armor plates should have a strafe penalty. Shield extenders should have a signature profile penalty. I recall in your EWAR thread you suggested giving HP modules a dampening penalty. Neither shields nor armor should have both of these penalties. Shields and armor should have important differences that makes one preferably for one type of playstyle than others, giving them both the same penalties diminishes their differences, and thus diminishes gameplay diversity. There is but one small problem with this particular drawback. Perhaps two. There can be no question that the CalScout's hitbox is imbued with special magics. On paper, the MinScout is the superior strafer; in game, his moves cannot touch the almighty gyrations of the CalScout. The CalScout - Slap on a couple Reactives, add a Fine Rifle and become Saxonmish vs Noobs. The MinScout - Better run straight damps in your lows if you ever want to stab anything. If we add the Sig Penalty to shield extenders, which of the above will be hurt? Will it be the struggling MinScout? Or will it be the best wiggle-wiggler in the game?

thehellisgoingon the unholy legion of darkstar DARKSTAR ARMY 0	Posted - 2014.11.20 19:26:00 - [191] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear Players, We are going to add separate strafe penalties to HP modules. We will not be reducing normal speed, nor running speed, only left-right speed, making the "dodging" of bullets more difficult, and Sentinels lack of mobility to become a real vulnerability when stacking eHP. The calculations will theoretically be based off of relative mass (Scouts) and total mass (Sentinels). Medium Frames will not be affected as much as these two. Basic Frames may end up not having any penalties at all. This is quite blunt, but it's been a long time coming. Extenders and Armor Plates are obviously the focus here, and Reactives and Ferroscales may be omitted in the first pass. P.S. Medium speeds may get shaken up in light of the Assault HP boost , Logistics may get a speed boost, Commandos as well, Assault speed reduction, all very small. NERF IT ALL. the game is about to change.... i smell a new FOTM in the works. its called a tank.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 515	Posted - 2014.11.20 19:29:00 - [192] - Quote I'd like to see proposal hard numbers please, before I add my personal brand of condemnation or devotion for the idea. As an aside, on the surface I see don't blanket penalties for frames outside of scouts being needed. Just either a nerfing of scout movements or a buffing of everyone elses. Fats included. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2242	Posted - 2014.11.20 19:30:00 - [193] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: the only reason people are favoring an EWAR penalty for shields is the fact that shield suits are the easiest to abuse hit detection failures using the strafing thing. I'm sorry, but this is transparent as hell. Allow me to say: Nerf my calscout please. Seriously, the calscout is goddamn easy mode even for me and I'm only good at AV. Put strafe penalties on all HP mods. IDGAF if strafing goes the way of the dodo It still doesn't mean I don't think that Ewar/Sig Bloom is the better fix for Shield mods. Gò¡Gê¬Gò«(Gùú_Gùó)Gò¡Gê¬Gò«
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 515	Posted - 2014.11.20 19:32:00 - [194] - Quote thehellisgoingon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Dear Players, We are going to add separate strafe penalties to HP modules. We will not be reducing normal speed, nor running speed, only left-right speed, making the "dodging" of bullets more difficult, and Sentinels lack of mobility to become a real vulnerability when stacking eHP. The calculations will theoretically be based off of relative mass (Scouts) and total mass (Sentinels). Medium Frames will not be affected as much as these two. Basic Frames may end up not having any penalties at all. This is quite blunt, but it's been a long time coming. Extenders and Armor Plates are obviously the focus here, and Reactives and Ferroscales may be omitted in the first pass. P.S. Medium speeds may get shaken up in light of the Assault HP boost , Logistics may get a speed boost, Commandos as well, Assault speed reduction, all very small. NERF IT ALL. the game is about to change.... i smell a new FOTM in the works. its called a tank. My 15k AV fit awaits them. And if that one doesn't work, I'll defy my own bushido, go proto in pubs and pull my actual PC rig out. Bring. It. On. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
shaman oga The Dunwich Horror 3262	Posted - 2014.11.20 19:43:00 - [195] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: In DUST, not EVE, why would shield power generators not have weight/mass, even though the shield, being energy, would be weightless? The idea would be to normalize the strafe penalty on HP added. Why would that be unfair? With Extenders granting lower HP than Plates, obviously we would be talking about way lower penalties. Dual brick tanking should, however, be extremely slowing. Someone said, just make them all strafe slower, but that "is" punishing everyone for the sins of the few. In game description isn't clear, but i still think that shield extenders take the energy they need directly from the suit power grid. What is pretty clear is that shield generates EM noise. Shields should not have strafe penalties, the trade off has always been less HP for no movement penalty. Situational awareness commonly called passive scan.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2242	Posted - 2014.11.20 19:47:00 - [196] - Quote Vitantur Nothus wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Armor plates should have a strafe penalty. Shield extenders should have a signature profile penalty. I recall in your EWAR thread you suggested giving HP modules a dampening penalty. Neither shields nor armor should have both of these penalties. Shields and armor should have important differences that makes one preferably for one type of playstyle than others, giving them both the same penalties diminishes their differences, and thus diminishes gameplay diversity. There is but one small problem with this particular drawback. Perhaps two. There can be no question that the CalScout's hitbox is imbued with special magics. On paper, the MinScout is the superior strafer; in game, however, his best effort at bulletweaving cannot touch the proficiency five gyrations of the CalScout. The CalScout - Slap on a couple Reactives, add a Fine Rifle and become Saxonmish vs Noobs. The MinScout - Better run straight damps in your lows if you ever want to stab anything. So if and when we add the Sig Penalty to shield extenders, which will be most affected? Will it be the struggling and perpetually squishy MinScout? Or will it be the best wiggle-wiggler Assault Lite has to offer? PS: In all seriousness, I don't know how we can fix CalScout Assault Lite without detrimentally impacting the MinScout. Very much open to ideas and suggestions. Encourage people to stop tanking their Scout in any fashion aside from Sig Tanking. Seriously, if armor mods are slowing them down for movement as well as strafe speed and shield mods make them light up like the fourth of July for everyone on the enemy team they'll shy away from fitting their Scouts like that or they'll move up to Assaults/Logis. Combine this with a leveling of the playing field for EWAR and now you have Scouts that are more easily found (unless they fit damps) or stick out like sore thumbs (if they fit shield mods). Put the scenario into the proper context and it become clear. Right now, most everyone is thinking about how this change would work with current EWAR, you need to look at it as though the new EWAR proposals are the "current" state of affairs. Gò¡Gê¬Gò«(Gùú_Gùó)Gò¡Gê¬Gò«
RedPencil Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 140	Posted - 2014.11.20 20:01:00 - [197] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Extenders and Armor Plates are obviously the focus here, and Reactives and Ferroscales may be omitted in the first pass. - Com Extender + 66 HP - Com Reactives + 60 HP - Com Ferroscales + 75 HP To be fare, If you include shield extend, CCP must add penalty on Reactives and Ferroscales too. Beware Paper cut M[;..;]M
Kensai Dragon Dust University Ivy League 96	Posted - 2014.11.20 20:09:00 - [198] - Quote My vote is for increased hitbox for shields. Let the increase be 3/4.5/6%, similar to armor plates speed penalties. The effect would be marginal until you really start to brick tank shields. Five complex shields? Now you're really struggling to take cover. Along with this, shields should get a slight buff to bring them in line with ferroscale plates.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2242	Posted - 2014.11.20 20:12:00 - [199] - Quote Kensai Dragon wrote: My vote is for increased hitbox for shields. Let the increase be 3/4.5/6%, similar to armor plates speed penalties. The effect would be marginal until you really start to brick tank shields. Five complex shields? Now you're really struggling to take cover. Along with this, shields should get a slight buff to bring them in line with ferroscale plates. This would just encourage spray and pray play. "Haha, I don't even really need to hit you to kill you!!" Hitbox increase is a can of worms that will bite us in the ass if it is opened. Gò¡Gê¬Gò«(Gùú_Gùó)Gò¡Gê¬Gò«
Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 495	Posted - 2014.11.20 20:27:00 - [200] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Vitantur Nothus wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Armor plates should have a strafe penalty. Shield extenders should have a signature profile penalty. I recall in your EWAR thread you suggested giving HP modules a dampening penalty. Neither shields nor armor should have both of these penalties. Shields and armor should have important differences that makes one preferably for one type of playstyle than others, giving them both the same penalties diminishes their differences, and thus diminishes gameplay diversity. There is but one small problem with this particular drawback. Perhaps two. There can be no question that the CalScout's hitbox is imbued with special magics. On paper, the MinScout is the superior strafer; in game, however, his best effort at bulletweaving cannot touch the proficiency five gyrations of the CalScout. The CalScout - Slap on a couple Reactives, add a Fine Rifle and become Saxonmish vs Noobs. The MinScout - Better run straight damps in your lows if you ever want to stab anything. So if and when we add the Sig Penalty to shield extenders, which will be most affected? Will it be the struggling and perpetually squishy MinScout? Or will it be the best wiggle-wiggler Assault Lite has to offer? PS: In all seriousness, I don't know how we can fix CalScout Assault Lite without detrimentally impacting the MinScout. Very much open to ideas and suggestions. Encourage people to stop tanking their Scout in any fashion aside from Sig Tanking. Looking around, I see 1000HP on Adv Meds, even more HP on Heavies, and don't get me started on HMG Heavy Blob nonsense. I gotta say, it doesn't look like we'll have very good odds of successful takedown running without shield buffer. But I'm all for giving it a go. If it can work, we'll make it work. But if it doesn't work, Scouts will be back here asking for sharper tools and a fair shake.

Kensai Dragon Dust University Ivy League 97	Posted - 2014.11.20 20:28:00 - [201] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Kensai Dragon wrote: My vote is for increased hitbox for shields. Let the increase be 3/4.5/6%, similar to armor plates speed penalties. The effect would be marginal until you really start to brick tank shields. Five complex shields? Now you're really struggling to take cover. Along with this, shields should get a slight buff to bring them in line with ferroscale plates. This would just encourage spray and pray play. "Haha, I don't even really need to hit you to kill you!!" Hitbox increase is a can of worms that will bite us in the ass if it is opened. Maybe. If so then I point back to inertia. That would help/solve the wiggle strafe issues and require more than just 'button smash' mentality on the joystick. If/when that ever comes to pass then all additional HP lateral speed penalties would become unnecessary.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5190	Posted - 2014.11.20 20:32:00 - [202] - Quote Inertia is theoretically on the list, just never had a dev grace the topic with a response. Not even a "we're looking at trying to do this." EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Benjamin Ciscko Fatal Absolution 3482	Posted - 2014.11.20 20:48:00 - [203] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: Ripley Riley wrote: HP modules, as in, shield extenders and armor plating? im assuming only for armor plates, as extenders dont have movement penalties extender stacking is also under the scope why? im curious. what problem do they cause? EDIT: if you were to add a penalty to extenders, the only one that makes sense coming from EVE is a penalty to scan profile. But if you do that then shield tanking would need to be looked at again. i can already think of a bunch of issues with that, especially for caldari. but that could be easily fixed with adding a bonus to regulators to offset the extender penalty. Caldari scout OPness, might someone say I wreck Cal slayers scout all day in my Min Assault! Fatal Absolution Director
XxGhazbaranxX Endless Hatred 1882	Posted - 2014.11.20 20:52:00 - [204] - Quote This is a great Idea Rattati. Keep it coming. Most of you are ideas are badass. Plasma Cannon Advocate [SUPPORT BREACH SHTGUN CHANGES][2]
Blueprint For Murder Immortal Guides 369	Posted - 2014.11.20 20:53:00 - [205] - Quote I don't like the idea of kinkats increasing strife speed as scout hp doesn't come into play that often when I am playing or at least I don't notice it, but hit detection does it worries me that all scouts will be able to become untouchable like the ck scout often is. Could you go more into detail about the total mass penalties for heavies? On a side note can assaults get a jump buff. The Impossible Dream-Wizard Talk @MMoMerc
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 516	Posted - 2014.11.20 21:04:00 - [206] - Quote Blueprint For Murder wrote: I don't like the idea of kinkats increasing strife speed as scout hp doesn't come into play that often when I am playing or at least I don't notice it, but hit detection does it worries me that all scouts will be able to become untouchable like the ck scout often is. Could you go more into detail about the total mass penalties for heavies? On a side note can assaults get a jump buff. +1 for lets see some numbers and buffing jumps for mediums. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
tander09 KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 186	Posted - 2014.11.20 21:08:00 - [207] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: Blueprint For Murder wrote: I don't like the idea of kinkats increasing strife speed as scout hp doesn't come into play that often when I am playing or at least I don't notice it, but hit detection does it worries me that all scouts will be able to become untouchable like the ck scout often is. Could you go more into detail about the total mass penalties for heavies? On a side note can assaults get a jump buff. +1 for lets see some numbers and buffing jumps for mediums. we assaults are not hoovies! "The feud shall not be forgotten. But those who forget, never witnessed the true horror." -Nexle Skimfuse
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2244	Posted - 2014.11.20 21:29:00 - [208] - Quote Vitantur Nothus wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Encourage people to stop tanking their Scout in any fashion aside from Sig Tanking. Looking around, I see 1000HP on Adv Meds and even more on Heavies. Don't get me started on the Heavy+Logi Blob nonsense. I'm all for these changes, but I gotta say, I don't think MinScouts (or any other) will have very good odds if forced to run without shield buffer. Can't shoot what you can't see. Which brings me back to Sig Tanking. Gò¡Gê¬Gò«(Gùú_Gùó)Gò¡Gê¬Gò«
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5191	Posted - 2014.11.20 21:37:00 - [209] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: Ripley Riley wrote: HP modules, as in, shield extenders and armor plating? im assuming only for armor plates, as extenders dont have movement penalties extender stacking is also under the scope Can the drawback for Extenders be a larger hit box for shields? Movement penalties don't make sense for Shield Extenders, and the big problem with Caldari Scouts is how small their hit box is, so how about when you extend your shields, it makes them bigger, as in easier to hit? No. The drawback cannot be a bigger hitbox EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Benjamin Ciscko Fatal Absolution 3482	Posted - 2014.11.20 21:43:00 - [210] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Wiggling the stick... so accurate. Strafe dodging is the equivalent of playing mortal kombat and claiming that button mashing to victory requires skill. Do you even counter strafe brah. Fatal Absolution Director



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page