DUST Search - strafe speed...

KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:

Adipem Nothi wrote:

Andris Kronis wrote:

Not even being able to turn around quickly enough, that would be utter crap.

One of the best things about Chromosome (in my opinion) was that a newbro who got the drop on a vet could kill that vet. Like in other shooters. Rotation speed played a part in that. While turning slowly is a crappy experience, it is also a crappy experience for newbros to sneak up behind another infantry unit, shoot it in the back, and somehow lose the engagement. Some goes for veteran knifers and shotgunners of the paper-thin variety. The best knifer in the game is apparently concerned about spin-and-win in the present build; do you think it'd be wise to dismiss those concerns?

1. As Dust evolved over time, the difference between weapon tiers (used to be higher), the power of proficiency skills (used to affect both shields and armor), the difference between suits of different tiers (higher tier suits used to have better base HP), and time-to-kill all diminished. Because of all these things, plus the advent of actually functional aim assist, I would argue that a new player sneaking up on a vet now actually have much better chances of killing they vet than they did years ago.

2. We don't need painful rotation nerfs to help new players, especially since new players will likely hate it given how used they are to much faster turning shooters.

3. As for the idea that being able to kill someone more easily by sneaking up being inherently good, I disagree at a certain point, and I think Dust is already at a good balance on that front. One of the things I like about Dust is that when someone sneaks up on you and tries to kill you, if you're skillful enough, you can still win the engagement despite the initial disadvantage.

4A. There needs to be a balance between rewarding stealth, and rewarding skill
4B. Dust already does that well, and I don't think changes are needed in that regard.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 11	Posted - 2015.07.01 19:03:00 - [1] - Quote o7 Musturd Spitballing: The faster the HMG spins, the slower the heavy rotates. Centrifugal force. Clever Scout will wait until a heavy opens fire before closing the gap for backstab. The same client-side control could be tweaked to fix kb/m spin scanning; slow rotation while active scanner fires (0.3 seconds). Two birds, one stone; freedom of movement maintained. Thoughts? Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 11	Posted - 2015.07.01 21:17:00 - [2] - Quote mr musturd wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: o7 Musturd Spitballing: The faster the HMG spins, the slower the heavy rotates. Centrifugal force. Clever Scout will wait until a heavy opens fire before closing the gap for backstab. The same client-side control could be tweaked to disable rotation while active scanner fires. Two birds. Thoughts? Same would have to apply across all classes for this not to be a direct nerf to heavies, you were here in chrome shotty, our strafe atm feels close to it, turn speed could be tweaked to match. I do remember rotation speeds being a 'bit slower in Chromosome, but I also seem to recall something about the cap being lifted to improve KB/M user experience (?). I don't recall the specifics and, frankly, this really isn't an area I'm comfortable opining about as I've always used DS3. I've no idea what running KB/M was like in Chromosome or if it has since improved on account of the rotation speed changes. I'd defer to Haerr on this one; I think Rattati runs KB/M as well. I should've mentioned earlier that I'm not advocating for specific HMG / Sentinel / Heavy nerfs at this time. It is arguably too early to tell if yesterday's movement changes will tilt the HMG into OP territory. If heavy/sentinel spam becomes an issue or if HMG kill/spawn efficiency grows beyond acceptable bounds, I would very likely support changes to spool-up, rotation speeds, mobility, etc. For the record, I would love to see HMG spin-and-win resolved. But the same goes for high-HP Assaults, Commandos and even Logis on occassion. How to go about addressing spin-and-win -- and whether or not it'd be good for gameplay/balance -- I'm not sure. I do miss the extremely fast rotation speeds of Battlefield and CoD; that said, in BF or CoD getting shotgunned or knifed in the back isn't a protracted process. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 11	Posted - 2015.07.01 21:55:00 - [3] - Quote LUGMOS wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: o7 Musturd Spitballing: The faster the HMG spins, the slower the heavy rotates. Centrifugal force. Clever Scout will wait until a heavy opens fire before closing the gap for backstab. The same client-side control could be tweaked to fix kb/m spin scanning; slow rotation while active scanner fires (0.3 seconds). Two birds, one stone; freedom of movement maintained. Thoughts? Centrifugal force? WTF? It doesn't work that way in this situation... Observe the effect of torque vectors in this demonstration. If the direction of rotation is clockwise, torque pulls the wheel to the right. When the direction of rotation is counter-clockwise, torque pulls the wheel to the left. This HMG design pulls to the right; trying to pan left while firing would be met with significant resistance. This HMG design pulls to the left; trying to pan right while firing would be met with significant resistance. This HMG design pulls left and right; trying to pan in either direction while firing would be met with significant resistance. Which design do you see when you fire an HMG in-game? Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 11	Posted - 2015.07.01 23:29:00 - [4] - Quote Omega Nox wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: ... Observe the effect of torque vectors in this demonstration. When the direction of rotation is clockwise, torque pulls the wheel to the right. When the direction of rotation is counter-clockwise, torque pulls the wheel to the left ... This HMG design pulls to the right; trying to pan left while firing would be met with significant resistance. This HMG design pulls to the left; trying to pan right while firing would be met with significant resistance. This HMG design pulls left and right; trying to pan in either direction while firing would be met with significant resistance. * The bottom one is what we see in game. It would have a min. of 3 gimballed gyro's to induce inertia upon pulling the triger, I wouldn't have the slightest idea, but it is clear when using the HMG in game that its barrels are rotating one direction while the housing (or portions of the housing) rotates in the opposing direction. It is also appears that RPM increases the longer fire is sustained. At the end of day, physics doesn't really matter as much as balance. If it makes balance sense for the HMG operator to be vulnerable from behind while firing his death beam, this would be one way to achieve that end; the longer an HMG user holds down fire, the more accurate his weapon but the slower his rotation. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 11	Posted - 2015.07.02 00:04:00 - [5] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: Assuming the wiggle wiggle is what was keeping the HMG balanced, and that removal of wiggle will result in over performing HMGs? Certainly possible; we should have a good idea one way or the other in a few days. As an aside, I was initially concerned that less gyrating might result in an efficiency spike in SG and/or NK. After playing around with both yesterday, I don't think that either of these will prove to be a problem (fingers crossed). Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 11	Posted - 2015.07.02 03:00:00 - [6] - Quote La Lore Sleipnier wrote: Adapt or leave the game Only two options, eh? Well, I'll go with "adapt". But I'm curious about how this works... Adapt to what exactly? Imbalance? Imbalance in its present form, at this specific juncture? Why not a past form of imbalance? If I may, I'd like to pick one that better fits my personal interests. That does sound selfish though. Perhaps it'd be better if we could all cast a vote for our favorite instance of imbalance and go with that one. Unless this is something that you, La Lore Sleipnier, get to decide for us. Either way, this is an interesting system. Would love to know how this system came to be, and why it was deemed superior to the iterative "fix what's broken" approach. Thanks in advance for the clarification. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 11	Posted - 2015.07.02 08:18:00 - [7] - Quote LUGMOS wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: This HMG design pulls left and right; trying to pan in either direction while firing would be met with significant resistance. If both were spinning opposite directions, they would cancel no? No clue. I'd expect the net effect would be increased stabilization, but I am no physicist. CCP Rattati wrote: I can't support a turning speed change, I remember having no recourse as a heavy and it also messes up people who play multiple roles, needing to adjust to them. Absolutely fair; I'd forgotten about that last point. Assuming adjustments prove warranted, is HMG spool up off-the-table as well? Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 11	Posted - 2015.07.02 08:19:00 - [8] - Quote Andris Kronis wrote: Not even being able to turn around quickly enough, that would be utter crap. One of the best things about Chromosome (in my opinion) was that a newbro who got the drop on a vet could kill that vet. Like in other shooters. Rotation speed played a part in that. While turning slowly is a crappy experience, it is also a crappy experience for newbros to sneak up behind another infantry unit, shoot it in the back, and somehow lose the engagement. Some goes for veteran paper-thin knifers and shotgunners. The best knifer in the game is apparently concerned about spin-and-win in the present build; do you think it'd be wise to dismiss those concerns? Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 11	Posted - 2015.07.02 09:30:00 - [9] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Andris Kronis wrote: Not even being able to turn around quickly enough, that would be utter crap. One of the best things about Chromosome (in my opinion) was that a newbro who got the drop on a vet could kill that vet. Like in other shooters. Rotation speed played a part in that. While turning slowly is a crappy experience, it is also a crappy experience for newbros to sneak up behind another infantry unit, shoot it in the back, and somehow lose the engagement. Some goes for veteran knifers and shotgunners of the paper-thin variety. The best knifer in the game is apparently concerned about spin-and-win in the present build; do you think it'd be wise to dismiss those concerns? 1. As Dust evolved over time, the difference between weapon tiers (used to be higher), the power of proficiency skills (used to affect both shields and armor), the difference between suits of different tiers (higher tier suits used to have better base HP), and time-to-kill all diminished. Because of all these things, plus the advent of actually functional aim assist, I would argue that a new player sneaking up on a vet now actually have much better chances of killing they vet than they did years ago. 2. We don't need painful rotation nerfs to help new players, especially since new players will likely hate it given how used they are to much faster turning shooters. 3. As for the idea that being able to kill someone more easily by sneaking up being inherently good, I disagree at a certain point, and I think Dust is already at a good balance on that front. One of the things I like about Dust is that when someone sneaks up on you and tries to kill you, if you're skillful enough, you can still win the engagement despite the initial disadvantage. 4A. There needs to be a balance between rewarding stealth, and rewarding skill 4B. Dust already does that well, and I don't think changes are needed in that regard. 1. With respect, I seriously doubt that today's newbro has better odds in this regard than yesterday's. In my observation, the performance disparity between newbro and vet has never been greater. HP pools have nearly doubled since Chromosome; I don't recall ever seeing 1000 HP Assaults back then; today, they aren't uncommon. Lower TTK and lower rotation speeds made it more than possible for a newbro to overcome the hitpoint gap and drop a vet he'd successfully flanked. This was especially true for shotgunners. Today, this is no longer the case. 2. I agree, and it is off the table anyway. Frankly, I'd love to see faster rotation speeds across the board but -- in a game where 300HP units need be as viable as 1,500HP units -- I've no idea how such a thing might be balanced. 3. I'm sure some like it, but getting outplayed then winning isn't a feature in my book. At 400HP, I don't often get away with mistakes. Why should the other guy? If hp-tanking is a more a viable and prolific playstyle than other playstyles, can we claim that playstyles are in balance? 4A. Absolutely agree. 4B. I believe that's up for debate. Musturd's concerns here reinforce that belief. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 11	Posted - 2015.07.02 15:29:00 - [10] - Quote mr musturd wrote: Cody Sietz wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I can't support a turning speed change, I remember having no recourse as a heavy and it also messes up people who play multiple roles, needing to adjust to them. This was, of course, when heavies had less ehp and no resistance. It still doesn't make sense that a heavie should be able to survive being shot with back for only for him to turn around instantly and HMG his way out of it. The man says no, so i guess i join the dual tanking crowd.. Apparently thats how every suit should be fitted, stack as much hp as possible and hope you live through the firefight. There are other options. Could add spool-up to the HMG should HMG efficiency prove to be a problem. Could introduce new drawbacks to HP tanking (i.e. add stamina penalties to plates). Could rewire Falloff in such a way that EWAR-oriented fits are brought up-to-par with HP-oriented fits. Could tune biotics in such a way that biotic-oriented fits are brought up-to-par with HP-oriented fits. Could decrease the success rates of spin-and-win by buffing alpha-oriented weapons. Could introduce a headshot-like damage multiplier to the backs of unit models. Rattati may choose a path other than the ones we suggest, but he has been consistent in his handling of overperformers and underperformers. There are options other than rotation speed. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)