| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
6
   |
Posted - 2015.06.05 14:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
Lately IGÇÖve been considering running for CPM 2, but truth be told with a big move coming up in August and trying to go back to school in the fall I have entirely too much on my plate to be trying to add that to it.
Thus, I shall remove myself permanently from consideration by posting the following:
Redesigning Vehicle Progression (More Teamwork - Less Master Chief)
I will reiterate a point I have made many times in the past that had me quickly shouted down by the GÇ£Pro TankersGÇ¥ of earlier years: the idea that a high enough skillpoint investment should render a single player nigh-unkillable is rather silly.
What I would first recommend is the adjustment of HAVs to at minimum require a dedicated driver and dedicated gunner, and to redesign the Assault Dropship such that it has an additional internal seat that controls an independent turret under the nose rather than the current system.
What this does is require that players who skill into these vehicles buddy up with someone good with a turret same as an LAV or Dropship pilot has to. The oft-used justification of it being a vehicle that is used to demand that multiple AV players be required to destroy it should involve a greater multiplayer requirement on the part of the user.
I would also point out that this would allow the vehicles in question to prosecute targets while retaining full mobility, which would give them better survivability on the field. 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.
With this model, the driver is focused solely on maneuvering and module activation, and would also receive Vehicle Kill Assist WP for every kill by each of the vehicleGÇÖs turrets. If you were to combine that with running a scanner for Intel Kill Assist and also placing a Defend order on the vehicle for that bonus, the driver would be getting more WP per kill than the gunners doing the killing, making it well worth it for the driver.
For anyone who hasnGÇÖt already hit Reply to start ranting about what a brainless moron who hates fun that I am, I now get to the more long-term section of this proposal:
Solo Vehicles (Big Investment for Master Chief Status)
What is one thing that both jets and mechs have in pretty much any game that features them?
They only require one player.
The idea here is that Fighters and MTACs would offer solo-playability in a vehicle in exchange for maxing out the section of the vehicle tree that comes before them. MTACs would also come in size classes such that they would be accessible without too much of an SP investment, but a player who wants the biggest and baddest one would need to invest a butt-ton of SP. For example.
LAV V > Light MTAC
MAV V> Medium MTAC
HAV V> Heavy MTAC
The size classes for aircraft made me think that we could redo the vehicle skill tree to have aircraft skills split by size class. The Fighters shown in the 2009 stage demo and concept artwork are the size of HAVs, but real-life jets are larger than tanks in any case, so the Heavy ones might actually be bigger than that. The Aircraft skills would unlock multi-person VTOL aircraft like with the ground vehicle skills, with Level V of each of those skills unlocking single-seater fixed-wing aircraft.
Light Aircraft V > Light Fighter
Medium Aircraft V > Medium Fighter
Heavy Aircraft V > Heavy Fighter
Now, while these Fighters and MTACs would allow solo vehicle play, they each come with drawbacks to counter the increased abilities
MTAC Advantages:
1. Greater mobility afforded by legs (strafing, possibly limited jumping)
2. No requirement for a gunner
3. Greater variety in weapon fitting based on size class
MTAC Disadvantages:
1. Taller than other vehicles in their size class which impedes use of cover
2. Lower overall HP as a tradeoff for higher mobility
3. Heavy hits to legs can cause them to temporarily stumble and slow
Fighter Advantages:
1. Very fast
2. Can carry single-use weapons with varying abilities (bombs, guided missiles)
3. No requirement of gunner
Fighter Disadvantages:
1. Very low HP
2. Limited ability to reduce speed in flight, leaving small attack windows
3. All guns are fixed so VTOL canGÇÖt be used to make weapons more effective
This way a player can choose to make a very large SP investment in exchange for receiving solo vehicles, but those solo vehicles still retain enough balancing factors to prevent them from dominating the field.
Now tell me how much I suck.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Nightfury Wyrnspire
Seituoda Taskforce Command
17
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 14:23:00 -
[2] - Quote
-1 would not vote for CPM |
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 14:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
Nightfury Wyrnspire wrote:-1 would not vote for CPM
+1
Thank you for your support.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Nightfury Wyrnspire
Seituoda Taskforce Command
17
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 14:26:00 -
[4] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Nightfury Wyrnspire wrote:-1 would not vote for CPM +1 Thank you for your support.
I appreciate your support of my support of your awfulness. |
Michael-J-Fox Richards
Ostrakon Agency
Gallente Federation
377
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 14:32:00 -
[5] - Quote
your idea is stupid bro. why have ADS require 2 people. why not use a cheapo sidegun ship. you tried shooting as a gunner. its harder cause you aint controlling the movements.
alts are for sissies. too legit, too legit to quit.
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 14:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
Michael-J-Fox Richards wrote:your idea is stupid bro. why have ADS require 2 people. why not use a cheapo sidegun ship. you tried shooting as a gunner. its harder cause you aint controlling the movements.
Imagine using a turret mounted underneath the vehicle with 360 degree aiming as well as pitching up and down.
You can aim completely independent of what the pilot is doing.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Nightfury Wyrnspire
Seituoda Taskforce Command
17
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 14:44:00 -
[7] - Quote
Michael-J-Fox Richards wrote:your idea is stupid bro. why have ADS require 2 people. why not use a cheapo sidegun ship. you tried shooting as a gunner. its harder cause you aint controlling the movements.
Do you understand how the sidegun mechanics work? There are numerous issues with them that wouldn't be present in a frontal gunner position. |
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 14:51:00 -
[8] - Quote
Nightfury Wyrnspire wrote:Michael-J-Fox Richards wrote:your idea is stupid bro. why have ADS require 2 people. why not use a cheapo sidegun ship. you tried shooting as a gunner. its harder cause you aint controlling the movements. Do you understand how the sidegun mechanics work? There are numerous issues with them that wouldn't be present in a frontal gunner position.
Yes, the nose gun model would actually be advantageous as a gunner.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Michael-J-Fox Richards
Ostrakon Agency
Gallente Federation
377
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 14:55:00 -
[9] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Michael-J-Fox Richards wrote:your idea is stupid bro. why have ADS require 2 people. why not use a cheapo sidegun ship. you tried shooting as a gunner. its harder cause you aint controlling the movements. Imagine using a turret mounted underneath the vehicle with 360 degree aiming as well as pitching up and down. You can aim completely independent of what the pilot is doing.
no you cant. the muntions from a turret have travel time to target. you cant anticipate when the pilot will move and send your shot veering off hard right. neither of you understand. aiming by yourself in an ADS is easy you are just bad and/or have no experience with what you're talking about.
alts are for sissies. too legit, too legit to quit.
|
an0kneemus
Kirkinen Risk Control
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 15:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Michael-J-Fox Richards wrote:your idea is stupid bro. why have ADS require 2 people. why not use a cheapo sidegun ship. you tried shooting as a gunner. its harder cause you aint controlling the movements. Imagine using a turret mounted underneath the vehicle with 360 degree aiming as well as pitching up and down. You can aim completely independent of what the pilot is doing.
mathematically if it is underneath it does not have a 360 degrees turning.
i think u need to work on your maths before dust 514
|
|
|
Regis Blackbird
DUST University
Ivy League
948
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 15:27:00 -
[11] - Quote
Why not do the following:?
(To work within the boundaries of available assets).
* Normal HAV gets its driver position moved to the front turret, and buffed. (Requires at least two people to move and operate main turret )
* SHAVs keep their current implementation. (Can be operated solo)
* Dropships, keep as is.
* Swarm Launcher: Change the aiming mechanics from dumb-fire to laser sight which requires you to aim at your target until missiles hits. Buff its operational range
* If Possible: Give audio warning to ADS pilots that your ship has been targeted (with swarms)
|
SHERIFF joe arapio
US Border Patrol
80
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 15:30:00 -
[12] - Quote
+ 1 for CPM2. Throw Princess outta office.
Its brilliant with a few kinks. The "pilots" will love it. |
Void Echo
Helix Order
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 15:31:00 -
[13] - Quote
With that idea your sure to never get the CPM position, that idea will literally kill HAVs. 5 main problems come with that design.
Closed Beta Vet.
Founder of Helix Order.
For the Federation, For Freedom, Till all are Free.
|
Varoth Drac
Dead Man's Game
953
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 15:40:00 -
[14] - Quote
A simpler idea (maybe not as good, but much more likely), would be to fulfil Rattat's design premise for HAVs, and make the large blaster an AV weapon, and the small blaster an anti-infantry weapon worthy of the investment of two player's time, plus a tank, plus the teamwork required to use it.
At the moment there are two problems:
1) The large blaster is so good at killing infantry, there is little need for a tanker to get a gunner to kill infantry.
2) The small blaster still has much too much dispersion to make it a decent weapon. Yes you can kill people with it, but it's nowhere near efficient enough considering the investment and teamwork required.
When there are tank gunners in PC mowing down infantry with a small blaster, it will be balanced. |
Astartes of Derp
Allcorp Resource Union
13
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 15:59:00 -
[15] - Quote
I would vote for you after reading this...
I have an evil plan to save the world.
|
DUST Fiend
17
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 16:50:00 -
[16] - Quote
Yea, no. ADS in particular are already painfully easy to kill if they do anything but run, now you want us to require some other idiot in our ship, AND to be on comms, just so they can stare at the sky half the time while you fly away from lolswarms? Nevermind how incredibly boring piloting suddenly becomes with your single module that you get to activate as you spend your time running away...WOOOO EXCITING!!!!
Tell you what.
When you deploy in your dropsuit, you need a second player to aim your gun. Do that and we can talk.
Also, CCP literally can't program in a proper first person cam for the ADS turret, what makes you think they'll be able to program in an entirely separate turret? You can't go suggesting new vehicles when CCP isn't even able to fill out the vehicles we already have. It's a pointless suggestion because it will never happen. DUST has long since ceased to grow, it's only getting "polished"
This thread is now a dance party
~ Dances Boldly ~
DUST STUFF
|
deezy dabest
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 17:20:00 -
[17] - Quote
I am definitely not a fan of requiring 2 people to operate a tank or ADS.
I do support your style of self elimination through approaching a hot button issue. |
SHERIFF joe arapio
US Border Patrol
95
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 17:33:00 -
[18] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:
When you deploy in your dropsuit, you need a second player to aim your gun. Do that and we can talk.
Sweet, so lets have Sentinels with the HP of a tank then? Thats according to your logic. Brilliant.
Compare apples to apples then why dont you try talking again. |
DUST Fiend
17
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 17:37:00 -
[19] - Quote
SHERIFF joe arapio wrote:DUST Fiend wrote:
When you deploy in your dropsuit, you need a second player to aim your gun. Do that and we can talk.
Sweet, so lets have Sentinels with the HP of a tank then? Thats according to your logic. Brilliant. Compare apples to apples then why dont you try talking again.
Happily, so long as your sentinel is deployed by an RDV and can only be switched after recalling your dropsuit and calling in another.
You can't compare apples to apples when you have apples and oranges, that was the point I was making. Thank you for playing the home game though.
This thread is now a dance party
~ Dances Boldly ~
DUST STUFF
|
hails8n
DEATH BY DESTRUCTION
293
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 17:57:00 -
[20] - Quote
What pisses me of is a madrugar can be hardened 70% of the time and when he's hardened you can have 3 boundless RES on him and hell still survive.
Petition to ban the trainyard map.
|
|
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 18:10:00 -
[21] - Quote
This is prompting some wonderful discussion!
I realize this must seem very far flung, but the idea is not to try and change everything right now. The plan still relies on the presence of the other vehicles to provide a solo route as an option for the dedicated.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 18:41:00 -
[22] - Quote
A friend of mine pointed out something I forgot to mention:
My concept assumes the existence of selective vehicle locking. That way you can ensure that your gunners are the people you want and no one else.
Void Echo wrote:With that idea your sure to never get the CPM position, that idea will literally kill HAVs. 5 main problems come with that design.
Care to elaborate?
an0kneemus wrote:
mathematically if it is underneath it does not have a 360 degrees turning.
i think u need to work on your maths before dust 514
If the turret is underneath of the ship such that it is beneath the entire body of the ship, it would be able to aim 360 degrees exactly like how a turret on top of a ground vehicle works.
May want to try thinking before posting sarcastic comments.
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
51
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 19:30:00 -
[23] - Quote
+1, also if you ever played BF3-4 or whenever there was an attack helicopter, you'll know that it can very good to be the gunner, also another +1 because I like the tanker perspective of having to rely more on gunners and moving and modules, makes for more required teamwork and makes for more attentive gameplay and less crying since the main tank gunner can be shooting while looking behind itself without hitting any obstacles, because their separate seat's, plenty of time I shot and killed a tank with swarm's because they ran into the terrain trying to get away from me.
G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 19:41:00 -
[24] - Quote
Zan Azikuchi wrote:+1, also if you ever played BF3-4 or whenever there was an attack helicopter, you'll know that it can very good to be the gunner, also another +1 because I like the tanker perspective of having to rely more on gunners and moving and modules, makes for more required teamwork and makes for more attentive gameplay and less crying since the main tank gunner can be shooting while looking behind itself without hitting any obstacles, because their separate seat's, plenty of time I shot and killed a tank with swarm's because they ran into the terrain trying to get away from me.
You hit on the scenarios that prompted my recommendation.
Having been a long time vehicle user myself, both air and ground, part of this is also based on what I wish I had.
I want to see an end to the nerf-buff cycle.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Vesta Opalus
Ostrakon Agency
Gallente Federation
778
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 19:45:00 -
[25] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Lately IGÇÖve been considering running for CPM 2, but truth be told with a big move coming up in August and trying to go back to school in the fall I have entirely too much on my plate to be trying to add that to it.
Thus, I shall remove myself permanently from consideration by posting the following:
Redesigning Vehicle Progression (More Teamwork - Less Master Chief)
I will reiterate a point I have made many times in the past that had me quickly shouted down by the GÇ£Pro TankersGÇ¥ of earlier years: the idea that a high enough skillpoint investment should render a single player nigh-unkillable is rather silly.
What I would first recommend is the adjustment of HAVs to at minimum require a dedicated driver and dedicated gunner, and to redesign the Assault Dropship such that it has an additional internal seat that controls an independent turret under the nose rather than the current system.
What this does is require that players who skill into these vehicles buddy up with someone good with a turret same as an LAV or Dropship pilot has to. The oft-used justification of it being a vehicle that is used to demand that multiple AV players be required to destroy it should involve a greater multiplayer requirement on the part of the user.
I would also point out that this would allow the vehicles in question to prosecute targets while retaining full mobility, which would give them better survivability on the field. 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.
With this model, the driver is focused solely on maneuvering and module activation, and would also receive Vehicle Kill Assist WP for every kill by each of the vehicleGÇÖs turrets. If you were to combine that with running a scanner for Intel Kill Assist and also placing a Defend order on the vehicle for that bonus, the driver would be getting more WP per kill than the gunners doing the killing, making it well worth it for the driver.
For anyone who hasnGÇÖt already hit Reply to start ranting about what a brainless moron who hates fun that I am, I now get to the more long-term section of this proposal:
Solo Vehicles (Big Investment for Master Chief Status)
What is one thing that both jets and mechs have in pretty much any game that features them?
They only require one player.
The idea here is that Fighters and MTACs would offer solo-playability in a vehicle in exchange for maxing out the section of the vehicle tree that comes before them. MTACs would also come in size classes such that they would be accessible without too much of an SP investment, but a player who wants the biggest and baddest one would need to invest a butt-ton of SP. For example.
LAV V > Light MTAC
MAV V> Medium MTAC
HAV V> Heavy MTAC
The size classes for aircraft made me think that we could redo the vehicle skill tree to have aircraft skills split by size class. The Fighters shown in the 2009 stage demo and concept artwork are the size of HAVs, but real-life jets are larger than tanks in any case, so the Heavy ones might actually be bigger than that. The Aircraft skills would unlock multi-person VTOL aircraft like with the ground vehicle skills, with Level V of each of those skills unlocking single-seater fixed-wing aircraft.
Light Aircraft V > Light Fighter
Medium Aircraft V > Medium Fighter
Heavy Aircraft V > Heavy Fighter
Now, while these Fighters and MTACs would allow solo vehicle play, they each come with drawbacks to counter the increased abilities
MTAC Advantages:
1. Greater mobility afforded by legs (strafing, possibly limited jumping)
2. No requirement for a gunner
3. Greater variety in weapon fitting based on size class
MTAC Disadvantages:
1. Taller than other vehicles in their size class which impedes use of cover
2. Lower overall HP as a tradeoff for higher mobility
3. Heavy hits to legs can cause them to temporarily stumble and slow
Fighter Advantages:
1. Very fast
2. Can carry single-use weapons with varying abilities (bombs, guided missiles)
3. No requirement of gunner
Fighter Disadvantages:
1. Very low HP
2. Limited ability to reduce speed in flight, leaving small attack windows
3. All guns are fixed so VTOL canGÇÖt be used to make weapons more effective
This way a player can choose to make a very large SP investment in exchange for receiving solo vehicles, but those solo vehicles still retain enough balancing factors to prevent them from dominating the field.
Now tell me how much I suck.
I like the idea of making HAV/ ADS Dropship require two people, if only because its a thousand times more fun that way (though this may make them not work it in PC games). Dunno about the rest of this stuff. |
Zan Azikuchi
G.R.A.V.E
The Ditanian Alliance
51
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 19:51:00 -
[26] - Quote
Just so we're clear, i'll always hate vehicles in this game, just like in any other game, i'm a sniper, that's simply who I am. But in no mean's would I ever want it to be unfair, for other's especially vehicle user's, i've played enough VG's to understand how vehicles work's, of course i've never delved into vehicles (save for the militia vehicles) in this game, but in other's I see very common similarities, the only thing that separates me from them, is the modules and EHP, plenty of time's if they were using the same vehicle fits as me, it would come down to more ambushing and maneuvering just like in CoD:WaW, and the battlefield 3-4. With that I put down my pen and pencil, just wanting to state fact's that there's no hard feelings. (Since many seem to get very defensive of their role's, especially when they feel threatened of it being taken away from them, your still gonna be getting more WP's than ever, it'll make mobile cru's on tank's more useful and hey, CCP may even let tank driver squad leader's call in Warbarges from within the driver seat's with this idea, possibilities!).
G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
|
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 21:58:00 -
[27] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Michael-J-Fox Richards wrote:your idea is stupid bro. why have ADS require 2 people. why not use a cheapo sidegun ship. you tried shooting as a gunner. its harder cause you aint controlling the movements. Imagine using a turret mounted underneath the vehicle with 360 degree aiming as well as pitching up and down. You can aim completely independent of what the pilot is doing.
No, no you cannot. As of right now, and has been since release, all shots fired from a moving vehicle get magically displaced through space in the INVERSE direction of travel. This means that if a dropship had said setup, and started flying downward, the bullet would originate inside the dropship, damaging the hull or killing any occupants.
Vehicle turrets Never fire from their turret, but instead fire from a bizarre physics position that whips around behind the gun.
This is why dropships usually slow down before firing.
http://youtu.be/dtXupQg77SU
Dust to Dust
Remember the dream you had before the day you were born.
|
Zan Azikuchi
G.R.A.V.E
The Ditanian Alliance
56
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:01:00 -
[28] - Quote
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Michael-J-Fox Richards wrote:your idea is stupid bro. why have ADS require 2 people. why not use a cheapo sidegun ship. you tried shooting as a gunner. its harder cause you aint controlling the movements. Imagine using a turret mounted underneath the vehicle with 360 degree aiming as well as pitching up and down. You can aim completely independent of what the pilot is doing. No, no you cannot. As of right now, and has been since release, all shots fired from a moving vehicle get magically displaced through space in the INVERSE direction of travel. This means that if a dropship had said setup, and started flying downward, the bullet would originate inside the dropship, damaging the hull or killing any occupants. Vehicle turrets Never fire from their turret, but instead fire from a bizarre physics position that whips around behind the gun. This is why dropships usually slow down before firing.
In which case, i'm willing to let a nerf to the SL slide, give and take bra, give and take.
G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:03:00 -
[29] - Quote
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Michael-J-Fox Richards wrote:your idea is stupid bro. why have ADS require 2 people. why not use a cheapo sidegun ship. you tried shooting as a gunner. its harder cause you aint controlling the movements. Imagine using a turret mounted underneath the vehicle with 360 degree aiming as well as pitching up and down. You can aim completely independent of what the pilot is doing. No, no you cannot. As of right now, and has been since release, all shots fired from a moving vehicle get magically displaced through space in the INVERSE direction of travel. This means that if a dropship had said setup, and started flying downward, the bullet would originate inside the dropship, damaging the hull or killing any occupants. Vehicle turrets Never fire from their turret, but instead fire from a bizarre physics position that whips around behind the gun. This is why dropships usually slow down before firing.
I'm well aware of the current state of projectiles fired from vehicles, as I have lost many a side gunner to their missile killing them via splash damage as I strafe toward the side they are on in my Python.
We shouldn't be arguing against possible improvements in gameplay simply because a current bug might be troublesome. I'm also not entirely sure that's what that particular poster was opposing.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Void Echo
Helix Order
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:11:00 -
[30] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:A friend of mine pointed out something I forgot to mention: My concept assumes the existence of selective vehicle locking. That way you can ensure that your gunners are the people you want and no one else. Void Echo wrote:With that idea your sure to never get the CPM position, that idea will literally kill HAVs. 5 main problems come with that design. Care to elaborate.
If you really need an explanation then ok.
1. Who skills into what? Who will put their SP into the HAV itself and who will go with the turret?
2. If the HAV dies then who takes a blow to their wallet, there's no way to determine because one person could spec into turrets 70% and the HAVS 60%.
3. This would be like making it where you need 2 others to pilot your suit aloen, one for movement, one for aiming and one for shooting.
4. Blue dots have an IQ of .5, there's no way you can justify forcing HAV pilots to trust a random person to not drive them into a suicide nor can you trust them to shoot at the right people.
5. Quite plainly nobody will spec into either one, the investment in something like this would make it absolutely worthless.
Closed Beta Vet.
Founder of Helix Order.
For the Federation, For Freedom, Till all are Free.
|
|
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Tribal Liberation Force Paramilitary
7
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:12:00 -
[31] - Quote
Good idea, but almost as old as Dust itself, and poses the problem that we can't add fighters or MTACs
Rule 34.6.1: every parody will have a crossover
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
1
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:27:00 -
[32] - Quote
No need to rant, especially if your idea presupposes alot of development that dust will never see. I don't mind people trying to be creative.
You're going to school in the fall, so you're a young buck no need to put you down.
Keep it real, there's not exaclty a line of people that have to be reluctantly discouraged from voting for you as the volunteer community feedback guy for a free to play game on a last gen console.
Better off focusing on school and devote your time to success / education IRL.
Enjoy the summer
Winter is coming.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
"I sometimes wonder why I share stuff "- CCP Rattati
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:28:00 -
[33] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:A friend of mine pointed out something I forgot to mention: My concept assumes the existence of selective vehicle locking. That way you can ensure that your gunners are the people you want and no one else. Void Echo wrote:With that idea your sure to never get the CPM position, that idea will literally kill HAVs. 5 main problems come with that design. Care to elaborate. If you really need an explanation then ok. 1. Who skills into what? Who will put their SP into the HAV itself and who will go with the turret? 2. If the HAV dies then who takes a blow to their wallet, there's no way to determine because one person could spec into turrets 70% and the HAVS 60%. 3. This would be like making it where you need 2 others to pilot your suit aloen, one for movement, one for aiming and one for shooting. 4. Blue dots have an IQ of .5, there's no way you can justify forcing HAV pilots to trust a random person to not drive them into a suicide nor can you trust them to shoot at the right people. 5. Quite plainly nobody will spec into either one, the investment in something like this would make it absolutely worthless.
Skilling would be adjusted to match the current goal of applying turret stats based on the higher skill. If the gunner has more SP into turrets than the pilot, his bonuses are used. If not, the pilot's are used.
As to your other major sticking point, I edited my post to include that this idea assumes the deployment of owner vehicle locking, which I would mention is in CCP Rattati's notes on Trello. This means that you can deploy into a battle in a squad with your gunner, lock your vehicle, and then only permit your gunner into the main turret. You can develop synergy with good gunners and be far more effective and survivable as a team than you could be on your own.
This is aimed at you rolling with Corp members you trust, not with randoms.
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
57
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:33:00 -
[34] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:A friend of mine pointed out something I forgot to mention: My concept assumes the existence of selective vehicle locking. That way you can ensure that your gunners are the people you want and no one else. Void Echo wrote:With that idea your sure to never get the CPM position, that idea will literally kill HAVs. 5 main problems come with that design. Care to elaborate. If you really need an explanation then ok. 1. Who skills into what? Who will put their SP into the HAV itself and who will go with the turret? 2. If the HAV dies then who takes a blow to their wallet, there's no way to determine because one person could spec into turrets 70% and the HAVS 60%. 3. This would be like making it where you need 2 others to pilot your suit aloen, one for movement, one for aiming and one for shooting. 4. Blue dots have an IQ of .5, there's no way you can justify forcing HAV pilots to trust a random person to not drive them into a suicide nor can you trust them to shoot at the right people. 5. Quite plainly nobody will spec into either one, the investment in something like this would make it absolutely worthless.
So what if we keep enforcer tanks as they are now, but make normal tank's use the OP? This way, we'll see who out performs who, the synergy tank? Or the solo tank, IT'S TIME FOR A DUST BATTLE~! (like a death battle, but in dust). Okay joke's aside, I really think this may be the way to go. Beside's it's not like EVERY vehicle would end up with this, only if it's super effective, gotta test it out first, y'know?
G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
|
Void Echo
Helix Order
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:39:00 -
[35] - Quote
Zan Azikuchi wrote:Void Echo wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:A friend of mine pointed out something I forgot to mention: My concept assumes the existence of selective vehicle locking. That way you can ensure that your gunners are the people you want and no one else. Void Echo wrote:With that idea your sure to never get the CPM position, that idea will literally kill HAVs. 5 main problems come with that design. Care to elaborate. If you really need an explanation then ok. 1. Who skills into what? Who will put their SP into the HAV itself and who will go with the turret? 2. If the HAV dies then who takes a blow to their wallet, there's no way to determine because one person could spec into turrets 70% and the HAVS 60%. 3. This would be like making it where you need 2 others to pilot your suit aloen, one for movement, one for aiming and one for shooting. 4. Blue dots have an IQ of .5, there's no way you can justify forcing HAV pilots to trust a random person to not drive them into a suicide nor can you trust them to shoot at the right people. 5. Quite plainly nobody will spec into either one, the investment in something like this would make it absolutely worthless. So what if we keep enforcer tanks as they are now, but make normal tank's use the OP? This way, we'll see who out performs who, the synergy tank? Or the solo tank, IT'S TIME FOR A DUST BATTLE~! (like a death battle, but in dust). Okay joke's aside, I really think this may be the way to go. Beside's it's not like EVERY vehicle would end up with this, only if it's super effective, gotta test it out first, y'know?
Testing out this game killing idea is fine, but never should it be actually implimented, there is literally no incentive to spec into their side if this is what will happen.
Closed Beta Vet.
Founder of Helix Order.
For the Federation, For Freedom, Till all are Free.
|
Void Echo
Helix Order
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:41:00 -
[36] - Quote
This idea has been shot down by all pilots, HAV, drop ships and LAVs, not to mention some of the infantry community, lots of people know that this will without a doubt kill tanking immediately.
Closed Beta Vet.
Founder of Helix Order.
For the Federation, For Freedom, Till all are Free.
|
Zan Azikuchi
G.R.A.V.E
The Ditanian Alliance
58
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:42:00 -
[37] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Zan Azikuchi wrote:Void Echo wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:A friend of mine pointed out something I forgot to mention: My concept assumes the existence of selective vehicle locking. That way you can ensure that your gunners are the people you want and no one else. Void Echo wrote:With that idea your sure to never get the CPM position, that idea will literally kill HAVs. 5 main problems come with that design. Care to elaborate. If you really need an explanation then ok. 1. Who skills into what? Who will put their SP into the HAV itself and who will go with the turret? 2. If the HAV dies then who takes a blow to their wallet, there's no way to determine because one person could spec into turrets 70% and the HAVS 60%. 3. This would be like making it where you need 2 others to pilot your suit aloen, one for movement, one for aiming and one for shooting. 4. Blue dots have an IQ of .5, there's no way you can justify forcing HAV pilots to trust a random person to not drive them into a suicide nor can you trust them to shoot at the right people. 5. Quite plainly nobody will spec into either one, the investment in something like this would make it absolutely worthless. So what if we keep enforcer tanks as they are now, but make normal tank's use the OP? This way, we'll see who out performs who, the synergy tank? Or the solo tank, IT'S TIME FOR A DUST BATTLE~! (like a death battle, but in dust). Okay joke's aside, I really think this may be the way to go. Beside's it's not like EVERY vehicle would end up with this, only if it's super effective, gotta test it out first, y'know? Testing out this game killing idea is fine, but never should it be actually implimented, there is literally no incentive to spec into their side if this is what will happen.
And if it turn's out far better than you thought it would? What then?
G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
|
Zan Azikuchi
G.R.A.V.E
The Ditanian Alliance
58
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:43:00 -
[38] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:This idea has been shot down by all pilots, HAV, drop ships and LAVs, not to mention some of the infantry community, lots of people know that this will without a doubt kill tanking immediately.
Didn't see any infatry or LAV driver's come here and chat about it, so that's a bit invalid... (also apologies for the double post  )
G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:45:00 -
[39] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Zan Azikuchi wrote:Void Echo wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:A friend of mine pointed out something I forgot to mention: My concept assumes the existence of selective vehicle locking. That way you can ensure that your gunners are the people you want and no one else. Void Echo wrote:With that idea your sure to never get the CPM position, that idea will literally kill HAVs. 5 main problems come with that design. Care to elaborate. If you really need an explanation then ok. 1. Who skills into what? Who will put their SP into the HAV itself and who will go with the turret? 2. If the HAV dies then who takes a blow to their wallet, there's no way to determine because one person could spec into turrets 70% and the HAVS 60%. 3. This would be like making it where you need 2 others to pilot your suit aloen, one for movement, one for aiming and one for shooting. 4. Blue dots have an IQ of .5, there's no way you can justify forcing HAV pilots to trust a random person to not drive them into a suicide nor can you trust them to shoot at the right people. 5. Quite plainly nobody will spec into either one, the investment in something like this would make it absolutely worthless. So what if we keep enforcer tanks as they are now, but make normal tank's use the OP? This way, we'll see who out performs who, the synergy tank? Or the solo tank, IT'S TIME FOR A DUST BATTLE~! (like a death battle, but in dust). Okay joke's aside, I really think this may be the way to go. Beside's it's not like EVERY vehicle would end up with this, only if it's super effective, gotta test it out first, y'know? Testing out this game killing idea is fine, but never should it be actually implimented, there is literally no incentive to spec into their side if this is what will happen.
Did you read my response addressing your concerns?
Again, the idea is that both vehicle classes would be available, and not that this be done right now.
You would be able to trade maximum investment in HAVs for an extremely mobile solo armored vehicle with some disadvantages to balance it out.
Part of the issue for me with the MTAC concept was it fit under the category of "Cool asset, bro" without actually adding anything. With this model team play is a greater factor in vehicle usage, and those who want can still push for a more balanced solo vehicle.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Void Echo
Helix Order
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:48:00 -
[40] - Quote
I will never accept this concept, no pilot would (back in closed and open beta this was brought up countless times)
Closed Beta Vet.
Founder of Helix Order.
For the Federation, For Freedom, Till all are Free.
|
|
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:58:00 -
[41] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:I will never accept this concept, no pilot would (back in closed and open beta this was brought up countless times)
You noticed how I mentioned that, right? I remember you doing exactly this in one of my old threads on the subject.
How far do you want this endless and frankly moronic conflict over Vehicles and AV to go on? Vehicle users and AV users both refuse to rethink the dynamic. We just keep bickering endlessly over damage output and vehicle regen when the fact remains that no matter how long we beat that dead horse it's not going to wake up and be rideable.
You've been here as long as I have because I remember you all the way back in March when I first got in. You know as well as I do how many YEARS we have been flogging this dessicated corpse of what used to be a horse and we've never gotten to a state that didn't have one side or the other upset with the status quo and some people leaving the game based on their displeasure.
We can't keep going like this. We need to be willing to look at tearing up the foundation and trying something new.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Void Echo
Helix Order
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 23:03:00 -
[42] - Quote
Something new is fine, but this suggestion isn't nor will it ever be an option. Your suggesting a mechanic that will literally eliminate the want or incentive to use HAVs, no game that has tanks is using this mechanic and for good reason, because they know that if they do it they might as well just remove tanks completely and make it like cod.
Closed Beta Vet.
Founder of Helix Order.
For the Federation, For Freedom, Till all are Free.
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 23:13:00 -
[43] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Something new is fine, but this suggestion isn't nor will it ever be an option. Your suggesting a mechanic that will literally eliminate the want or incentive to use HAVs, no game that has tanks is using this mechanic and for good reason, because they know that if they do it they might as well just remove tanks completely and make it like cod.
Okay, I was willing to try and discuss this reasonably, but you're really going to pull the CoD card? Games like CoD and Halo use single-suit vehicles because of their more casual focus.
I'm trying to find a way for vehicles to be a powerhouse without being an easy mode win button or helplessly shredded by clouds of easymode Swarms.
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
59
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 23:24:00 -
[44] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Something new is fine, but this suggestion isn't nor will it ever be an option. Your suggesting a mechanic that will literally eliminate the want or incentive to use HAVs, no game that has tanks is using this mechanic and for good reason, because they know that if they do it they might as well just remove tanks completely and make it like cod.
So, with the way this game is going, your willing to just let this game play as is? Player's have already lost incentive because AV simply blow's them up, warbarges kill them while their looking into the mini map, where's the incentive if your too busy doing 1 thing to notice the other? This game dies because your not willing to look the other way for 1-3 month's over something that may save the game or rather vehicles, in-fact, how do I know your not simply fighting against vehicles at this point?
Mobius is trying to improve yet you constantly decide no, old way thinking is dying faster than the japanese art of blacksmithing, we need new method's, new gameplay, unique gameplay, something to set this game apart from all the rest out there. And Cod? Seriously? Are you an 8 year old screaming into the mic trying to troll some other 8 year old kid?
G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
|
Void Echo
Helix Order
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 23:35:00 -
[45] - Quote
And you think that forcing them to rely on someone else to drive or shoot their own HAV will give them incentives?
Closed Beta Vet.
Founder of Helix Order.
For the Federation, For Freedom, Till all are Free.
|
Operative 1174 Uuali
Krullefor Organization
Minmatar Republic
796
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 23:53:00 -
[46] - Quote
I like HAVs and ADS. I like to be able to play solo with them. EVE ships also offer solo play hence CCP supports this one player, one vehicle concept.
There are better ways to balance vehicles. I was thinking about running for CPM too. I'll detail that in a CPM post if so. I've mentioned balance ideas before though.
I like the idea of offering multiple players to control vehicles. That should be a force multiplier though and that would mean OP mode for vehicles.
The CPM candidate we need, not the one we want. The candidate for the rest of us.
|
Zan Azikuchi
G.R.A.V.E
The Ditanian Alliance
61
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 00:04:00 -
[47] - Quote
Operative 1174 Uuali wrote:I like HAVs and ADS. I like to be able to play solo with them. EVE ships also offer solo play hence CCP supports this one player, one vehicle concept.
There are better ways to balance vehicles. I was thinking about running for CPM too. I'll detail that in a CPM post if so. I've mentioned balance ideas before though.
I like the idea of offering multiple players to control vehicles. That should be a force multiplier though and that would mean OP mode for vehicles.
But it would be appropriate since it's 3-4 people operating one vehicle (1 driver, 1 main tank gunner, optional 2 side gunner's). In BF4 there's always reliance on a teammate when vehicles involved, and with the proper knowledge, both driver and pilot (unless somehow shot out of the vehicle) will naturally go 10+/0- because the two of them actually know what their doing, + this idea also limits HAV usage and spam as well, which is another +.
G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
|
Void Echo
Helix Order
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 00:13:00 -
[48] - Quote
Then separate your dropsuits, one person to move your dropsuit, one to aim and the other to shoot your gun.
Closed Beta Vet.
Founder of Helix Order.
For the Federation, For Freedom, Till all are Free.
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 00:59:00 -
[49] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Then separate your dropsuits, one person to move your dropsuit, one to aim and the other to shoot your gun.
You used that one already, you got anything else?
See, the issue here is you're looking at this as me taking your tank away from you, but that's not the right way to see it, so picture two things:
1. Receiving a respec in associated vehicle trees just like they've done before so you can put your points where you want
2. A two-legged walker with more firepower and mobility than your HAV at the cost of lower base hitpoints.
Got that? Now we get to the good stuff.
This thing is composed of 5 different subsystems. Each category has at least 5 options so you can pick and choose your base functionality and then put modules on top of that to get an MTAC that performs exactly how you want it.
I want you to imagine trading in your solo tank for a ******* Mech that can be tripped up by hits to the legs and is a little more vulnerable, but in exchange let's you truly be a one-man killing machine.
See, what you want is tanks that are giant Dropsuits.
I'm saying **** that. Just take a giant Dropsuit.
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 02:17:00 -
[50] - Quote
Yeah, your wanting to turn this into cod 514, with your suggestion tanking would die. There is no reward for being forced to deal with randoms with your class. There is no logical reason for your idea, its an excuse for ccp to say "let's get rid of tanks" when they see that 0% of players spec into having someone drive them around or shoot our of their own tank.
Closed Beta Vet.
Founder of Helix Order.
For the Federation, For Freedom, Till all are Free.
|
|
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 02:39:00 -
[51] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Yeah, your wanting to turn this into cod 514, with your suggestion tanking would die. There is no reward for being forced to deal with randoms with your class. There is no logical reason for your idea, its an excuse for ccp to say "let's get rid of tanks" when they see that 0% of players spec into having someone drive them around or shoot our of their own tank.
I used to be specced into tanks, and this ruins them for everyone, I'm not gona waste millions of SP for some random ****** to drive me directly into a suicide nor will I do it just to drive around while some idiot gets all the kills leaving me with nothing.
And Corp mates aren't on 24/7 so your basically saying that tanks should me nerves into the ground and only used when others are online, making the SP in it completely worthless.
I get the feeling I'm not going to get anything but hostility from you.
I had hoped that several years of the same crap would loosen up some of the "vets" but apparently there are some of you that just can't let go of the current meta.
I want you to answer this for me: what gameplay is there in Dust that isn't available in any other game? You've made the point yourself that tank gameplay in Dust is virtually identical to that in every other combined-arms game, except that in this one you have people who can drive around going on murder sprees while demanding that an entire squad needs to work together in order to kill them.
Has it not occured to you that you're basically demanding that your SP investment render you better than everyone else? Have you ever considered how much fun the infantry who are unable to stop you and that you're farming over and over again are having?
This isn't just a game about tanks, Void, and part of what leads so many people to just blow this game off is that it has NOTHING to make them stay.
Are you really so dedicated to keeping things as they are that you don't care about anyone else?
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 02:48:00 -
[52] - Quote
I really don't care about anyone else, staying up till 4 a.m with a knife under your bed at night waiting for your bastard father to try and do something eliminates feelings for anyone else.
Can you not see that what your demanding is basically for HAVS to not be in the game anymore?
Answer this, why would anyone skill into something that requires someone else for it to work resulting in a complete waste of your SP because you can call anytime in because your friends aren't online? That's a complete waste.
Results of your idea being put into action:
1. HAV class completely dies because nobody specs into them, because nobody wants to depend on someone else completely just to run their desired class.
2. CCP removes HAVS from the game because nobody uses them.
Closed Beta Vet.
Founder of Helix Order.
For the Federation, For Freedom, Till all are Free.
|
Void Echo
Helix Order
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 02:53:00 -
[53] - Quote
And to answer your question, investment is the answer.
In dust 514, you literally have to invest everything into what you want, we call it SP. There is nothing like it in any other game. In battlefield there isn't a mechanic that you get skill points to drive or shoot out of a tank or gun, in cod there aren't even vehicles, no other game besides eve requires complete personal investment.
Your saying that we should force pilots to invest their stuff so that a completely random person has full access to it. There is no possible outcome that is good from your suggestion.
Closed Beta Vet.
Founder of Helix Order.
For the Federation, For Freedom, Till all are Free.
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 03:57:00 -
[54] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:And to answer your question, investment is the answer.
In dust 514, you literally have to invest everything into what you want, we call it SP. There is nothing like it in any other game. In battlefield there isn't a mechanic that you get skill points to drive or shoot out of a tank or gun, in cod there aren't even vehicles, no other game besides eve requires complete personal investment.
Your saying that we should force pilots to invest their stuff so that a completely random person has full access to it. There is no possible outcome that is good from your suggestion.
Where did I ever say a completely random person? I actually specifically specified that vehicle users should be able to control access to their vehicles.
Do you never play with anyone in your Corporation?
Void Echo wrote:I really don't care about anyone else, staying up till 4 a.m with a knife under your bed at night waiting for your bastard father to try and do something eliminates feelings for anyone else.
...whoah...okay
That went in a direction I did not expect.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Sgt Kirk
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
11
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 03:59:00 -
[55] - Quote
TUNNEL SNAKES RULE
TUNNEL SNAKES RULE!
|
Planetside2B0mber
Chatelain Rapid Response
Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 04:02:00 -
[56] - Quote
Planetside 2
Coming to PS4 June 23rd
PS4 Beta footage with intense CQC action
PS4 Beta footage with defense
PS4 Beta Huge battle
PS4 Beta another Huge battle with over 256 players
PS4 Beta Huge 35 min Battle
1080p Ultra settings at Night
Intense Open Field Battle
100 Man Infantry Objective Push
Desert Infantry Line
Huge Desert Tank Battle
Intense Uphill Battle
Open Desert Firefight
100 Tank Convoy
150 man Air Raid
65/0 Kill streak in the air
True Teamwork Galaxy Drops
NC Montage
Planetside 2 Machinima
Why you should try Planetside 2
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 04:03:00 -
[57] - Quote
I thought you only did that once per thread?
Are you actually checking the front page to make sure everything's getting rolled?
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Nightfury Wyrnspire
Seituoda Taskforce Command
20
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 08:13:00 -
[58] - Quote
Void crying about even the idea of not being able to have a solo tank is hilarious. |
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 13:48:00 -
[59] - Quote
Nightfury Wyrnspire wrote:Void crying about even the idea of not being able to have a solo tank is hilarious.
I mean I want to try and reach a middle-ground, and I knew it would be a hard sell, which is why I made that semi-satirical thread title.
I guess I might be weird in this, but all I really want is to be able to have fun with my chosen asset without taking the fun away from other people.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
The Attorney General
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 14:24:00 -
[60] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:
I will reiterate a point I have made many times in the past that had me quickly shouted down by the GÇ£Pro TankersGÇ¥ of earlier years: the idea that a high enough skillpoint investment should render a single player nigh-unkillable is rather silly.
Incorrect premise, argument deeply flawed.
Even if there are some scrub tankers who think that you should be invincible, those people are both wrong, and complaining loudly that they can't really solo, because tanks are made of paper when the AV hits.
As long as infantry can hold three nuclear baseballs, any talk about nerfing tanks is just bads complaining about being bad.
I run Lai Dais on a adv Gallente scout, and tanks explode so easily, its pathetic. Give me a week or two to get good PLC skills and I won't even need to be in my tank.
That is the problem with vehicles, they are not optimal versus infantry, and infantry AV can do a better job of wiping out tanks without them getting away.
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
|
|
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] |