|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 66 post(s) |
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
7948
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 07:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
What's the plausibility of changing turret mechanics?
For instance, the Fragmented Large Missile Turret having missiles that have bullet drop instead of firing straight? A blaster that fires much slower with high damage rounds primarily for AV use?
Just a few spit-balled ideas.
As far as the overall progression presentation demonstrated in the OP I found it rather... confusing. Need time to wrap my head around it and the spreadsheet before I can give better feedback, but even then it'll be limited for reasons mentioned in the previous thread.
Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
7948
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 09:27:00 -
[2] - Quote
- Any intentions on making the forward turret able to swivel 360 degrees as they did in closed beta? Always a pain to be stuck on the front gun with anything other than a small missile turret for use against other tanks.
- Proper vehicle locks?
Anyway, along the lines of progression.
UHAVs should, understandably, be very tanky against infantry AV. DHAVs should be vulnerable to Infantry AV, in my thinking, but my current fear is that the DHAVs (as designed currently in the concept) will be just as viable against infantry as UHAVs given that they have higher damage which will inevitably be used to make short work of infantry, offsetting their reduced durability. Also the factor that the Vayu in particular will be faster.
It's my current thinking that UHAVs should take a single DHAV or a -lot- of infantry to deal with. Meanwhile, DHAVs should be balanced on a 1-v-1 basis against infantry as to not offset the numbers game in a 16v16 gameplay.
- What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that DHAVs are especially susceptible to Infantry AV on a 1-v-1 basis, as they are solo vehicles?
- What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that UHAVs are reliable -against- infantry but susceptible to DHAVs?
Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
7949
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 11:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote: DHAVs should not want to be near AV infantry, I am talking instapop with a plc, almost LAV like.
Heh heh heh, nice. Might actually go back into AV in that case.
Tesfa Alem wrote:
Hw about dropship like? I've talked it over before with breaking, The ADS's of the game survive only through high manueverability and not taking sustained fire. A DHAV tank with max HP of an incubus, would go down in 3 proto forge shots, or three commando MK0 swarms. Keeping them around 5K ehp max fit would put it on the same level as a soma/sica with no modules.
Bearing in mind of course that the ADS can/will fire back and probably one/two shot whatever infantry it's aiming at with a small missile turret.
I like the idea of DHAVs being good against UHAVs but I can't stress enough how they should be vulnerable to infantry. ADS weren't "vulnerable" unless they were just an absolutely terrible pilot. They can run away, they can fire back, they can engage hardeners/boosters, what-have-you. Not really the point though.
Breakin Stuff wrote:My recommendation for pricing is that DHAVs be around 30% cheaper than a main battle tank at baseline. They need to be poorman HAVs. There is also no reason to have three seats in a suicide sled. The only historical justifications for glass cannons have been "scout tanks" or more commonly expense.
I recommend UHAVs be no more than 30% more expensive than main battle tanks. While I recognize they are going to be hard to kill, pilots should not feel punished for choosing to run an infantry suppression vehicle. Depending how the progression goes and what the bonuses are I would recommend that they be priced similarly to the main battle tanks.
Pricing should be considered after everything else. It's a terrible balance mechanic, we're already working on more ways for players to accumulate ISK, and it's basically just a random number for anyone other than newbros. Which, to my knowledge, we're already addressing.
Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
7972
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 03:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least.
An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting.
Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills.
You know when a Dev tells you what the entire community has been saying since you made your first post on the forums, it's probably time to rethink your feedback methods.
(I am brimming with excitement that this finally happened, btw)
Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
7979
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 00:06:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Vell0cet wrote:All kinds of EVE things My opinion is that active and passive fitting is perfect for vehicle combat in an FPS. Don't forget, EVE does not have WASD movement, it is inherently less dependent on user input, and that's why it has more point and click combat, managing heat, capacity, ammo, ewar etc. Capacitors are just one thing that could be done, needs balancing and design like any other system. Another layer of complexity does not seem like what we need when there are so many low hanging fruit. Just going through the misery of starting to go into vehicles has opened my eyes to the HAV plight of fitting and skilling. On the other hand, in battle it's been a breeze, as in I'm having fun. I also think that a Maddie Blaster fit should be the first tank new players skill into as the turret speed is more forgiving and the charge-up of the rail makes it so much less easy to use than one might think coming from BF, for instance.
Lol, what Forlorn said. Eve -does- have WASD movement but it's not... the best thing in the world because you still have to consider inertia/agility which affects how fast you can turn.
I agree that Dust 514 doesn't need more complexity, but it does need more depth. Stuff that players can find out through play that are opened up through emergent gameplay. More Rules/Less Content = Less Depth.
While not necessarily saying that it was a bad decision, the design of a DHAV not being able to fit a Railgun is an example of 'More Rules' that limits emergent gameplay. Who knows, maybe a player could have made a glass cannon Rail DHAV that operates in a well-balanced but completely crazy niche environment (like jumping a cliff while firing at an ADS due to faster forward speed mixed with a fuel injector).
Emergent gameplay will always be the driving force that causes great stories, as well. Stuff like that which happens in Battlefield 4 where players throw C4 from the back of an ATV onto a Helicopter and blow it up.
Have to consider what you can do to make opportunities for emergent gameplay through depth without being more complex as a result. Adding in Capacitors -MAY- give depth but at the same time it will -CERTAINLY- increase complexity.
Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
7988
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 07:55:00 -
[6] - Quote
One thing is for certain:
Dual hardener shield HAVs need to die in a fire. Waaaaaay OP.
Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
8160
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 06:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:all i know, is that I want to drive both uhavs and havs. i can imagine the rush of speeding around, almost lav speed, and just blasting tanks, in and out. I think it could be a great way to break out of a camp, keep moving and pick your targets wisely. Isn't this also about making tank combat a little more fun? I agree, I think people are underestimating the power that speed offers an HAV. Slap an Overdrive and Tracking Enhancer on, get up close, and take out the UHAV from close range, moving faster than it can track. You can already do this to some effect with a Blaster fighting a rail up close, and it's awesome. It's kind of like playing as a scout back when Heavies had reduced turn speed. You had crap for health but you could literally dance circles around the heavy and he wouldn't be able to touch you. As for the base stats on the DHAV...it has the reduced slots as well as the reduced base HP. I agree with either of these...but not sure if I agree with having them both at the same time, it might be a little too extreme, but time will tell. Stick with both, but I'd remain open to the idea of bumping the base HP up again if the DHAV's defense proove to be a little TOO weak. If the DHAVs are well done I'd skill this character into HAVs JUST for DHAVS. I love doing lots of damage then dying in glorious fire
Always been preferable to the concept of a UHAV just because I was always interested in Warhammer 40K. In particular... The Baneblade. Nothing more interesting that a giant mechanism of war rolling up and laying waste to everything in proximity and forcing that 'We need reinforcements!' aspect of warfare. Suppression and fear sort of deal.
Then again, I've also been heavily interested in stuff like Self-Propelled Artillery and Indirect Bombardment.
Anything that puts the fear into a lot of infantry and makes them want to reconsider what they're doing at the time.
Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department?
Founder of AIV
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
8436
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 14:09:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Hey, still alive, i need ideas for good bonuses.
dhavs general speed dmg mod duration
faction ROF on missiles lower heat increase for blaster
uhavs general passive resists more hp
faction hardener and shield duration amor rep, shield regen
any idea is a good idea
Just spitballing here. Please note that bonuses mentioned aren't mean to be considered "all at once". More of a pick and choose sort of deal.
DHAVs: -- Offensive: Geared toward killing large targets and punching through buffer > Forward move speed > Tracking Speed > Turn Speed > Heat Reduction > Large Turret Damage Output > Damage Amplifier Duration/Cooldown > Reduced Large Turret fitting costs
-- Defensive: Regeneration to focus on hit-and-run/ambush > Armor Repairer repair rate > Shield Booster recovery rate > Reduced fitting costs of above
-- Utility: Getting into/out of target range, finding large targets at longer ranges > Fuel Injectors > Vehicle Scanners (range)
UHAVs: -- Offensive: Geared toward killing infantry, staying for for long durations > Ammo Expansion Bay Bonus > Small Turret Damage Output > Heat Reduction > Reload speed > Reduced Small Turret fitting costs
-- Defensive: Buffer to focus on long-duration sieges against infantry > Armor Plate HP > Armor Hardener Duration/Cooldown > Shield Extender HP > Shield Hardener Duration/Cooldown > Reduced fitting costs of above
-- Utility: Finding infantry at close ranges and acting as mobile spawn to assist siege > Vehicle Scanners (Precision) > MCRU spawn time reduction
Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department?
Founder of AIV
|
|
|
|