|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
Daddrobit
You Can Call Me Daddy
1177
   |
Posted - 2014.12.10 00:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
A note or two on the TAR.
As someone who uses the TAR as it is, do not raise the TAR to 30 bullets, if you feel the need to increase it, only take it to 20-22, any more and I fear it will be too much. I know this is fairly anecdotal evidence, but I've been playing with the TAR more and more recently, and I feel it is already incredibly strong if just underused. While I'm usually around a 20-25 kill per game player, the last few days I've used the TAR in I've been able to heap on games between 37-48 kills.
Second, can we get a standard version of this, the ARR, ACR, and the AScR? Since you're trying to fill out the LP store ass well, would it be too much to ask for these in the general store? It just seems odd to have a militia variant, but then be forced to wait until advanced to use it again, not to mention the price markup.
Also, you mentioned that you didn't want to change HMG headshots as it took away from skill. To be quite frank, the HMG is more than just a little forgiving when it comes to getting headshots.
Case in point.
That screen was taken at the exact moment Thunderbolt manage to 'earn his kill' through a headshot with his HMG from this video at the 7:19 minute mark. Look at where my head is in that reticule, it's on the very edge at the top right touching the very edge and it still gave him a headshot kill. Headshot with HMGs are easily boosted with just plain dumb luck since you don't actually gain anything from ADS-ing.
I'd say remove Headshot bonuses unless you are currently ADS-ing the HMG.
O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny
|
Daddrobit
You Can Call Me Daddy
1178
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 01:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Cat Merc wrote:
You don't seem to understand me.
I am all for vehicle weapons being primarily anti vehicle.
The problem is that he wants his own enclosed little box within DUST 514, vehicles will essentially fight their own battle without affecting anything else.
What's the point of that?
I'll say it again. We can melt all infantry, or vehicles can beat the hell out of each other. Choose one.
Problem is, that when there's only vehicles on one side, or the opposing vehicles refuse to fight after losing their initial tank or running back to recall, then they melt the infantry anyways.
O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny
|
Daddrobit
You Can Call Me Daddy
1186
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 03:32:00 -
[3] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Daddrobit wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Cat Merc wrote:
You don't seem to understand me.
I am all for vehicle weapons being primarily anti vehicle.
The problem is that he wants his own enclosed little box within DUST 514, vehicles will essentially fight their own battle without affecting anything else.
What's the point of that?
I'll say it again. We can melt all infantry, or vehicles can beat the hell out of each other. Choose one. Problem is, that when there's only vehicles on one side, or the opposing vehicles refuse to fight after losing their initial tank or running back to recall, then they melt the infantry anyways. So it should be balanced on the off chance that nobody on one team has access to a good tank? That's a terrible way to balance vehicles. It's the luck of the draw. If someone starts to protect their redline from the big bad wolf after losing one tank, then they have no business being in a tank in the first place. You can't balance vehicles around that.
You say it shouldn't be balanced around the chance that someone can't counter you, but then say it's the luck of the draw that lets you stomp the other team if there isn't an opposing tank and suddenly that's an ok way to balance?
No.
Speaking 100% on general game balance, in a scenario where two teams have equal numbers of potential actors able to attack one another, there should never be a situation where one actor has a powerful manner of play that is best countered by itself or otherwise requires the combined effort of more than one individual on the enemy team. That is not proper game balance.
And this applies to all gameplay, be it tanks, cloaky scouts, or murder taxi heavies. The best counter to any power play can never be itself and be considered balance.
O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny
|
Daddrobit
You Can Call Me Daddy
1187
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 03:55:00 -
[4] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Daddrobit wrote:blah blah But it's okay when it's 98% infantry doing the stomping, right?
An overwhelming majority of infantry doesn't stomp, they don't even have positive KDRs. Even on my most tanked suit, a GK0 assault with 857 hp and 50,000,000 SP boosting all aspects of infantry life, a militia assault rifle available for free to every Gallente toon, or 610 isk for everyone else, will take me down in less than two seconds if they can bead me. Faster if they aim for the head. Not to mention the plethora of one hit kill weapons.
Infantry is countered by literally everything bar AV nades, swarmers, and flux grenades.
It is a tiny fraction of percent the infantry community that is able to actually put up high kills and low to no deaths.
However there is the belief among a large portion of tanker community that demands, just by virtue of being in a tank and with no consideration to personal skill, that they deserve to be difficult to kill, often even by other tanks, while maintaining the ability to destroy infantry just by looking at them.
There is no balance to be had there.
O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny
|
Daddrobit
You Can Call Me Daddy
1187
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 04:11:00 -
[5] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Daddrobit wrote:
Problem is, that when there's only vehicles on one side, or the opposing vehicles refuse to fight after losing their initial tank or running back to recall, then they melt the infantry anyways.
So it should be balanced on the off chance that nobody on one team has access to a good tank? That's a terrible way to balance vehicles. It's the luck of the draw. If someone starts to protect their redline from the big bad wolf after losing one tank, then they have no business being in a tank in the first place. You can't balance vehicles around that.
You say it shouldn't be balanced around the chance that someone can't counter you, but then say it's the luck of the draw that lets you stomp the other team if there isn't an opposing tank and suddenly that's an ok way to balance?
No.
Speaking 100% on general game balance, in a scenario where two teams have equal numbers of potential actors able to attack one another, there should never be a situation where one actor has a powerful manner of play that is best countered by itself or otherwise requires the combined effort of more than one individual on the enemy team. That is not proper game balance.
And this applies to all gameplay, be it tanks, cloaky scouts, or murder taxi heavies. The best counter to any power play can never be itself and be considered balance. [/quote]
I won't start to talk too much about other games.....but I'll cite a number of games which are universally received as well made and that have vehicles that are able to counter multiple players at a time.
Battlefield 3-4
Starwars Battlefront 1-2
Planetside 2
At some point players have to realise that vehicle operators have to be give credit for what they do. For every infantry man players accept that can have 8/0, 16/0, 21/1, hell if you are Saxonmish upwards of 40/0 you have to accept vehicles pilots can do that as well.
However unlike in those games I am investing my personal economic resources (in game ISK) into the operation of these things.
The difference between Tanks and infantry is that..... Tanks will always be one of the best counters to tanks (doesn't matter if its the best of not) as modern tanks are designed to destroy...... other modern tanks.
Every infantry mounted heavy weapon will be a smaller calibre version of armaments that can be fitted on a tank.
[/quote]
In Battlefield, yes, vehicles are quite effective against infantry, but so is AV, and it is effective enough that single players are able to efficiently dispatch them. Between RPGs that pretty much instagib airial vehicles to C4 traps for tanks. The vehicles of Battlefield are far from hard to kill as solo infantry.
And in PS2, well there are a couple of issues with this comparison as the nearly unlimited number of players you can field means that even if the individual isn't terribly strong he can bring 20 of his friends in as AV on top of thee 30 other light assault players on the field to take on the enemy, it's like EVE in that regard, and it's gameplay that is unavailable to Dust. Even beyond that, infantry has MAX suits as well as the heavy assaults which are both formidable tank killers.
Never played the star wars franchise, can't comment on them.
As to high kill players, yeah, they exist. But for every one infantry that's able to put up 25-0 on a regular basis, there are literally 100s of others that struggle to even go positive. Tankers should be on a similar level, there should be no playstyle that simply allows clearly more success against its counters than any other.
The act of sitting in a tank should not make you difficult to kill or require more cooperation from an infantry standpoint when using weaponry designed to counter you.
O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny
|
Daddrobit
You Can Call Me Daddy
1187
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 04:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Daddrobit wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Daddrobit wrote:blah blah But it's okay when it's 98% infantry doing the stomping, right? An overwhelming majority of infantry doesn't stomp, they don't even have positive KDRs. Even on my most tanked suit, a GK0 assault with 857 hp and 50,000,000 SP boosting all aspects of infantry life, a militia assault rifle available for free to every Gallente toon, or 610 isk for everyone else, will take me down in less than two seconds if they can bead me. Faster if they aim for the head. Not to mention the plethora of one hit kill weapons. Infantry is countered by literally everything bar AV nades, swarmers, and flux grenades. It is a tiny fraction of percent the infantry community that is able to actually put up high kills and low to no deaths. However there is the belief among a large portion of tanker community that demands, just by virtue of being in a tank and with no consideration to personal skill, that they deserve to be difficult to kill, often even by other tanks, while maintaining the ability to destroy infantry just by looking at them. There is no balance to be had there. Comparitively a Sica fit with roughly less that 8 Million SP worth of investment can utterly annihilate a fully speced out Tanker, additionally I have probably Op 5 Swarm Launchers and I can utterly deny armour tanks a place on the map. I don't want HAV to over powered. There's no reward or value in driving an overpowered vehicle nor any semblance of fun. I just want HAV to have a place on the battlefield that is their own and that they can thrive in. Killing infantry is not that role. Killing other ground based vehicles and installations is IMO that role we should excel in, with at best a secondary or tertiary focus on being able to engage infantry.
Aye, I agree, if vehicles were specialized more for anti tank over infantry, then I don't think we'd be having this conversation. However that is not the case, tank shots are just as effective at taking out tanks as they are infantry, and that leaves infantry in a bad place getting one shotted by every rail, and blasters in 2-5.
If I could, I'd put resistances on infantry suits based on frame sizes to help mitigate that effect. Something like %75 %50 %25 and help actually place tanks into anti tank as a primary role.
But I can already see speakers text in my head now....
"That's stupid, I'm in a tank, I should tear apart infantry with my cannons..."
O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny
|
Daddrobit
You Can Call Me Daddy
1187
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 04:35:00 -
[7] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
While I can accept that it's probably true we'd not be having this discussion..... ain't no reason in hell an infantry ever deserve to live through a direct hit from a tank shell. Small turrets in Dust may or may not be equivalent to small turrets in EVE..... if they are you don't survive something that knocks starships out of the skies.
And that's exactly the mentality I was talking about earlier.
"I deserve to kill everything with relative ease and be difficult to kill in return because..."
Tankers should have the ability to go 40-0 through individual player skill just like saxonamish or whatever other high tier player, absolutely. But for every one tanker that does, there should be 100s of others that fall to their own lack of abilities just like the rest of the playerbase.
Sitting in a tank should not innately make you a good player.
O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny
|
Daddrobit
You Can Call Me Daddy
1189
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 04:50:00 -
[8] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Daddrobit wrote:
Aye, I agree, if vehicles were specialized more for anti tank over infantry, then I don't think we'd be having this conversation. However that is not the case, tank shots are just as effective at taking out tanks as they are infantry, and that leaves infantry in a bad place getting one shotted by every rail, and blasters in 2-5.
So we're not allowed to have good aim with a rail, is that it? That actually takes the cake for worst non-argument I've heard on here. Then CCP should remove aim assist, and actually make it so that it's more difficult to get headshots. Does that sound fair? If we're gonna get penalized for having great aim, then it's only fair that infantry should penalized for having good aim. Nevermind you're forgetting the word experience. There's a lot of us out there that have been doing this for a long, long time and have become very, very good.
Yes, I would love it if CCP took away aim assist from the game. I trust my own abilities to aim, I did very well for myself in the past, the less crutches the game has the better.
But if you don't think sitting in a vehicle with 5000+ health and resistance to 95% of everything in the game with an instant kill weapon isn't relying on a crutch, then you're delusional.
If you don't like infantry, go play World of Tanks.
O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny
|
Daddrobit
You Can Call Me Daddy
1189
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 05:02:00 -
[9] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Daddrobit wrote:True Adamance wrote:
While I can accept that it's probably true we'd not be having this discussion..... ain't no reason in hell an infantry ever deserve to live through a direct hit from a tank shell. Small turrets in Dust may or may not be equivalent to small turrets in EVE..... if they are you don't survive something that knocks starships out of the skies.
And that's exactly the mentality I was talking about earlier. "I deserve to kill everything with relative ease and be difficult to kill in return because..." Tankers should have the ability to go 40-0 through individual player skill just like saxonamish or whatever other high tier player, absolutely. But for every one tanker that does, there should be 100s of others that fall to their own lack of abilities just like the rest of the playerbase. Sitting in a tank should not innately make you a good player. That's what you don't get. The ones that have been doing it for a long time are able to rack up kills, just like a PRO assault with a dedicated logi can do. Why can't you draw the parallel? I've been piloting a tank for a long time, why can't my experience amount to a good number of kills in one match?
I'm not saying they shouldn't, in fact i literally said it in what you quoted that they should be able to kill like the top percentile of infantry. What I'm on about is that even bad players are made at least decent just because they're in a tank.
If a 30mil SP infantry player still manages to go 2-6 in a proto assault suit. Then the same player should do no better after putting 30 mil SP into tanks and sitting in a Madrugar. But they do and they shouldn't.
O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny
|
Daddrobit
You Can Call Me Daddy
1189
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 05:08:00 -
[10] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:message begins Rattati, what do you feel about the parallel that Dust turrets are essentially an extension of EVE turrets? I have someone on here complaining that an AR can't do damage to a tank, as well as complaining that infantry can get one-shot by a railgun. True Adamance posted something great on here, to the effect that a turret that can take down starships should have no problem taking down infantry. What do you think of that? Personally, I believe it sounds childish to complain about rifles not being able to damage a tank.
 I never once said that I feel ARs should do damage to tanks, I only stated that they don't. However for the sake of game balance, I do feel that infantry needs some recourse against untouchable instant death machines, especially with the possibility of real proto tanks making a comeback soon and our current AV only being balanced against basic. Not absolute resistance, but at least -something- to mitigate the damage.
O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny
|
|
|
Daddrobit
You Can Call Me Daddy
1217
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 19:32:00 -
[11] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Would any zoom changes on the burst assault rifle make it more competitive?
CCP Rattati wrote:ASCR needs love and the Burst, any users that want to get their weapons buffed?
As for the zoom on the Burst, I feel it actually needs to be reduced. As it is now with the TAR level of zoom, it gives a false sense that it's effective at the range it portrays when in reality when you fire on someone, it barely pings their shields.
Other than that, I believe that adding more bullets to the burst isn't necessarily the answer. Adding more per burst seems like it would just make it unwieldy. Without a ROF increase, people are just going to keep dodging half the burst and longer bursts will make it more awkward trying to get into a rhythm to keep firing without oversampling the weapon.
As for the AScR, there are a few things iffy on the weapon.
I personally use it a lot on my Minmatar Assault as it is indeed still a very good weapon and it synergizes well with a 100 round smg for finishing armor. However I think that due to it's high price point, armor meta, and moderate jostle, (because it really is more of a jostle than recoil) the few downsides it has is just enough of a thorn in the side of potential users that they just say, "Meh, I'd like to use it, but there are just other weapons out there that are more convenient."
Make a basic variant, (there really should be basic variants for everything tbqh) that way it allows a cheaper entry point for the weapon and give it an ever so very tiny damage buff, nothing like that 14% you recently game to the AR, I'm talking like 5% maximum. Leave the jostle, the weapon still has a very long range and not having laser efficiency at maximum range helps balance it. If you have to touch it there, only do it in tiny amounts.
Other than that, it really is just the armor meta hurting the weapon. Having a smallish damage per bullet accompanied by a 20% nerf to its efficiency in killing the most prevalent tank just makes it difficult to use.
O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny
|
|
|
| |
|