|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
909
   |
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
Taking this issue back from the Hotfix Echo thread.
Basically a Brainstorm thread. Leave all of your emotions out of it. I don't care about the time an ADS blapped your proto suit, and i don't care how quickly swarms ganked your Tank. The "one time in band camp" style of posting has gotten nothing done, and got the topic dropped like a hot potato by the devs.
Basic Ideas about the curretn state of Swarms:
They are fire and forget. For all the bluster of skill, all of the hard work of landing a hit is left up to the A.I. It make some sense since the swarmer would be completley defenseless while manually tracking a target across the sky. But there is no such thing as somebody who is a good shot with swarms.
The actual skill required to be a decent swarmer is in being able to tactically find a good place to shoot at AV without Infantry intervening. Tactically smart spots are generally elevated positions safe from infantry attack, in and around supply depots. Because a swarmer mixing it up with the ground troops is a dead swarmer.
The design of swarms is alot akin to the design of scans befroe ewar adjustments. In game parameters take over from player skill. Within a certain range swarms will always overcome and hit a dropship. This was a reaction to the old system, where almost regardless of range dropships could outpace and escape swarms. Niether situation was about the skill of the player, rather the game parameters that made one side extremely dominant over the other.
So how should we tweak this to bring more counterbalance into play?
Concentric cricles of effectiveness such as Scan profile and detection. The Farther away the more difficult it is to maintain a lock. Applicable by decreasing missile turn speed by a factor X after regular distance intervals Y1, Y2, etc
The farther out swarms have to travel, the more dropship manueverability comes into play. The Pilot who just afterburns in a straight line will invariably take hits. A smart Swamer who lets off his swarms withing a good range gives his swarm volleys the best chance of hitting.
Close range fights the swarmer has the advantage in landing a hit. Long range and more manuevers the dropship has the advantage in avoiding a hit. Mid Range fights should be 50/50.
All Ideas welcome.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
909
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
An issue with focusing only on turn rate is how slow Dropships actually turn.
I can spin an ADS on its nose quick enough. The sharper a Dropships changes the direction its facing doesn't mean that the dropships have changed the direction its heading. To get swarms down to that level at current speeds would make them extremely diffcult to use VS tanks. Imagine a gunlogi pulling a 90 degree turn and breaking missile lock.
Why I suggested nerfing turn rate over distance is to keep swarms viable vs close/ medium range AV engagments such as vs tanks and LAVs.
Placeholder stats:
From launch to 250m out swarms behave exactly the same as currently.
250 - 300m reduce in flight turn rate by 25%
300 - 350m reduce in flight turn rate by 50%
350 - 400m reduce inflight turn rate by 75%
Chances of landing a hit decreases of over distance, and a smart swamer will not fire at maximum lock on range, the same way a forge gunner will not open fire at 300m. However, any pilot fool enough to hang around, or a sucessfull Swarm Ambush at close range will kill any dropship. Once the dropships gets far enough eway the odds are in the pilots favor but the fight is by no means a for gone conclusion. Unless you are still manuevering like mad at 350-400m+ away, you'll take that last and potentialy deadly hit.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
909
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 05:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
[quote=Vesta Opalus
In addition the swarm launcher turn behavior is not consistent, there doesnt seem to be a limit most of the time, and Ive even seen swarms spinning around a dropship trying to hit it once they get close, if turn radius limits were a thing that shouldnt happen. [/quote]
This i've noted, and well, it will be hard to explain with out recent video evidence or getting rattati to try in dropships what he did for tanks.
For clarification, he skilled into tanks to see what adjustments he felt were necessary, which brought up the core of the tank reblalance efforts in hotfix Echo, and did the same with the PLC, and various AV weapons.
disclaimer: I know Rattati, if your reading this, that you don't have to try something for yourself to make gameplay choices. That being said, your going to rely on Pilot feedback, and pilots tend to be a very arrogant bunch.
I want the entire dropship vs swarm engagemnt to be taken under consideration, and the departure point for experience seems to have undue focus on how swarms behave relative to the guy firing it, and i want to extend that to how swarms behave in the air, and how they behave relative to the guy on the recieving end.
I think its more practical to come up with a forumula that changes how swarms behave over time than to write new code for a swarm lock on warning.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
917
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 15:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
^^ This.
If the swarm vs dropship fight was more interactive i would have no problems buffing swarms to make them easier to use while giving dropships an easier chance to dodge.
Longer Lock-on rages,shorter lock on times and more missiles per magazine, so if it takes more swarm volleys to hit and kill a dropship than the swarms should be buffed accrodingly.
Swarmers wouldn't mind a range buff, and niether would I if swarms can be out manuevered in the air, the ease of which should be directly proportional the farther away a swarmer opens fire.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
917
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 16:39:00 -
[5] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Delete it, it's the only way to be sure.
Over 3 years and the basic problems have never been fixed or solved and i don't see that happening any time soon.
Disclaimer:
The above post is respectful, contains no ranting, contains no personal attacks, contains no trolling, contains no racism, contains no discrimination, contains no profanity, contains no spamming. This post is an opinion and is related to DUST514
No worries. Disclaimer accepted 
But CCP isn't going to take that stance, and without some form of give and take, Rattati isn't taking swarm posts seriously. Infantry are happy with current swarm meta and they far outnumber pilots. The majority of pilots, and i have done this too, have put up posts born of frustration, which got pilots nowhere. So I want to build a lasting thread where new ideas can congregate in the same vien as tanks?
So why not a bit of give and take. Swarmers can get more missiles per magazine, and use their nanohives for Av nades. They can have longer range, to keep them a bit safer from infantry. For that they also get a significant decrease in missile manueverability over long distances. Upclose and dirty AV work shouldn't change. Smart AV gameplay shouldn't change at all.
Basically, what advantages tankers and pilots are willing to give up to swarms in exchange for changing the way swarms work?
At the same time, untill this thread gets a blue tag I wont worry too much about hashing out some decent numbers. Also, lets see how the new Armor hardeners play out for Incubus post hotfix Echo.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
921
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:09:00 -
[6] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
The way i see it the SL users want there cake and to eat it aswell, ADS/DS pilots want lock on warnings and countermeasures, ground vehicles would like it to actually hit cover and stop following around corners. SL users want status quo, really you should ask them what they are willing to give up since pilots cannot really give up anything, vehicles are at a bare minimum as it is and even if they were taken out of the game really nothing would change.
I'm quoting only this part, because I am fully aware of how swarms can behave.
Regarding swarmer commentary, this thread is also open to anybody who wants to comment on it. I already pointed out infantry are happy with the status quo, they are in the majority. Why would someone give up all of the advantages for nothing in return? Straigt butting heads with the majority of the playerbase in such a feedback driven design process gets us nowhere.
What i would rather do is propose a fix to do more than the straight nerf buff of a percentage here, a couple m/s there and change the entire swarm/ vehicle interaction. You can't do this without looking at the strengths and weaknesses of swarms.
What is the current strengths of swarms vs Dropships?
What is the current weakness of swarms vs Dropships?
What is the counter play like?
What will the strengths of swarms vs Dropships be after Takahiro's posposal?
What will the weaknesses of swarms vs Dropships be aftter Takahiro's proposal?
What will the counter play be like?
Pilots have been just hammering on about the first part, so i challenge you takahiro to come up with the second part. If your blunt answer is "just delete that part of the game because muh tanks" then how are you going to expect anybody to take your approach and/or feedback critically?
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
|
|
| |
|