Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The Attorney General
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 14:30:00 -
[61] - Quote
As for the driving only thing:
Sure, as long as all logis have to skill into all types of frames and weapons to be able to run a rep tool on their suit.
If a player does not the correct skill to 5, they cannot receive remote reps, access nanohives, or spawn on uplinks that come from gear they personally have not unlocked. Scans from Proto scanners do not show up on your TAC Net without Active scanning 5.
A pure driver seat is a dead idea in a game where I pay for the tank with MY SP and ISK.
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
The Attorney General
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 14:33:00 -
[62] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:
Part of why Lai Dai Packed AV Grenades are so deadly is because in most cases the HAV user who dies to them is stopped in order to aim accurately with his turret. With a separate gunner the driver can keep the HAV moving while the gunner engages targets.
Not at all.
The reason why lai dais are so powerful is because they are homing nuclear baseballs with enough alpha to wipe things out in a three pack.
Now tell me why someone with two types of homing weapons should be not only able to annihilate my ride, but also why I now have to depend on my turret operator to save my ISK. How is that engaging gameplay for me, as the vehicle purchaser?
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 16:13:00 -
[63] - Quote
The Attorney General wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:
Part of why Lai Dai Packed AV Grenades are so deadly is because in most cases the HAV user who dies to them is stopped in order to aim accurately with his turret. With a separate gunner the driver can keep the HAV moving while the gunner engages targets.
Not at all. The reason why lai dais are so powerful is because they are homing nuclear baseballs with enough alpha to wipe things out in a three pack. Now tell me why someone with two types of homing weapons should be not only able to annihilate my ride, but also why I now have to depend on my turret operator to save my ISK. How is that engaging gameplay for me, as the vehicle purchaser? I've repeatedly made my stance pretty clear on how easy mode homing weapons are, but the issue is that they are felt to be necessary to counter how powerful single-seater vehicles are.
Again, I'm putting this up not to say it's the only solution, but to try and prompt a discussion that looks outside of the current meta and examines a solution from new angles.
This game rewards team play pretty highly, so I think our primary vehicle classes should require that team play and reward it just as heavily.
I'll say again that I'm coming at this as someone who has used vehicles since the start of Mordu's Private Trials, so I'm not some butthurt infantry specialist who just wants to Nerf things.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Void Echo
Helix Order
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 16:31:00 -
[64] - Quote
Couldv fooled me, this is a massive need to HAVs that's your suggesting, nobody wants to depend on someone else just so they can run their desired class.
Closed Beta Vet.
Founder of Helix Order.
For the Federation, For Freedom, Till all are Free.
|
Mina Longstrike
Kirjuun Heiian
3
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 16:52:00 -
[65] - Quote
Sorry, I'm not in favor of any system that makes the large majority of my sp useless to me.
As it is you need to have an incredibly stupid amount of SP into vehicles, particularly fitting optimization skills to mount a fit that's even ****ing remotely okay. I've tried nurturing a community for vehicle users, and between dropship nerfs, sweeping tank changes (that started as far back as 1.7), and how powerful av feels to go up against... the vehicular community is essentially ****ing dead.
Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.
I have a few alts.
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 17:17:00 -
[66] - Quote
Mina Longstrike wrote:Sorry, I'm not in favor of any system that makes the large majority of my sp useless to me.
As it is you need to have an incredibly stupid amount of SP into vehicles, particularly fitting optimization skills to mount a fit that's even ****ing remotely okay. I've tried nurturing a community for vehicle users, and between dropship nerfs, sweeping tank changes (that started as far back as 1.7), and how powerful av feels to go up against... the vehicular community is essentially ****ing dead. I'm not sure that I'd say that, but we have certainly become rather divided as a result of our displeasure with the current Meta.
What if my concept didn't require maximum investment into each vehicle skill to unlock the associated MTAC? What if it only took Level III just like with Specialist Dropsuits?
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Zan Azikuchi
G.R.A.V.E The Ditanian Alliance
63
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 22:39:00 -
[67] - Quote
Perhaps, allow swarm's to be shot down, more often, by small turret's and give the top small turret more damage VS aerial vehicles and the bottom one more damage versus infantry? Seem's, also give blasters increased range, and give it back it's accuracy, that inverted dispersal isn't balancing the weapon, and it's more in-line with MIN weapon's, like the HMG. Just my 2 isk.
Also because i'm a gunner not a vehicle specialist all the weapon's are made to function horribly and need to be re-thought of, or perhaps add variant's that give the turrets more capability in reduction of damage, so that 1 turret may be best against vehicles and another vs infantry, but small turret variant's would be mixed, they'd have the same damage to vehicles that they do infantry, but the variant's would be more, well, variable, fully auto small rocket shooter, charge variant small turret for major damage to vehicles and infantry, but may be best vs vehicles given their size, but like the CSR would 1 shot (the charge sniper rifle would 1 shot headshot anything with an EHP of 1.2k+) most individuals with an ehp below 600, and a burst ion blaster with blast radius.
Once more i'd like to state I hate vehicle pilot's/driver's, their haughty attitude and self belief that their entitled to always be right when their clearly wrong, irritates me beyond measure, but naturally fairness is what I want to strive for, both for infantry and vehicles, also here: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2807246#post2807246 a point about vehicle's vs swarms were made, be sure to read it,
And Echo, if this was COD, vehicles would be easy mode, jump right in and be unstoppable (like back in chromosome), I truly despise your ignorance over this fact, and you would know if you ever played a COD game that vehicles would be an unstoppable force with hardly anyway to actually kill them, this game relates more to BF3-4 in terms of where vehicles are, not too hard, not too easy, which is the way I prefer. And I swear to god echo if you only read 1 part of this I would disown you of even being a tanker and see you as an out right troll.
G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 01:32:00 -
[68] - Quote
Zan Azikuchi wrote:Perhaps, allow swarm's to be shot down, more often, by small turret's and give the top small turret more damage VS aerial vehicles and the bottom one more damage versus infantry? Seem's, also give blasters increased range, and give it back it's accuracy, that inverted dispersal isn't balancing the weapon, and it's more in-line with MIN weapon's, like the HMG. Just my 2 isk. Also because i'm a gunner not a vehicle specialist all the weapon's are made to function horribly and need to be re-thought of, or perhaps add variant's that give the turrets more capability in reduction of damage, so that 1 turret may be best against vehicles and another vs infantry, but small turret variant's would be mixed, they'd have the same damage to vehicles that they do infantry, but the variant's would be more, well, variable, fully auto small rocket shooter, charge variant small turret for major damage to vehicles and infantry, but may be best vs vehicles given their size, but like the CSR would 1 shot (the charge sniper rifle would 1 shot headshot anything with an EHP of 1.2k+) most individuals with an ehp below 600, and a burst ion blaster with blast radius. Once more i'd like to state I hate vehicle pilot's/driver's, their haughty attitude and self belief that their entitled to always be right when their clearly wrong, irritates me beyond measure, but naturally fairness is what I want to strive for, both for infantry and vehicles, also here: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2807246#post2807246 a point about vehicle's vs swarms were made, be sure to read it, And Echo, if this was COD, vehicles would be easy mode, jump right in and be unstoppable (like back in chromosome), I truly despise your ignorance over this fact, and you would know if you ever played a COD game that vehicles would be an unstoppable force with hardly anyway to actually kill them, this game relates more to BF3-4 in terms of where vehicles are, not too hard, not too easy, which is the way I prefer. And I swear to god echo if you only read 1 part of this I would disown you of even being a tanker and see you as an out right troll. I completely agree that the Small Turrets have wonky functionality and would benefit from a design pass.
Right now the only turret that's truly effective is the Missile Turret. The Railgun Turret has a good rate of fire and can be used to kill infantry, but vehicle motion throws off the projectiles entirely which makes it impossible to use on infantry unless sitting completely still.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 00:41:00 -
[69] - Quote
Gonna give this one bump to see if anyone else has anything to add.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Harry Bawlss
Fatal Absolution
378
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 00:44:00 -
[70] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Gonna give this one bump to see if anyone else has anything to add. make shield tanks more OP please.
(Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.pâ+n+ín+ƒ. LASERS BTCH!!!!!!
|
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 00:49:00 -
[71] - Quote
Harry Bawlss wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Gonna give this one bump to see if anyone else has anything to add. make shield tanks more OP please. They're OP right now? As far as I've seen they fold instantly up against perma-repping blaster tanks.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Harry Bawlss
Fatal Absolution
378
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 00:55:00 -
[72] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Harry Bawlss wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Gonna give this one bump to see if anyone else has anything to add. make shield tanks more OP please. They're OP right now? As far as I've seen they fold instantly up against perma-repping blaster tanks. I want them more OP for me
(Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.pâ+n+ín+ƒ. LASERS BTCH!!!!!!
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 01:04:00 -
[73] - Quote
Harry Bawlss wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Harry Bawlss wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Gonna give this one bump to see if anyone else has anything to add. make shield tanks more OP please. They're OP right now? As far as I've seen they fold instantly up against perma-repping blaster tanks. I want them more OP for me Oh. XD
I'm afraid I can't help you there.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Moochie Cricket
The Templis Dragonaurs Evil Syndicate Alliance.
1
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 01:35:00 -
[74] - Quote
As a hardcore pilot and hobby tanker since closed beta I would be cool with separating the gunner and driver into different roles if the vehicles/turrets were made much more powerful. Some of my favorite times in dust was flying Soul around in my myron while he racked up the kills.
FOR THE STATE
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 01:50:00 -
[75] - Quote
Moochie Cricket wrote:As a hardcore pilot and hobby tanker since closed beta I would be cool with separating the gunner and driver into different roles if the vehicles/turrets were made much more powerful. Some of my favorite times in dust was flying Soul around in my myron while he racked up the kills. Same for me, which is part of why I was thinking about this.
The important factor is the adjustment toward that with basic vehicles COMBINED with the introduction of the dedicated solo-vehicles for those who want to keep that playstyle.
Every other combined-arms game in the industry has vehicle control dynamics exactly like Dust. I want to see Dust offer different and more cooperative gameplay as a default while presenting a far more unique and desirable experience for solo-pilots other than the standard one-man-tank with a seat or two for support guns that we have right now.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
19
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 01:57:00 -
[76] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote: I'm not sure that I'd say that, but we have certainly become rather divided as a result of our displeasure with the current Meta.
This is basically a synopsis of the arguments for this proposal.
While it's not a bad idea as I have said before to you I can't really consider a proposition which splits up the functionality of an HAV between two players as mandated by another section of the player base to satisfy their personal desires a good idea.
However I agree with you that having HAV with such prolific anti infantry power coupled with a flawed system of passive repairs does not equate to good gameplay or the kind which any armour tanker who lived through Chromosome or Uprising should consider themselves proud of.
That being said I do not believe the HAV operator and gunnery roles have to be separated to achieve a meaningful balance while reinforcing the HAV as not just a solo player's vehicle. My suggestion however would rely on several things in addition to your TIII MTAC concept.
a.) redesign of HAV turrets so they fit into the concept of large calibre ordinance for anti-vehicle gameplay b.) removal of SHAV solo vehicles in favour of MTACs c.) resurgence of lost modules for a more active vehicle piloting meta and return of damage modules to low slots
a.) relates to the fundamental design of HAV in Dust 514 which I look upon as flawed inherently. I enjoy HAV game play in a pragmatic sense but by comparison to other examples of vehicle combat featuring MBT's Dust does not present a particularly good depiction of armoured warfare.
I fundamental believe that there is a way to keep racial design philosophy, weapon uniqueness, and balance in mind while ensuring that all HAV Large turrets operate as true ordinance (e.g - Hyrbid Blaster Charged Electron Cannister Rounds, Hybrid Rail Kinetic Penetrators, Dual Beam Laser Cannon, and High Payload Artillery Rounds).
The idea behind this is to break up the roles for tank crew. Large Turrets are designed to fire at other large targets like vehicles, however can kill infantry with accurate shots, while Small Turrets function in an Anti-Infantry Role. Thus an HAV can operate in the field with only one main pilot and gunner but will be less equipped to deal with AV infantry in close quarters and entrenched in cover.
b.) The premise of SHAV is ridiculous and is a band-aid fix to a problem that deserves a true response. Tanks are not solo vehicles no matter how you look at it. Players should be encouraged to use them, support them, protect them, and visa versa.
Moreover the fitting disparities between the two make SHAV's worthless once all skills and fitting modifiers are applied. There simply is no place or point for them to exist in game.
c.) While I think everyone who remembers the time period understand that HAV were a little iffy in the Chromosome and Uprising Era's, and AV vs HAV balance was jacked in favour of AV [don't give me that ****, it simply was due to aspects of gameplay outside of either groups control] vehicles could be both tanked passively and actively.
Almost all tank type modules were considered active including Armour Hardeners, Armour Repairers, Remote Armour Repairers, Damage Control Modules, Shield Boosters, and Shield Hardeners. Vehicle command, most prominently Armour combat, was a process of managing 6+ active modules form your primary tank type through to utilities. Regardless of what people like to say about tankers [and visa versa for AV/infantry] Armour brawling was a bloody joy requiring careful timing and observation of your modules and your opponents in addition to your piloting.
Additionally I would like to see older modules like Damage Controls, Passive Resistance Modules, etc in addition to a Damage Module shift from active modules to passive modules to be fit into the low slots adjusting a variety of factors like Heat, Damage, RoF, etc.
"Crush all who complain!"
- Arkena Wyrnspire
|
Riptalis
Eyniletti Rangers Minmatar Republic
292
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 02:15:00 -
[77] - Quote
Disagree, I like soloing in my ADS plus it's my hard work and dedication I shouldn't need another player in my ADS. Soz
Python pilot, Logistics mk.0, Assault mk.0, Sentinel mk.0, Scout mk.0
Minmatar Loyalist
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 02:22:00 -
[78] - Quote
Riptalis wrote:Disagree, I like soloing in my ADS plus it's my hard work and dedication I shouldn't need another player in my ADS. Soz Again, the idea is to enhance the Assault Dropships by replacing them with a gun-ship type platform that is more effective overall, and to introduce a single-seater asset for players who want to fly solo.
The idea is to try and mix up the current somewhat boring mix of the familiar that is Dust's current vehicle dynamic.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Void Echo
Helix Order
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 02:34:00 -
[79] - Quote
If anything it will be a lot more boring for HAV drivers.
Closed Beta Vet.
Founder of Helix Order.
For the Federation, For Freedom, Till all are Free.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
288
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 05:48:00 -
[80] - Quote
Interesting idea (I think we discussed this before actually Wyvern)...one of the issues I see is requiring a second player to enable a player style (The MTACs seems like a tacked on concession, albeit a cool one)...and requiring a second player to enable functionality with a (relatively) low player count in battle...
and while this appears to address some things, it would require another full overhaul of the vehicles, vehicle modules, AV weaponry...basically everything having to do with vehicles (which we still need...not that I'm complaining about the Iterative Changes)
I personally am more in-line with Adamance's Camp...one of the big issues with HAVs is its ability to engage infantry targets with its main gun...which should be addressed by re-examining the Blaster/Missile Turrets (which would need to be done even if Mobius Wyvern's proposal went through IMO). The problem with doing that is you have a lack of durable infantry suppression/Mobile Wall...(Currently one of the roles the Blaster Tanks fill) which should be getting filled by the MAVs...As Long as the HAVs have to pull double duty there, we're unlikely to see effective Balance of the HAVs in general.
Although, put me down as a +1 on getting fighters in here...Infinity is starting to get old....
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |