DUST Search - [REQUEST] Balance Design Questions about Vehicles

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[REQUEST] Balance Design Questions about Vehicles

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 734	Posted - 2014.11.27 05:46:00 - [1] - Quote Hey CCP Rattati, First, thanks again for the hard work. It is obviously well appreciated, regardless of how the community takes the changes that are being made. Second, I understand that we are currently in an "Dropsuit Rebuilding" period as evidenced by the volume of dropsuit-centric tweaks planned for the near and not-so-near future. However, while I truly appreciate these changes and look forward to seeing them in game, I think that vehicles have been largely excluded from the same level of balancing effort for quite some time. I firmly believe that vehicles should be the next set of assets to improve on. To this end, I have a few questions about your vision on the roles that vehicles should play on the battlefield. Furthermore, I'd love to hear any ideas you have on how to make vehicle combat more engaging in the future. My questions are the following: What should the main objectives of a LAV/Tank/Dropship/ADS be? Currently, the roles of vehicles heavily overlap with the roles of infantry. Besides for taking objectives, vehicles can do most things that infantry can do with increased efficiency. Although recent changes to the dispersion mechanics of the large blaster turret has assuaged that problem slightly, it seems to be more of a "band-aid" fix to the larger problem - vehicles do not have their own objectives. When I say objectives, I mean some type of battle-critical role that are best done with vehicles. One suggestion that I have - a sentiment that seems to be shared with some others - is to turn tanks into heavy ordinance machines with high damage, low RoF rounds. Personally, I believe that HAVs should have their large turret and hulls heavily balanced around killing other vehicles - so much so in the former that they could not be used effectively to fight infantry. In exchange, small turrets should be heavily balanced around killing infantry - so much so that they are almost non-effective against other large vehicles. In this way I think that vehicles would be have their own objective that could not be done without them (take out enemy vehicles), but could be fitted to help out infantry in their primary goal. This would mirror the roles of infantry itself - primarily used to capture points, but able to be fitted to aid in the destruction of vehicles. What are your thoughts on the matter? What are some of your objectives for improving vehicle combat, in order of importance? It was very helpful when you listed the things that the community could and could not expect from changes to the EWAR system, and allowed us to give better feedback. More importantly, it allowed us to manage expectations. I think that something similar for vehicles would be much appreciated. I have seen your posts on including a lock-on warning for dropships - a change that I predict to be much appreciated - but I would like to know if you have any other thoughts on how to improve the experience. In addition, I would like to know what rank they have on the "Things to do" list for vehicles. Some common suggestions are an improvement to the small turret interface, particularly for dropships and LAVs, as well as some counter-measures or some form of AV deterrence. To the best of your knowledge, will vehicles be balanced around the tools we have or with placeholders for racial parity? I understand that this is a tough question that many would try to hold you to, so you can answer this at your discretion. I would just like to know if changes will be for how vehicles react to current forms of AV, if we should expect to see some return of the old vehicle modules and tanks, or if we can hope for some placeholders for racial parity As always, your response is appreciated. Thanks in advance, and I hope to hear from you soon. Closed Beta Vet (E3 Build), Former PFBHz Best Corps Battled (Personally): Imperfects, TeamPlayers, Hellstorm
Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 735	Posted - 2014.11.27 06:54:00 - [2] - Quote We're thinking alike Rattati... Closed Beta Vet (E3 Build), Former PFBHz Best Corps Battled (Personally): Imperfects, TeamPlayers, Hellstorm
Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 738	Posted - 2014.11.27 16:32:00 - [3] - Quote bump Closed Beta Vet (E3 Build), Former PFBHz Best Corps Battled (Personally): Imperfects, TeamPlayers, Hellstorm
Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 745	Posted - 2014.11.28 02:07:00 - [4] - Quote bumping Closed Beta Vet (E3 Build), Former PFBHz Best Corps Battled (Personally): Imperfects, TeamPlayers, Hellstorm
Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 745	Posted - 2014.11.28 06:25:00 - [5] - Quote Bumping for Dev feedback Closed Beta Vet (E3 Build), Former PFBHz Best Corps Battled (Personally): Imperfects, TeamPlayers, Hellstorm
Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 747	Posted - 2014.11.28 07:01:00 - [6] - Quote Bumping for Dev feedback Closed Beta Vet (E3 Build), Former PFBHz Best Corps Battled (Personally): Imperfects, TeamPlayers, Hellstorm
Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 753	Posted - 2014.11.28 16:54:00 - [7] - Quote Looking for a response from Rattati or CPM Closed Beta Vet (E3 Build), Former PFBHz Best Corps Battled (Personally): Imperfects, TeamPlayers, Hellstorm
Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 754	Posted - 2014.11.29 01:36:00 - [8] - Quote Still hoping for some feedback. Bump Closed Beta Vet (E3 Build), Former PFBHz Best Corps Battled (Personally): Imperfects, TeamPlayers, Hellstorm
Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 755	Posted - 2014.11.29 17:38:00 - [9] - Quote Closed Beta Vet (E3 Build), Former PFBHz Best Corps Battled (Personally): Imperfects, TeamPlayers, Hellstorm
Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 756	Posted - 2014.11.29 22:19:00 - [10] - Quote Piercing Serenity wrote: Closed Beta Vet (E3 Build), Former PFBHz Best Corps Battled (Personally): Imperfects, TeamPlayers, Hellstorm

Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 757	Posted - 2014.11.30 04:28:00 - [11] - Quote bump for luck Closed Beta Vet (E3 Build), Former PFBHz Best Corps Battled (Personally): Imperfects, TeamPlayers, Hellstorm
Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 758	Posted - 2014.11.30 17:19:00 - [12] - Quote Thank you very much for the reply Rattati Closed Beta Vet (E3 Build), Former PFBHz Best Corps Battled (Personally): Imperfects, TeamPlayers, Hellstorm
Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 762	Posted - 2014.12.03 20:05:00 - [13] - Quote Lynn Beck wrote: what is with people thinking tanks need to be anti-tank? that's like saying "the only thing that should EVER kill a Logistics is a Logistics." Or Assault/Assault, or Commando/Commando. If tanks are only there to be anti-vehicle, then what purpose would the AV Lav have? What purpose would any tank have then? Not to mention that Tanks can't be Anti DS, DS pilots complain to high hell when you can shoot them. Maybe if we could have some elements of the map(barriers, those humongous trucks) be destructable/repairable, and then having Tanks balanced for taking those out, then we could say Tanks are the heavy ordnance. In the meantime, Tanks are your open ground slaughtering machines. Give them something else to do that isn't entirely dependent on someone else wanting to kill you with non-AV, and we'll have moar tanks to kill This (Bolded) was another kind of objective for tanks that I thought could bring about a good change for vehicles. I failed to add it to the OP Closed Beta Vet (E3 Build), Former PFBHz Best Corps Battled (Personally): Imperfects, TeamPlayers, Hellstorm

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.