LAVALLOIS Nash
QcGOLD
344
   |
Posted - 2014.12.16 06:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote:
Aaaannnnnnd this is the kind of feedback we don't need. Please go away
I agree the tone is not constructive, but I think the sentiments are valid criticism. It's really about the sequence of additions the vehicle roadmap should take. I think that is an important discussion/debate to have (perhaps not in this thread though).
If it were up to me, I would roll out the vehicle rebalance in the following stages:
1. Capacitors, neuts, webs, bring back the old modules, skills and rebalance the existing vehicles around these. This would be a big deal and could take a few rounds of hot fixing numbers to get right. That buys time for:
2. Introduction of full racial parity in vehicles, turrets and heavy weapons. Again this could take a while to balance the new additions.
3. Finally, release the vehicle variants, and balance them in, using the existing knowledge gleaned from the past balancing efforts.
It seems we're jumping straight to 3 (im guessing because the art assets already exist and it appears to be low-hanging fruit) and this will be much harder to ever get 1 and 2 added later. Instead of balancing being a progressive process and building over time, it would have to keep re-addressing the same issues repeatedly if we do things out-of-order. I think this would be a big mistake.[/quote]
@Ratatti ^ i agree here with these concerns. With the other gameplay in Dust, balance is achieved racially. (Strong against armor, weak against shields, ect). I feel that by using a bunch of Gal and Cal tanks arrayed into different roles it makes it completely different than the rest of Dust.
An Amarr tank with a laser turret or a Minmatar tank with a howitzer type mass driver turret could both alter balance in a favorable way without having to introduce two categories of side grades. (Not to mention im scared that racial vehicle variants will be forever cancelled due to the daunting task of building 7 tank variants for each race).
I want more vehicles, and your proposal elates me because of how possible it is in the short term. However, in the long term, it might harm and even bigger wish of mine.
Also, consider the capacitors/objective smashing requests. Tanks should be a threat to victory, and need bigger stuff to destroy than CRUs. Youll see better games if an all powerful team in a skirmish has to divert manpower from its main fight to go battle a pair of tanks chipping away at what use to be a safe objective. |