|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Avallo Kantor
1
   |
Posted - 2016.02.05 16:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'd like to see more intricate mechanics for whatever the next iteration of districts will be.
The way I envision it: Districts are a large area of a planet, full of various valuable material, land, and resources and is more fortified than a single base. Keep in mind that many districts could be the size of nations, they should be harder to take than a single base.
I'd like to see a sort of battle map per district, that requires the taking of landing points, taking out various fortifications, supply points, and communications hubs before finally striking at the central command center and taking over the district.
Districts could vary in size (think the difference between a country like Russia and france irl) and have mechanics to placing structures similar to Planetary Industry in EVE. Aka, the district has a command center that provides PG / CPU that other modules consume. The district owners can then place / remove / relocate the district modules as they see fit with each providing defensive, economic, and military boons to the owners.
You could have a district set up for production, but doing so would make it less defensible, and open to raiding. Likewise you could set up a district for storage, or a more military mindset, or a healthy balance of each. This way each owner could truly customize the district, and those modules chosen would also affect what sort of battles would occur as attackers attempt to take those points after landing.
District battles would become more spread out (a few fights in different locations potentially over the course of a few days) and allow for more participation even if match sizes were not to be significantly altered. As an example, a set up from the attackers that allowed 3 points to be attacked in union in a district, requiring the defenders to split themselves up accordingly. The overall conflict would become more tactical, and in my opinion, more interesting as a result.
"Mind Blown" - CCP Rattati
|
Avallo Kantor
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
My ideal for AV / V interplay was always based around the idea of slower tanks, that were significantly harder to kill. It would be balanced around far higher TTK where Tank v Tank has the lowest TTK. This would be matched however by making it more difficult for a tank to easily escape should things turn against it, where the tanks heavy defense and lack of mobility is the key points of it.
AV then could do comparably less damage, but then have additional toolkit options to create kill zones or trapped areas that would effectively trap a tank. The larger TTK though could mean that were the tank supported by infantry, the Infantry have a reasonable chance of saving the tank from the AV before it died.
To this end, I see AV being given all sorts of active equipment such as trip-wires (only via tanks), deployable statis zones, and capacitor-draining grenades that could effectively stop a tank dead in it's tracks. So when a tank moved into a certain area a large radius statis field could be generated slowing the tank speed by a massive amount, then various AV weapon types could have additional effects such as capacitor drain, movement penalty, and target painters that all make squad based AV far more effective in combination.
"Mind Blown" - CCP Rattati
|
Avallo Kantor
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 19:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Avallo Kantor wrote:My ideal for AV / V interplay ... -snip- While that is all good what about other ground based vehicles such as APCs, Logi LAV, Triage vehicles, LAV etc. Would the traps that are powerful enough to technically cripple a tank/HAV just outright immobilise and disable any other vehicles thus leading to a quick death with no chance to escape? Just say if that was the case then what would vehicles get to counter the effects or would we have specalist modules that other vehicles could use to 'cut the wires' so to speak and help out the vehicle. Also would some of these new equipment be thrown and have a homing mechanism such as the AV nade (which i do disagree with because normal mades do not have a homing mechanism against infantry and plus it means you do not have to aim, why cant you be forced to at least hit the hull with your aim?), would some be handheld and require LOS like the repair tool or be placed down like mines which could also be destroyed. There are other vehicles than just tanks (i hope)
All good points.
Ideally the traps would work based on the target's mass, which would explain why units such as infantry are unaffected, and lighter vehicles are less hampered by the traps as well. (So for example a LAV would only lose a bit of speed, where as a tank moves like it is in hot tar)
The speed would be slowed down enough on a HAV that it would not be able to escape by normal movement in the time frame the trap lasts. However the trap would not have unlimited power, and would shut off on it's own in time. (Although a team could always have a series of traps through a certain narrow street) I would prefer to have the calculations work out so that the TTK for one AV against a tank would be higher than the trap's effect (and then some) so it would not allow sure kills by AV.
The traps themselves could be destroyed (or maybe hacked?) to deactivated, but they would be easy to put in places a tank could not reach, thus requiring infantry support to clear them when set up in more urban environments. Where as a trap placed in the open would not be difficult to destroy. (Aka think of placing the trap trigger behind a wall, and then having some sort of "trip wire" that would stretch across the road so that a tank could trigger it.)
I'm not a big fan of homing devices, and would like to think that if you can not hit a trapped tank (moving at a pitiful speed) then perhaps the FPS genre is simply not meant for you.
The main interplay I am hoping for is that AV Infantry have ways to engage tanks in varied ways other than just "do lots of damage" so that it requires additional planning and strategy to properly kill a tank. Of course, a savvy tank could always find ways around traps, where as a savvy AV player can make traps in places that will have the tanks move into them, and not expect it either. So that Tanks vs Tanks will engage each other in head to head engagements, where as AV Infantry v Tanks will ambush, surprise, and ensnare tanks into positions that are not head to head engagements. However, those snares could easily be countered by infantry.
"Mind Blown" - CCP Rattati
|
|
|
| |
|