DUST Search - Why ALL Vehicles will struggle to EVER be Balanced!

All Channels

General Discussions

Why ALL Vehicles will struggle to EVER be Balanced!

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3607	Posted - 2015.01.16 00:31:00 - [1] - Quote Since time Immemorial, Vehcile balance has moved back and forth between between the two extremes of, Killer Death Machines to be as useful as a Chocolate Fireguard. Unfortunately I believe that until we see an entire overhaul of the vehicle system, we will never reach the vehicle nirvana we all desire. The Problem stems from the lack of vehicles, without a complete roster vehicles will never have a role to fullfill and so you have we have now. HAV's have no real role, so deciding their balance becomes a matter of opinion. In total I see need of 13 Vehicles Designations for DUST and 14 for Legion (which I will Include because I can). These 13 vehicles can fit into 2 Main roles, Transport Vehicles (TV) and Assault Vehicles (AV) which can further be split in Ground Vehicles (TV and AV) and Aerial Vehicles (ATV and AAV). Finally Transport Vehicle get 2 unique designations PTV and GATV. Next we add 3 seating types. Pilot Seating: can only be used by Pilot suits these are used mostly for the drivers seat in medium and heavy vehicles, all pilot seats are completely enclosed making the driver impervious to small arms fire while piloting the vehicle. Passanger Seating: Typically used in Transport Vehicles, these seats can be used by any suit, the amount of small arms fire protection is dependent upon the vehicle. Hybrid Seating: Hybrid Seating is used mostly for Turrets and accept all suits. However the amount of protection you recieve depends on wether you are wearing a pilot suit or not. Most hybrid seats only provide lower half or 2 facings of protection for non-pilot suits, meamwhile Pilot suits are completely protected amd sat directly behind the pilot as opposed as to actually on the turret. COULDN'T BE BOTHERED WITH THE TOP BIT? START HERE FOR MY VEHCILE DESCRIPTIONS. PTV (Personal Transport Vehicle) - 1 Passenger Seat (Driver) Despite what some may say this game needs a personal transport vehicle, dropped in from the warbarge these don't require a lengthy drop-off or construction sequence, though they are reclaimed by nanites after 5 seconds of leaving the vehicle. These bikes are too small to be locked on by guided av weapons or to deal kinetic damage to infantry. They have no weaponry or shielding for the user. LTV (Light Transport Vehicle) - 1 Passenger (Driver) + 3 Passenger Designed to take a whole fireteam (4 men) these vehicles are one of the fastest modes of transport for small high prescision teams, open topped and ligjtly armoured these vehicles don't have any weaponry of there own which means they often travel together with LAVs MTV (Medium Transport Vehicles) - 1 Pilot (Driver) + 1 Hybrid (Turret) + 8 Passenger Made to be the Major backbone of the your foces the MTV is heavily armoured and supprisingly fast, with its all terrain capability this vehicle can get troops almost anywhere, it also provides good mobile cover and supporting fire with it's single light turret mounted on the roof. HTV (Heavy Transport Vehicles) 1 Pilot (Driver) + 3 Hybrid (Turrets) + 16 Passenger (1 LAV/LTV = 8 Passengers 1MAV/MTV = 16 Passengers) The only ground vehicle capable of transporting amd spawning other vehicles, the HTV is a heavily armoured behemoth, slow moving this vehicle is designed to more for the intention of spawning troops a d light vehicles then actually transporting them. 3 Ligjt turrets allow it to defen it self with a limited capacity, however most HTV's are accompanied by a vanguard of 1 or 2 MAV's, this vehicle is designed as an FOB for the majority of large scale attacks. LATV (Ligjt Aerial Transport Vehicles) 1 Pilot (Driver) + 2 Hybrid (Turrets) + 8 Passenger These are the current dropships we have now (adjusted for 8 mam squads) these vehicle are for deploying small teams directly into a hotzone their sleek profiles make them agile and hard to hit, but they can't take many hits from direct fire weapons They are also the only aerial vehicle capable of practacly extracting troops frlm a hotzone, makimg them invaluable for mainting clone counts. MATV (Medium Aerial Transport Vehicles) 1 Pilot (Driver) + 3 Hybrid (Turret) + 16 Passenger (1 LAV/LTV = 8 Passengers 1MAV/MTV = 16 Passengers) The MATV is designed for LANO (Low Altitude No Opening) Drops, it typically does strafing runs to drop troops and vehicles without the slow process of a soft landing. Heavily Armoured this Vehicle is relativley sluggish and isn't Ideal for drops in urban/sockef environments. HATV (Heavy Air Transport Vehicle) 1 Pilot (Driver) + 4 Pilot (Turrets) + 32 Passengers (1 LAV/LTV = 8 1MAV/MTV = 16 1 HAV/HTV = 32) The largest Vehicle in DUST the HATV, with enough room for 2 Medium Vehicles or 1 Heavy Vehicle, these usually mean a whole lot of the enemy force is on it's way. Usually this vehicle hovers at medium to high altitude for Infamtrt HALO drops or sets down away from the action to drop off any vehicles. GATV (Globemaster-class Aerial Transport Vehicle) 1 Pilot (Driver) + 8 Pilot (Turrets) + 128 Passengers The largest vehcile in Legion second only to the MCC's a GATV is designed to stay airborne the entire match and is the only vehicle capable of dropping ground vehicles. Because of their immense size these are the only aerial vehicle that can be ACCURATELY hit with artillery, these ships circle at the flight ceiling and allow both infantry and vehicles spawning within them to HALO Drop to tne action below, their is a 2 vehicle limit on these per team. They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3607	Posted - 2015.01.16 00:31:00 - [2] - Quote LAV (Light Assault Vehicles) 1 Hybrid (Driver) + 1 Hybrid Turret LAVs are designed to be the mosr common vehicle in use, there agile movememt and ligjt armour make them famtastic vanguards. These are the vehicles designed to engage infantry, with their light tuuret having 360 degree viewing a LAV piloted by two pilots suits will be very tough to handle. They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3607	Posted - 2015.01.16 00:32:00 - [3] - Quote Reserved They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
Fizzer XCIV Tal-Romon Legion Amarr Empire 2232	Posted - 2015.01.16 00:33:00 - [4] - Quote Reserved. Home at Last <3
Sir Snugglz Red Star. 1126	Posted - 2015.01.16 00:35:00 - [5] - Quote Fun fact: Vehicles did get a massive overhaul. Fun fact #2: We all said that overhaul will not change anything. Fun fact #3: We need all vehicle variant and frames released before balancing. Why? Even if we achieve perfect balance with gunlogi/mabooger... the second we bring out their proto equivalent or other racial tanks, it will throw everything off balance again. -Pro AFKing LVL 5 -Luck is just one of my skills -Just because I make flying look easy doesn't mean it is
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3607	Posted - 2015.01.16 00:36:00 - [6] - Quote Sir Snugglz wrote: Fun fact: Vehicles did get a massive overhaul. Fun fact #2: We all said that overhaul will not change anything. Fun fact #3: We need all vehicle variant and frames released before balancing. Why? Even if we achieve perfect balance with gunlogi/mabooger... the second we bring out their proto equivalent or other racial tanks, it will throw everything off balance again. Umm that's exactly what I said right at the beginning. They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3608	Posted - 2015.01.16 10:31:00 - [7] - Quote Bump They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
We are 138 Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 625	Posted - 2015.01.16 10:36:00 - [8] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Bump Don't bump it to hard man, you will wake up the swarm crybabies and they will **** all over your thread. Inb4 swarm boohoo Hello? any one there?
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3608	Posted - 2015.01.16 10:40:00 - [9] - Quote We are 138 wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Bump Don't bump it to hard man, you will wake up the swarm crybabies and they will ** all over your thread. Inb4 swarm boohoo No it's because I wrote it at half 2 this morning, I bumped now that the forums become more active. They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
xavier zor Rogue Instincts 421	Posted - 2015.01.16 10:42:00 - [10] - Quote SWARM BOOHOO no, good idea...i can't wait for the new tank to come out my madrugar/gunnlogi's will be put away for a while Official Ishokune supporter Knifed duna2002's tank, then the mercenary himself

Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State 1715	Posted - 2015.01.16 11:14:00 - [11] - Quote We are 138 wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Bump Don't bump it to hard man, you will wake up the swarm crybabies and they will ** all over your thread. Inb4 swarm boohoo I see more people crying ABOUT swarms then users complaining . Any real AV player worth their name wouldn't say anything for the sake of doing so , we wouldn't ... infantry would be first like always and then if as an AV player , there's validity to what's mentioned then we will tell what's imbalanced and what could be done to fix it . Saying something is OP doesn't help . You can say that about a lot because you have so many areas that are underperforming right now like the survivability and EQ usage of Logistics or Commando's in general . Even Assaults somewhat . Vehicles are definitely underperforming mainly because of the overhaul and changing of the vehicle skill tree . People just couldn't wait for the changes , telling players like me and those who saw the blandness coming to shut up and look at you same players now . All you do is cry about your role . Mainly pilots because they just loved that 50% ROF on top of stacking skills and the way the mods and skills there in over performed before CCP made changes . They wanna sit there and hover over infantry and HAV's / LAV's with impunity just raining down death from above . Just not happening anymore and rightfully so . If your going to #InB4 anything it's pilots whining . Doubts are like flies and should be treated as such and crushed .**
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3608	Posted - 2015.01.16 11:58:00 - [12] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: We are 138 wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Bump Don't bump it to hard man, you will wake up the swarm crybabies and they will ** all over your thread. Inb4 swarm boohoo I see more people crying ABOUT swarms then users complaining . Any real AV player worth their name wouldn't say anything for the sake of doing so , we wouldn't ... infantry would be first like always and then if as an AV player , there's validity to what's mentioned then we will tell what's imbalanced and what could be done to fix it . Saying something is OP doesn't help . You can say that about a lot because you have so many areas that are underperforming right now like the survivability and EQ usage of Logistics or Commando's in general . Even Assaults somewhat . Vehicles are definitely underperforming mainly because of the overhaul and changing of the vehicle skill tree . People just couldn't wait for the changes , telling players like me and those who saw the blandness coming to shut up and look at you same players now . All you do is cry about your role . Mainly pilots because they just loved that 50% ROF on top of stacking skills and the way the mods and skills there in over performed before CCP made changes . They wanna sit there and hover over infantry and HAV's / LAV's with impunity just raining down death from above . Just not happening anymore and rightfully so . If your going to #InB4 anything it's pilots whining . True, very true. However if you look at Swarms from a Vehicles perspective (I am AVer and ADS pilot) you can understand some of their complaints. 1) Swarms do more damage than direct fire weapons such as the plasma cannon, this is incredibly frustrating since there is no incentive to use the plasma cannon. Using actually hinders a solo AVers performance. In reality lock-on weapons should only about 60% as effective as a direct fire weapon. Lock-on weapons should be the choice of AV packs not AV lone wolfs. I know this is an unpopular view but I have yet to outline my balance for these above. 2) Swarms are near impossible to dodge, if I had a penny every time I have dodged a Swarm Volley by the skin of my teeth only for it to stop, reverse and hit my weakpoint, I'd have bought CCP out and done things my way by now. Despite the turning Circle reduction, Swarms have a tendency to pull massive G's at eithee end of their flight path, I can still fire them backwards for crying out loud. If we had a full vehicle roster we would alsk need a full AV weapon roster. You give each race 2 Light AV weapons and 1 Heavy AV weapon. You have one Lock-on variant per race, these focus on sustained damage and area denial, in reality a Lock-on weapin should take 2 Shots for Light Vehicles, 4 Shots for Medium Vehicles and 6 for Heavy Vehicles (unmodded). Meanwhile your direct fire variants focus on burst damage (The Light weapon version is simply a shoulder mounted copy of the heavy weapon) These take 1 shot for Light Vehicles, 2 Shots for Medium Vehicles and 3 for Heavy Vehicles. However there direct fire nature makes it more difficult. I'll outline these in more detail above. They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State 1715	Posted - 2015.01.16 12:31:00 - [13] - Quote Hell , we definitely need more vehicles and heavy weapons / AV weapons . I think the PLC should be better but it's hard because that weapon can be used against infantry as well . Make it's vehicle damage greater .?. that's already fine to me more then the actual ability to use the weapon , it's specialized and not too user friendly . If you really think about it , it has no purpose . Yeah you can use it and get kills but what's it's role ? Edit : That thing eats ammo where only PRO hives can feed it sufficiently . Doubts are like flies and should be treated as such and crushed .
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3608	Posted - 2015.01.16 12:42:00 - [14] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Hell , we definitely need more vehicles and heavy weapons / AV weapons . I think the PLC should be better but it's hard because that weapon can be used against infantry as well . Make it's vehicle damage greater .?. that's already fine to me more then the actual ability to use the weapon , it's specialized and not too user friendly . If you really think about it , it has no purpose . Yeah you can use it and get kills but what's it's role ? Well in the master plan I'm laying out above, the plasma cannon is designed to be the RPG of the game. It will have the highest direct damage of the AV variants (not including the Heavy Versions). It's designed to DESTROY vehicles within Urban/Socket Environments, where it's non-user friendly drawbacks become null and void. Most Tanks should only take 2 shots to down, because as a Solo AVer getting close enough for the second shot will be challenge in itself. However it's main role will be taking down LAV's MTV's and Deployed Light Turret Installations or Deployable Cover. It's travel time will make less desirable for use against infantry (specifically heavies) when weapons like the Caldari Gauss Cannon (shoulder mounted forge gun) will be much more suited to direct fire combat. They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State 1716	Posted - 2015.01.16 12:52:00 - [15] - Quote I like the sound of that . Doubts are like flies and should be treated as such and crushed .
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3609	Posted - 2015.01.16 13:45:00 - [16] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: I like the sound of that . Thanks, though it's unlikely to come to fruition. Oh great Rattati, cast your gaze upon this thread and feel free to leave a co ment!! :D They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 492	Posted - 2015.01.16 13:48:00 - [17] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Hell , we definitely need more vehicles and heavy weapons / AV weapons . I think the PLC should be better but it's hard because that weapon can be used against infantry as well . Make it's vehicle damage greater .?. that's already fine to me more then the actual ability to use the weapon , it's specialized and not too user friendly . If you really think about it , it has no purpose . Yeah you can use it and get kills but what's it's role ? Well in the master plan I'm laying out above, the plasma cannon is designed to be the RPG of the game. It will have the highest direct damage of the AV variants (not including the Heavy Versions). It's designed to DESTROY vehicles within Urban/Socket Environments, where it's non-user friendly drawbacks become null and void. Most Tanks should only take 2 shots to down, because as a Solo AVer getting close enough for the second shot will be challenge in itself. However it's main role will be taking down LAV's MTV's and Deployed Light Turret Installations or Deployable Cover. It's travel time will make less desirable for use against infantry (specifically heavies) when weapons like the Caldari Gauss Cannon (shoulder mounted forge gun) will be much more suited to direct fire combat. 1. Most Tanks should only take 2 shots to down - Boring and that means most vehicles end up only taking 1 to kill which makes vehicles useless again
LUGMOS Quafe Premium 1572	Posted - 2015.01.16 14:00:00 - [18] - Quote I don't think Te PLC should be buffed. If it was, make it a three hit kill for vehicles, because it really isn't that hard to get close enough to hit a vehicle twice. Trust me... And the good ones can do it when the tank is retreating. The only thing that would save an MAV from a PLC in a 2HKO circumstance is a nitro injector... Sooo.... EDIT: Commandos could instagank every tank... Not fun. Official QuafeGäó Advocate Anti-FoTM Prof. V Forum Scavenger Prof. V
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3609	Posted - 2015.01.16 14:36:00 - [19] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Hell , we definitely need more vehicles and heavy weapons / AV weapons . I think the PLC should be better but it's hard because that weapon can be used against infantry as well . Make it's vehicle damage greater .?. that's already fine to me more then the actual ability to use the weapon , it's specialized and not too user friendly . If you really think about it , it has no purpose . Yeah you can use it and get kills but what's it's role ? Well in the master plan I'm laying out above, the plasma cannon is designed to be the RPG of the game. It will have the highest direct damage of the AV variants (not including the Heavy Versions). It's designed to DESTROY vehicles within Urban/Socket Environments, where it's non-user friendly drawbacks become null and void. Most Tanks should only take 2 shots to down, because as a Solo AVer getting close enough for the second shot will be challenge in itself. However it's main role will be taking down LAV's MTV's and Deployed Light Turret Installations or Deployable Cover. It's travel time will make less desirable for use against infantry (specifically heavies) when weapons like the Caldari Gauss Cannon (shoulder mounted forge gun) will be much more suited to direct fire combat. 1. Most Tanks should only take 2 shots to down - Boring and that means most vehicles end up only taking 1 to kill which makes vehicles useless again With the difficult to aim, slow to fire, bullet drop direct fire weapons. This is also assuming entirely unmodded hulls with no damage profile. If an AVer gets said 2 shots on vehicle witha direct fire weapon, that guy deserves a medal let alome the tank kill. If you actually bother reading Vehicles actually become an almost seperate tier of combat, AV weapons won't be fielded by every tom, ** and harry who got blasted. Infact tankers might even gain respect within the community because they are doing a worthwhile job that doesn't hamper the enjoyment of Infantry. They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3609	Posted - 2015.01.16 14:38:00 - [20] - Quote LUGMOS wrote: I don't think Te PLC should be buffed. If it was, make it a three hit kill for vehicles, because it really isn't that hard to get close enough to hit a vehicle twice. Trust me... And the good ones can do it when the tank is retreating. The only thing that would save an MAV from a PLC in a 2HKO circumstance is a nitro injector... Sooo.... EDIT: Commandos could instagank every tank... Not fun. Fair point, although I should probably stress I'm talking unmodded MAV's here. If you add a 40% hardener and a plate you could easily take 3-4 shots, more if your willing to sacrifice more slots for the survivability. Everything in the Vehicle family needs to be redone from the ground up, to give vehicles users more choice and more direction. They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3

Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 498	Posted - 2015.01.16 14:56:00 - [21] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Hell , we definitely need more vehicles and heavy weapons / AV weapons . I think the PLC should be better but it's hard because that weapon can be used against infantry as well . Make it's vehicle damage greater .?. that's already fine to me more then the actual ability to use the weapon , it's specialized and not too user friendly . If you really think about it , it has no purpose . Yeah you can use it and get kills but what's it's role ? Well in the master plan I'm laying out above, the plasma cannon is designed to be the RPG of the game. It will have the highest direct damage of the AV variants (not including the Heavy Versions). It's designed to DESTROY vehicles within Urban/Socket Environments, where it's non-user friendly drawbacks become null and void. Most Tanks should only take 2 shots to down, because as a Solo AVer getting close enough for the second shot will be challenge in itself. However it's main role will be taking down LAV's MTV's and Deployed Light Turret Installations or Deployable Cover. It's travel time will make less desirable for use against infantry (specifically heavies) when weapons like the Caldari Gauss Cannon (shoulder mounted forge gun) will be much more suited to direct fire combat. 1. Most Tanks should only take 2 shots to down - Boring and that means most vehicles end up only taking 1 to kill which makes vehicles useless again With the difficult to aim, slow to fire, bullet drop direct fire weapons. This is also assuming entirely unmodded hulls with no damage profile. If an AVer gets said 2 shots on vehicle witha direct fire weapon, that guy deserves a medal let alome the tank kill. If you actually bother reading Vehicles actually become an almost seperate tier of combat, AV weapons won't be fielded by every tom, **** and harry who got blasted. Infact tankers might even gain respect within the community because they are doing a worthwhile job that doesn't hamper the enjoyment of Infantry. 1. A seperate tier of combat which are only used when other vehicles come out and play and in your words 'that doesnt hamper the enjoyment of infantry' basically means cant have vehicles to annoy infantry now can we 2. Everyone has AV now 3. Vehicles did a worthwhile job in Chrome and Uprising until they got nerfed hard and pushed out of the game altogether with 1.7 update and nerfs 4. All that is overkill and wont happen anyways since 16v16 and also capacitor before all that anyways for proper balancing
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2780	Posted - 2015.01.16 18:09:00 - [22] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: "I don't know what I'm talking about because I have an irrational fear and hatred of vehicles." I don't need to read it to know it's full of bad ideas. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6484	Posted - 2015.01.16 18:22:00 - [23] - Quote While I applaud your enthusiasm, a platoon sized transport vehicle (32 passenger) isn't in the cards. 16 passenger vehicles as well. That being said, I do like where you're trying to go and the thing you are trying to convey. Unfortunately I believe rather than player resistance, your dream is going to be completely hamstrung by two factors: 1: 16 vs. 16 battles. We need higher player counts to take your examples (which look like you liberally ripped off from military doctrines, Good Man) from neat in concept to awesome in implementation. 2: Map sizes. The constricted map sizes really marginalize the utility of even transport dropships. I would love for it to be otherwise. I would cheerfully take a slight hit in graphics if it meant that we could get larger battles over bigger maps. Unfortunately I don't think it's in the cards until legion becomes a thing. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2781	Posted - 2015.01.16 19:25:00 - [24] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Mainly pilots because they just loved that 50% ROF on top of stacking skills and the way the mods and skills there in over performed before CCP made changes . They wanna sit there and hover over infantry and HAV's / LAV's with impunity just raining down death from above . Just not happening anymore and rightfully so . If your going to #InB4 anything it's pilots whining . None of us ever said anything like that. We just want to be able to perform our role with good efficiency, instead of a Minmando being able to nearly solo any vehicle. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3612	Posted - 2015.01.16 22:41:00 - [25] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: While I applaud your enthusiasm, a platoon sized transport vehicle (32 passenger) isn't in the cards. 16 passenger vehicles as well. That being said, I do like where you're trying to go and the thing you are trying to convey. Unfortunately I believe rather than player resistance, your dream is going to be completely hamstrung by two factors: 1: 16 vs. 16 battles. We need higher player counts to take your examples (which look like you liberally ripped off from military doctrines, Good Man) from neat in concept to awesome in implementation. 2: Map sizes. The constricted map sizes really marginalize the utility of even transport dropships. I would love for it to be otherwise. I would cheerfully take a slight hit in graphics if it meant that we could get larger battles over bigger maps. Unfortunately I don't think it's in the cards until legion becomes a thing. Aye, I'm aware of that, but unless there is enough vehicles for MAVs to hunt it's just the usual that we have now. We need a variety of vehicles, 16 players isn't really enough to even have vehicles in the first place, let alone my behemoths. And yes, many of vehicles were inspired by Modern Military counterparts. They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3612	Posted - 2015.01.16 22:43:00 - [26] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: "I don't know what I'm talking about because I have an irrational fear and hatred of vehicles." I don't need to read it to know it's full of bad ideas. Thanks for your always indepth and insightful contribution Spkr. Nothing but the finest logic and well reasoned arguements from you. The fact you didn't bother reading shows your characteristic stubborness. They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3612	Posted - 2015.01.16 22:49:00 - [27] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Hell , we definitely need more vehicles and heavy weapons / AV weapons . I think the PLC should be better but it's hard because that weapon can be used against infantry as well . Make it's vehicle damage greater .?. that's already fine to me more then the actual ability to use the weapon , it's specialized and not too user friendly . If you really think about it , it has no purpose . Yeah you can use it and get kills but what's it's role ? Well in the master plan I'm laying out above, the plasma cannon is designed to be the RPG of the game. It will have the highest direct damage of the AV variants (not including the Heavy Versions). It's designed to DESTROY vehicles within Urban/Socket Environments, where it's non-user friendly drawbacks become null and void. Most Tanks should only take 2 shots to down, because as a Solo AVer getting close enough for the second shot will be challenge in itself. However it's main role will be taking down LAV's MTV's and Deployed Light Turret Installations or Deployable Cover. It's travel time will make less desirable for use against infantry (specifically heavies) when weapons like the Caldari Gauss Cannon (shoulder mounted forge gun) will be much more suited to direct fire combat. 1. Most Tanks should only take 2 shots to down - Boring and that means most vehicles end up only taking 1 to kill which makes vehicles useless again With the difficult to aim, slow to fire, bullet drop direct fire weapons. This is also assuming entirely unmodded hulls with no damage profile. If an AVer gets said 2 shots on vehicle witha direct fire weapon, that guy deserves a medal let alome the tank kill. If you actually bother reading Vehicles actually become an almost seperate tier of combat, AV weapons won't be fielded by every tom, ** and harry who got blasted. Infact tankers might even gain respect within the community because they are doing a worthwhile job that doesn't hamper the enjoyment of Infantry. 1. A seperate tier of combat which are only used when other vehicles come out and play and in your words 'that doesnt hamper the enjoyment of infantry' basically means cant have vehicles to annoy infantry now can we 2. Everyone has AV now 3. Vehicles did a worthwhile job in Chrome and Uprising until they got nerfed hard and pushed out of the game altogether with 1.7 update and nerfs 4. All that is overkill and wont happen anyways since 16v16 and also capacitor before all that anyways for proper balancing Well you've got 2 real choices, you either have our current option, where HAV's have to be weak enough to not upset the force strength balance, which people like Spkr above will be forever opposed to. Or you leave the Infantry to the LAV's like you are kinda supposed to anyway and focus on destroying other vehicles or enemy fortifications/turrets and mechanised support. They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 521	Posted - 2015.01.16 23:26:00 - [28] - Quote AV/V discussion aside - the OP is being expansive and trying to flesh things out enough so that balance is easier to achieve. Pretty good effort here. I'm not a vehicle person so I won't comment beyond saying you earned a like from me.


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

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.

Official QuafeGäó Advocate