|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2433
   |
Posted - 2014.12.05 16:31:00 -
[1] - Quote
Spectral Clone wrote:I think you could incorporate the Titanfall model, where vehicles and AV are both readily available on the battlefield. Doing that will increase the immersion of this game by a factor of 42.
Edit: To do this merge dropsuit and vehicle trees. Why should there be different trees?
CCP shouldn't incorporate anything that they're doing. Let CCP make their own road.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2433
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 16:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
I'm only a few pages down and the amount of grammatical errors is astounding. I'm having trouble reading it because it wasn't proofread before being posted. I'll probably make a few 6000-word replies copying and pasting stuff here with my thoughts on it.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2433
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 02:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
Figure 1-1
Vehicle Engineering is completely useless, as it only unlocks the mCRU. If it's wanted, all you need is level 1 and you have access to the only STD mCRU in the game. Electronics you only need to level 1, because enhanced and complex scanners eat into your HP too much.
With that said, it's more than 6mil unused SP.
It is true pilots are getting a bit tired of getting screwed over dozens of times and usually unjustly for the sole reason of infantry play.
This exactly. My role and the role many others want to play has constantly been marginalized and downgraded because we go too fast, have too much HP, cause AV infantry to have to reload, and are able to go behind cover (even though swarms still follow me around two corners), and can activate a NOS/afterburner to escape danger much faster. AV should be a deterrent, not an AV-beats-all solution. To draw a comparison, that's like throwing money at a problem that needs better leadership, not hoping that the current leadership gets better with time (this isn't a dig at CCP).
Figure 2-3
This is kinda terrible, as a scout LAV and recon LAV are redundant roles. They should be the fastest car in the game with the best eWar. Dunno the idea behind a ghost LAV, but it sounds like an SP sink for something that won't offer enough of a benefit over a scout LAV. The MAV and MTAC would fall under the Medium Vehicles skill book. The Logi LAV would obviously fall under Light Vehicle Op 3, as would the scout LAV. No idea what a Covert Speeder would be, as the quad in Planetside 2 can have a cloak on it, and cloaks tend to ruin any game. Also don't know how a VTOL would be introduced, as the controls would essentially be the same as the current dropship controls.
To simply allow one skill to unlock all of the raceGÇÖs vehicles for that class is a bit silly as will be allowing players to bypass the need to train lesser vehicles of that race to get used to the nuances that race has to offer when it comes to vehicle training.
No, it needs to be this way, while the racial vehicle skills could add passive bonuses to their respective hulls. If someone new to piloting wants to dive into the role, they should be able to see how each hull operates. They won't have the SP for a racial skill to have to unlock the hull. There's no reason they should continue to put their SP towards vehicles, while they're pigeonholed into using MLT vehicles for a long time.
Inversely, there are some drawbacks to this model: the first of which is the higher the tree grows, the more individualized the vehicles get, thus skill point investment which is expected to rise in multiplier in higher levels begins to explode rapidly, making the massive bulk of the skill tree at the end. (that end right there... ?)
Isn't this what EVE is all about? Training your skills over time to unlock better and more specialized hulls, modules and turrets? There should be incentive to invest more SP in a role, which is how it is with infantry skills.
Figure 2-4
This doesn't make sense to me. Probably because I don't play EVE, but Racial Veteran and Racial Mastery? I have no idea of the meaning behind those.
Figure 2-5
This works the best to me. The skills are where they should be, though the visual looks a little weird, probably because you need a bigger graphic to make everything look better.
There have been calls to return the original skill tree as was in 1.8.
Chromosome was the best for vehicles, as far as I'm concerned, though I did agree that turret damage had to be reigned in. For that iteration of the game, a Soma with three damage mods and a Compressed Particle Cannon could melt a Marauder in two shots. That absolutely had to be fixed. For that build, AV had an ideal role as a deterrent, whereas vehicles were the best platform for taking each other on GÇô high damage, better maneuverability and more HP. (notification to infantry GÇô you are the reason this is being done again. We've had multiple rebuilds of vehicles and AV because all you did was complain about them, going so far as to say a tank shouldn't be its own best counter. Vehicle play should not be balanced around you, nor should it balanced around pub matches. It should be balanced around FW and PC, which is what CCP wants players to strive for. It could make PC viable again, instead of having the Blue Donut, in which a select few corps decide how many districts you're allowed to own. Competition breeds ingenuity and development, and as I said, it should be balanced around pubs. You don't want to squad with a dedicated tanker? That's your own decision. If nobody on your team is a high-SP pilot, that's just the luck of the draw, and you're out of luck. )You could fit a tank out for high damage, or high HP and mitigation. We had far more modules as well, such as passive shield rechargers for vehicles, and the damage control modules which acted as extra hardeners; nanofiber chassis modules which made a hull faster, but reduced the overall armor. We had turret coolants which allowed us to fire the railgun and blaster for longer before overheating. We also had passive resistance plates, which didn't offer as much resistance, but they were a module we didn't have to activate. I had Madrugar fits where the only module I didn't have to activate was the plate I put on it. I had to worry about an active NOS, active scanner, an active repairer and three active hardeners. A PRO logi only has to worry about 4 equipment slots (minus the Amarr), but they don't need those equipment slots to make sure they don't die. They just need to move to gain HP.
Figure 2-6
This is a good model, which provides a better view of the skill tree than the previous one. The Specialist LAV skill and Specialist Dropship skills should be unlocked at level 3, and the specific dropships should be at level 3 as well.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2433
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 03:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
Just no. This isn't about what you want, it's about what we want. We make the reasonable suggestions, then compromise with you. It doesn't go infantry decides what happens, and pilots are left in the dark until the finalized changes are published.
We can be reasoned with. Problem is, as we've said so much it turns us blue in the face, you all want only your opinion to matter. I've seen people say on here more than once, that because infantry is such a large percentage of the playerbase, that we shouldn't be listened to at all. That's not compromise, that's a dictatorship, with us pilots getting told monthly that our chocolate rations are being raised to 15 grams, which is the same thing said every month. This has to stop, and it has to stop now.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2433
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 03:15:00 -
[5] - Quote
TechMechMeds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:I'm only a few pages down and the amount of grammatical errors is astounding. I'm having trouble reading it because it wasn't proofread before being posted. I'll probably make a few 6000-word replies copying and pasting stuff here with my thoughts on it. You should apply to Goonfeet.
I'm happy with R*S.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2433
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 03:24:00 -
[6] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Guys guys guys I am not going to remove any ideas; feel free to add your own but everyone's ideas should be brought in and given merits.
I will add pros or cons as they're pointed out in each idea though. TY for your continued participation its a big document and its alot of information for me to generate and process.
Also if you have any links you want to contribute to the overall discussion let me at it.
Dude, CCP has redone vehicles a number of times because the people on here complain about them. It's about time that people realize that the problem doesn't lie with the vehicles. It lies with the people throwing non-AV grenades at them, firing mass drivers, rifles, MLT swarms, sniping them that complain. Those that do have AV, go at it solo. Half the time they're not that far away, out in the open. I killed some guy 4 or 5 times earlier that was trying to swarm my tank; how and why? Because he was out in the open, obviously terrible positioning. That's one of many examples.
Seriously, you and CCP need to stop considering infantry's position first, second and third with us pilots being a distant last. With Rattati at the helm with this, he needs to listen to us first. We're not going to be asking for MLT tanks with 10,000 base HP, upgradable to 20,000. We want more mods, one more slot in our HP tank, and our CPU/PG/armor and shield skills back. The bugged rail needed to be fixed a long time ago. Missiles are in a really good place, but I'm sick of firing 2, 4 or 5 missiles instead of all 12 when I hold my R1 down.
I'm not being a jerk, I'm just saying what's on my mind, as well as saying what ought to be done. Pilots first, then compromise with infantry. Again, infantry has been the sole decision maker on vehicles for too long. It's time for you guys and CCP to engage us, the pilots, and ask us what we want, and then we compromise.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2433
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 03:28:00 -
[7] - Quote
And as far as the new vehicles, the full, finished models are already done. All that needs to be done is find the code, tweak it a little bit for everything, then hotfix it back into the game.
Also, vehicles are probably designed for when this was a closed beta, back when we had skirmish 1.0. You could hack or destroy the objectives, then move forward to the next set. Tanks were great for that back then, because even though the objectives had a ton of HP, you could destroy them with a few tanks. That's probably what they were designed around, and since we have entirely different modes, this is why they need a complete ground-up rebuild (again), but this time with the current state of the game in mind, rather than a build that's 3 years old and no longer around.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2433
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 05:07:00 -
[8] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Guys guys guys I am not going to remove any ideas; feel free to add your own but everyone's ideas should be brought in and given merits.
I will add pros or cons as they're pointed out in each idea though. TY for your continued participation its a big document and its alot of information for me to generate and process.
Also if you have any links you want to contribute to the overall discussion let me at it. Dude, CCP has redone vehicles a number of times because the people on here complain about them. It's about time that people realize that the problem doesn't lie with the vehicles. It lies with the people throwing non-AV grenades at them, firing mass drivers, rifles, MLT swarms, sniping them that complain. Those that do have AV, go at it solo. Half the time they're not that far away, out in the open. I killed some guy 4 or 5 times earlier that was trying to swarm my tank; how and why? Because he was out in the open, obviously terrible positioning. That's one of many examples. Seriously, you and CCP need to stop considering infantry's position first, second and third with us pilots being a distant last. With Rattati at the helm with this, he needs to listen to us first. We're not going to be asking for MLT tanks with 10,000 base HP, upgradable to 20,000. We want more mods, one more slot in our HP tank, and our CPU/PG/armor and shield skills back. The bugged rail needed to be fixed a long time ago. Missiles are in a really good place, but I'm sick of firing 2, 4 or 5 missiles instead of all 12 when I hold my R1 down. I'm not being a jerk, I'm just saying what's on my mind, as well as saying what ought to be done. Pilots first, then compromise with infantry. Again, infantry has been the sole decision maker on vehicles for too long. It's time for you guys and CCP to engage us, the pilots, and ask us what we want, and then we compromise. I know you're not being a jerk because you gave me a time and place and your share of your information you want to be heard. I must not be a jerk and accept your feedback as well as anyone who was serious enough to put the effort into it. I need to put effort into getting on the document as well. CPM is committed and we just need to convince CCP a time and place and plan of attack to take up on when or how we all get there. CCP Rattati wants to do it but he needs to be armed on how it should be properly done so we wont have to continue to waste months upon precious months of hotfixes trying to resolve the issue; again...
I've said several times, he could squad with pilots. Me, Taka, Snugglz... there's many more, but those are the ones I play with. Me and Taka are in DevHangout, Snugglz would probably join it, then we could talk to him, share our experiences with him, maybe he'll take notes, and we could get on the road to recovery as far as vehicles are concerned.
We could drop vehicles for him to try, to get a feel for what they're like - PC-quality (not that there's many viable fits) tanks and Pythons.
Also, I'd love to know the deciding force to make the railgun to -10% to shield/+ 10% to armor...
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2439
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 18:24:00 -
[9] - Quote
Greiv Rabbah wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Guys guys guys... ...I'm not being a jerk, I'm just saying what's on my mind... I know you're not being a jerk...CPM is committed and ...CCP Rattati wants to do it... I've said several times, he could squad with pilots. Me, Taka, Snugglz... there's many more, but those are the ones I play with. Me and Taka are in DevHangout, Snugglz would probably join it, then we could talk to him, share our experiences with him, maybe he'll take notes, and we could get on the road to recovery as far as vehicles are concerned. We could drop vehicles for him to try, to get a feel for what they're like - PC-quality (not that there's many viable fits) tanks and Pythons. Also, I'd love to know the deciding force to make the railgun to -10% to shield/+ 10% to armor... Ok, spkr, you'reheading in the wrong direction here. Rattatti is busy as all get out trying to get 1.10 ready to deploy by, what Tuesday? That's why iws is doing this. This is what we elected the CPM for. They work with us when the devs are too busy, discussing the direction of the game, what could use to be reworked and how, and they give our feedback to the devs and help them work out a solution without having to waste precious dev time or only allowing one group or another to dictate things. Man, you want the devs to hear the pilots side of things for once... What do you even think this thread is for? This is step 1. Rattatti said he wants to bring back vehicles, establish vehicle parity, and make vehicles more fun and playable. The pilot role absolutely shouldnt be left in the dirt, thats why were here talking about this. So pilots need to speak up here and give all the useful info(let's try to be more constructive than"chromosome was the best " though; that's the immediate response to everything lol) I feel, spkr, that you're going way in the wrong direction by trying to drag rattatti on missions while he's hard at work. Instead drag your pilot friends here so they all get their feedback in where it belongs bc trust, what's said here will get to rattatti shortly. Also please try to keep in mind that while rattatti does love playing this game, he also has a job to do. I hate to be the bearer of bad news yo but game development is a lot harder and more demanding work than ppl on this game realize and that's ridiculous bc this game in particular is a massive and unprecedented undertaking. Yet when the devs are working their asses off ppl act like they're just too lazy to play the game and see what's wrong with vehicles, well he's not. He's working hard, he doesn't have time to play games right now, and the pilots of dust have a couple years on him experiencing firsthand what is and what has been right and wrong about vehicles in dust. There's nuances plain as day to you that he probably wouldn't notice because its not what he's doing day in and day out. Man works for a living, this thread is here to help the dev team do their jobs. Please insert feedback
You make it sound as if I want Rattati to stop with 1.10 and start on vehicles immediately.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2439
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 00:45:00 -
[10] - Quote
Greiv Rabbah wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:You make it sound as if I want Rattati to stop with 1.10 and start on vehicles immediately. Sry about that, I hadn'tmeant to. I was trying to encourage you to bring people here to give feedback. Iws needs iNFO he can give to rattata in order for vehicles to get where they ought to be
Once he makes the thread, they'll all show up.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2441
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 08:16:00 -
[11] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:http://i.imgur.com/7AZItRX.gif
Brings back memories doesnt it? I have to generate a few more to get a point across.
before you ask about why gallente?
Gallente vehicles have convenient animation targets on them. Y'know what that little Gif reminded me of? 6375 Armour Madrugars!
The Bolas rendering 200m away from the drop point on the small 5 point map, crashing into the girders half-wrecking the thing, then dropping it from a mile high and subsequently wasting the tank.
I miss the days when fitting 7000 armor on a Maddy was easy, because you still had a lot of room to fit modules.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2441
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 08:18:00 -
[12] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Okay the second portion is done here comes the hardest one redoing vehicles from the ground up. Give me a moment as this will take time to draft up some icons and gifs even if needed.
Where's the second portion? You just updated the Google doc?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2442
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 08:44:00 -
[13] - Quote
Did you intentionally leave "Spkr4theDead's extended feedback" blank? Once you collate everything, I could write quite a lot about it. It would probably take up 5 whole replies. As it is, the first part took two whole replies, I imagine you're going to write a lot more.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
| |
|