DUST Search - [REQUEST] Balance Design Questions about Vehicles

Ace Boone wrote:

True Adamance wrote:

Meeko Fent wrote:

I feel, in the vein of vehicles needing special objectives, that perhaps there should be more installations that vehicles find useful.

Things like Rep stations just for vehicles, w/ Supply depots being just for infantry resupply, or Shield Generators that are too hard for infantry to kill, but vehicles could handle, that block OBs from hitting. Etc, etc, etc.

Currently vehicles are very much designed around infantry roles, which is kinda a broken idea.

Sadly, vehicles are designed (or were) around the huge maps of old (IDK if there still there, but zoom all the way out on the map screen), where their their speed would be useful for getting to various obbys, and would be useful for engaging other vehicles at range.

Currently one of the things gimping HAV (maybe other vehicles ) and the insanely high EHP turrets. Fighting one of those is like going up against an enemy tank....... what genius decided that effectually double the EHP of an installation that infantry don't even bother to defend was a good idea?

it was a dumb idea when the first guy suggested it and it's still dumb.

They were free WP and good for the occasional kill. Now they're ridiculously tanked out useless installations that are still no more than good for the occasional kill. All they did was make it harder for ADS pilots.

I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this. Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Slave of MORTE Eyniletti Rangers Minmatar Republic 119	Posted - 2014.12.01 18:14:00 - [61] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Kain Spero wrote: Any possibility that quick exiting and then reentry will be addressed? Even if slower the LLAV could make certain aspects of current gameplay even worse. Any hope that the repair tools for vehicles could be moved to a turret? The repair functions and the ability to lock on were downright annoying to work with and solo spider tanking really doesn't need to be a thing again. Would love to see a tank that has no large turret but instead 6 seats. I have asked the team to see if we can add a "hold to exit", much like a hacking bar. What about the repair turrets logi functioning vehicles had terrible locking mechanisms..they were hardly use full ..i would love having logi vehicles back bit only if they made the reppers better ..easier to use Yet another slave of Mortedeamor
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 549	Posted - 2014.12.02 13:02:00 - [62] - Quote Can we get an LAV with four additional back seats instead of the pitiful turret? I want more people to headshot out of vehicles. It would also be hilarious to have an entire squad drive around in an LAV.
The-Errorist SVER True Blood 909	Posted - 2014.12.02 17:29:00 - [63] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Thanks for the topic. We will indeed be taking a look at vehicles, and I agree it's their time now. Right now I am hoping to be able to do so in December, with a hotfix. I will certainly be asking the CPM and Community for all the feedback necessary. ... Does this mean you'll finally get to addressing this issue you said was "on the list" of things to do around 5 months ago? MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill. http://vimeo.com/93181621
Skybladev2 LUX AETERNA INT RUST415 135	Posted - 2014.12.03 09:30:00 - [64] - Quote Tweaksz wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Marauders (Mammoth tanks) I know of a friend who would definitely return if marauders made a comeback. I hope marauders will cost higher, than ADS? <[^_^]>
Lynn Beck Delta Vanguard 6 2312	Posted - 2014.12.03 10:00:00 - [65] - Quote 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 General John Ripper -BAM! I'm Emeril Lagasse. This message was approved by the 'Nobody Loved You' Foundation'
Piercing Serenity PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies 762	Posted - 2014.12.03 20:05:00 - [66] - 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
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15395	Posted - 2014.12.03 20:16:00 - [67] - 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 Because when you look at a tanks fundamental design, both IRL, and in almost all forms of sci fi media, video games, film, etc...... what do tanks fire? Heavy Cannon Shells. I'm not saying such as shell should not have AoE splash damage to allow a tank to bombard a static position but no HAV should have the equivalent of a .50 Cal Gun as its main cannon. Moreover this Blasters should not have the lowest DPS of all the current turrets in the game. I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this. Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
Ace Boone Capital Acquisitions LLC 520	Posted - 2014.12.03 20:33:00 - [68] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Meeko Fent wrote: I feel, in the vein of vehicles needing special objectives, that perhaps there should be more installations that vehicles find useful. Things like Rep stations just for vehicles, w/ Supply depots being just for infantry resupply, or Shield Generators that are too hard for infantry to kill, but vehicles could handle, that block OBs from hitting. Etc, etc, etc. Currently vehicles are very much designed around infantry roles, which is kinda a broken idea. Sadly, vehicles are designed (or were) around the huge maps of old (IDK if there still there, but zoom all the way out on the map screen), where their their speed would be useful for getting to various obbys, and would be useful for engaging other vehicles at range. Currently one of the things gimping HAV (maybe other vehicles ) and the insanely high EHP turrets. Fighting one of those is like going up against an enemy tank....... what genius decided that effectually double the EHP of an installation that infantry don't even bother to defend was a good idea? it was a dumb idea when the first guy suggested it and it's still dumb. They were free WP and good for the occasional kill. Now they're ridiculously tanked out useless installations that are still no more than good for the occasional kill. All they did was make it harder for ADS pilots. Only loyal to the republic.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15397	Posted - 2014.12.03 20:55:00 - [69] - Quote Ace Boone wrote: True Adamance wrote: Meeko Fent wrote: I feel, in the vein of vehicles needing special objectives, that perhaps there should be more installations that vehicles find useful. Things like Rep stations just for vehicles, w/ Supply depots being just for infantry resupply, or Shield Generators that are too hard for infantry to kill, but vehicles could handle, that block OBs from hitting. Etc, etc, etc. Currently vehicles are very much designed around infantry roles, which is kinda a broken idea. Sadly, vehicles are designed (or were) around the huge maps of old (IDK if there still there, but zoom all the way out on the map screen), where their their speed would be useful for getting to various obbys, and would be useful for engaging other vehicles at range. Currently one of the things gimping HAV (maybe other vehicles ) and the insanely high EHP turrets. Fighting one of those is like going up against an enemy tank....... what genius decided that effectually double the EHP of an installation that infantry don't even bother to defend was a good idea? it was a dumb idea when the first guy suggested it and it's still dumb. They were free WP and good for the occasional kill. Now they're ridiculously tanked out useless installations that are still no more than good for the occasional kill. All they did was make it harder for ADS pilots. The easy fix to that was buff EHP between 10-20% to allow turrets to fire of that extra shot or two and reduce the WP gains for destroyed turrets down to around 25-50WP. I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this. Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
La Lore Sleipnier TraSTraS x DeTraS 232	Posted - 2014.12.04 02:48:00 - [70] - Quote Good news!! Thanks guys!! Thanks CCP! Well in my opinion afterburners (dropship and ground vehicules) should be removed, then the survive option will be in the pilot skill (vehicule pilot not only for dropships) not the afterburner boosting to escape. And maybe return the swarms old, more missile per shot and adjust the damage per missile. MAV to infantry transport is a good thing to people who don't know how to fly a dropship but need trasport their team. Soy una hoja al viento a merced de los elementos... https://dust514.com/recruit/MfQjol/

Astr0 Knot Algintal Core Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2014.12.05 05:31:00 - [71] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: It takes 3 clips from an ADS with XT-1 to destroy a railgun installation. I don't know if CCP know this but it takes a long long long time to shoot off 3 clips (24 rounds) even with python 5. Also, factor this in with how everybody and their mother has proto AV, you have a higher chance of dying before killing this 1 out of the many redline turrets. Since it appears that real development is happening on Dust again, maybe it's time for a new "integration" mechanic. Maybe this would be a good place to implement "Medium" orbital bombardment mechanics. They are only able to target instillationsand maybe large slow vehicles? (Medium to long, non-reducible lock on time?) Then, they could create another condition, where you can drop "Large" orbital bombardments on an enemy MCC by some intricate mechanics to end a battle faster. Assuming the mechanic requires a heavy amount of map control and skill, it could be very infrequently available and extremely satisfying to see it go off. Especially if they make it flashy enough! Strategic strikes > random aoe This would also call for some economy integration too. I would suggest a plex, aurum or some other new monetary device that can be exchanged for plex/aurum to be contractible to Dust from EvE and visa versa. That way nobody breaks anyone's economy by dumping basically unlimited isk into something. CCP gets moneys, and potentially more dust players have access to monetized content. (depending on the price of course) CCP Rattati wrote: Turret elevation This! If you limit the downward pitch of HAV turrets, their effectiveness against infantry would be greatly reduced while also becoming much more susceptible to them. Easy fix, big payoff. You don't need to completely remove a tank's ability to kill infantry, just make it much hard and less likely. Maybe allow hacking to temporarily disable them completely or just one of their functions (mobility,offense,defense)?


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

-BAM! I'm Emeril Lagasse.