|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
G Clone
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
81
   |
Posted - 2015.05.16 09:30:00 -
[1] - Quote
Bammsters would like to present our 2nd proposal, in the ongoing series of DUST514 Proposals for Change!
What follow here is the Introduction and Goals for this proposal - for the full version in PDF (28mb) click here - for the Google Docs version, click here.
Video version is available here.
Previous version, on Planetary Conquest, can be read here.
Current gamemodes in DUST514 are largely infantry centered, to the point that vehicles have had to be limited in certain gamemodes (Ambush) to avoid issues.
Latest gamemode, Acquisition, does open more up for the use of vehicles, but is still centered around infantry.
At the same time, the majority of maps are at least partially infantry-oriented, with the use of the small-medium-large sockets where vehicles are generally at a disadvantage (by design) in the large socket buildings.
To counter the trend of infantry everywhere, this is a proposal for a vehicle-centric game-mode and map-collection, where infantry is relegated to a support-role and vehicles are required for traversing the maps and reach all objectives.
A limitation in the current (May 2015) version of DUST514 is the lack of water, lava, trees, or other impassable map-elements; these would help funnel infantry, while being passable by Dropships or even LAVs using (natural/artificial) ramps.
Goals:
* Game-mode centered around the mobility and offensive capabilities of vehicles
* Map(s) sized to benefit vehicles over infantry, due to obstacles and distances
* Direct value from Dropships and LAVs as both mobility enhancers and support equipment (e.g. LogiLAV/ScoutLAVs, mCRU, Remote Reppers etc)
* Space for both HAVs and Dropships, without either overpowering the other (e.g. redline rails)
We would very much like to point out that this is simply meant as the basis for a discussion, and that we're more than open to making updated versions of this document as suggestions and ideas come in from the community. Join us, in making something great for DUST514!
Note: CCP has already been given early access to the v1.0a (WIP) of this document. |
G Clone
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
84
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 20:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
Hey Breakin', let me try to address your items :)
(Effing 5-quote limits...)
Breakin Stuff wrote:The idea requires a map without a redline first off. Themaps are too constricted to make a vehicle focus.
If you look at the picture on page 14, that's about 4.5 km wide. Redlines on pages 15 and 16 are ca 3.5-4.0 km wide. The base map in DUST514 is 5x5 km, based on early intel.
Breakin Stuff wrote:Second, small sockets only for this game mode. Anything that promotes CQC meatgrinders will negate the utility of HAVs, shield vs. Dropships too much and allow avoidance of vehicle assets so that HAVs can be passively marginalized as well as AV spammed.
I think that's already covered, page 7, Building sockets.
Breakin Stuff wrote:Infantry focus should natively lean to cal/min ranged combat with CQC being the exception, not the norm unless some enterprising dropship wombat dumps a gallente squad on your head.
Objectives would need to be widely spaced, preferably at minimum 500m apart. A vehicle-centric game mode would be showcased by wide spaces where terrain, not artificial constructs provide most of the cover.
The sample map layout have them about 500 to 1500 meters apart. Particularly Charlie to Delta is a 1500m race, through an open meatgrinder 
Breakin Stuff wrote:Due to the meatgrinder nature of any such map as well as constant exposure to AV and enemy vehicles, clone counts would need to be disabled like in acquisition.
I'd tend to disagree - it must be possible to clone-out your enemy to simply win the match early. Alternatively, it risks lasting too long and become a chore. Definitely open to discuss this item though! :)
Breakin Stuff wrote:Unlike other game modes this design would almost necessitate vehicle assets and put them at risk.
Definitely, and we touch on that in the video - Newbros would be at a heavy disadvantage due to lacking ISK and skils.
Is also why, page 4, we note it should be available in Pubs and FW, to allow 2 different Risk/Reward sets, so people may be able to use cheaper fits in Pubs (dreaming?) |
G Clone
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
84
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 20:35:00 -
[3] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Vehicle limit should be raised by two for dropships and LAVs only. More tanks on the field creates issues until we can do away with the 16v16 limit.
I think we covered this under feasibility, but removing large sockets should free up enough RAM to significantly up the vehicle limits. Page 4 does include smaller team sizes, in relation to the previous PC proposal, and ultimately it should be feasible for almost everyone to spawn in their own LAV/HAV/DS!
Breakin Stuff wrote:Transportation and fast mobility shoukd be the game winner here.
Tactics should play in, in where you deploy who using what vehicle - a well-placed fast LAV with an mCRU should be an viable option, as should 8 HAVs in a pack :)
Breakin Stuff wrote:I would suggest a siege mode, akin to domination where the defenders hold. The hack point Or automatically spawn at the new hack point if one gets shut down, creating a rolling defense.
Page 8 and forward describes the progression ... Please re-read, I think it covers what you're looking for.
Breakin Stuff wrote:If the attackers can shut down the hack point in under 10 minutes ( takes three minutes to shut down and can be counterhacked) the timer adds 5 min and the next objective opens.
I realized that incrementing the timer dynamically would be very beneficial, yes - this was added recently.
As the proposal has defenders owning all infrastructure from the beginning, defenders re-hacking a lost Objective was decided to be a non-item, and basically the design says that this has no effect: the battle will have moved on to the next objective...
Breakin Stuff wrote:Three hack points shut down and attacker wins. if the timer runs out, defender wins.
3-5 objectives, depending on map-size, see page 4.
|
G Clone
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
84
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 20:36:00 -
[4] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Special map restriction: uplinks last for 20 seconds due to automated defenses. Thus the attacking force must rely on coordinated vehicle transport and combat support to reach the objectives.
I think this is over-complicating it - in the design, uplinks are almost completed rendered useless, and focus is on mCRUs.
Breakin Stuff wrote:Once the second hack goes off the uplinks behave normallly and the final battle begins.
This part I'm not understanding - clarify?
|
G Clone
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
88
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 10:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
cammando 007 wrote:umm yeah like placing an objective on some hovering thingy 500 ft above the ground or umm making an huge huge map which allows a lot use of lavs ...or making a game mod which allows only one person to use only vechiles to win
In the sample map (see the last sections in PDF), I didn't so much place stuff in the air, but Bravo was specifically placed at an elevated position. There, a small/medium socket installation could then perhaps have a "heli-pad" (dropship-pad?) with the terminal on it - allow for easy access by DS, and a nightmare to defend |
G Clone
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
89
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 11:32:00 -
[6] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Making maps either infantry or vehicle based ends up with screwing people out of gameplay, and separates the playerbase. This has also been time and time again shown to simply not work, as for example Planerside 2 trying to cater to one or another just straight fails for both sides. That applies with gamemodes. Simply making a gamemode use vehicles as infantry doesn't help vehicles become better roled, and therefore in general better to use for pilots, it probably won't even be a good mode in the first place due to the cost of vehicles.
This idea of balancing based of a dichotomy needs to stop. It doesn't lead to balance, it leads to imbalance.
Well, I'm glad you at least read the whole thing, before concluding it was designed to be without any room for infantry. |
|
|
| |
|