|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Living Rock 523
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
58
   |
Posted - 2016.02.05 23:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Fighters. I don't care if they call them that or something else, but I want proper fixed-wing aircraft.
Variable-geometry wings are cool too, though, but if they're forward-swept AND variable I might have a heart attack.
I was drooling over fighters from the moment I set foot in New Eden. Still am. I'm still personally against a fighter craft hovering (PC Dust should have more than enough map room for proper runways), but that is a discussion for another time, right now I just want fighters.
Because with fighters, I can have what I soon came to realize was the thing I really wanted.
Bombers.
Dive or level, it matters not (both). I personally feel you absolutely need to have bombers if there are fighters, and fighters if there are bombers. Regardless, the idea of epic air battles (something beyond 2 dropships drunkenly accosting each other among waves of ground fire) going on above the ground battles is something I would love to see |
Living Rock 523
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
75
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 20:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
How would capacitors work with a passive module style of play? My favorite DS build was always armor stacked, no active modules (aside from 1 build that carried a scanner).
Would a vehicle focused on passive mods have an advantage, maybe be considered OP? Or would it be underpowered, or simply not possible (if nearly all mods were active)?
Obviously we don't know the answer, but what would be the ideal situation? I've been informed that active is the way to go currently in Dust, at least for dropships, but sometime around jan/feb of 2014 all passive mods on a dropship was very possible and very effective (affective? I always screw those up), and I still get much more enjoyment from flying a passive 4800-6k+ armor block than I ever did flying lighter craft and managing cooldowns.
I've played a bit of EVE so I have somewhat of a grasp on capacitors, and I'm not against having to go all active for an aircraft in the next Dust. But I do enjoy the simple elegance (in any game) of relying on passive skills and a clear understanding of the role you are geared for, and I'd like to see that option available in the next Dust. |
Living Rock 523
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
75
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 22:31:00 -
[3] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
Your passive armor DS was made possible due to CCP removing active armor repairers and replacing them with passive ones.
I do not see why you could not have passive armor repairers but even so with the right fit and skills you could perma run an active repairer which would repair at a much better rate.
Also module management on a KB would be far superior in general compared to the wheel.
I was referencing straight armor plates, as opposed to reppers. I traded self repair ability for max HP, and used a trip to the depot as my cooldown. I've always gravitated towards passive abilities (Diablo 2 Barb is the best example I can give atm), but if I need to go active that's fine, as long as AV/Vehicle balance is realized, that's all that matters.
And yea, outside of basic shooting and moving/flying I'd much rather have a KB lol so I'm looking forward to that |
Living Rock 523
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
78
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 02:38:00 -
[4] - Quote
My biggest concern is simply how are they going to balance vehicles?
I was around for some pretty heavy AV/Vehicle thread wars here, and both sides had some pretty valid points. How can it be acceptable that a single suit can near single handedly take on a vehicle, and on the flip side how can it be acceptable that a vehicle can just become a very large suit and demolish infantry unchecked?
Overall I never really felt good with any of the builds I played, as they seemed to swing wildly between vehicles enjoying near dominance and infantry having near dominance. Add to that the proto factor, which (as has been previously feared) could create a "it's simply not feasible to run anything but proto" situation in the AV/V game.
I personally think the ideal situation is maps that are sectioned in a way to cut down on forced infantry/vehicle interaction. My (super rough) example would be a map in which your team must cross a large swath of "no man's land", areas that are wide open and give vehicles the edge on maneuverability/line of sight, and thus an overall edge in general in said area. Once your force reached any fortifications/objectives/building clusters the edge would switch to infantry due to vehicles being ackward to maneuver in tight spaces and the amount of cover available to infantry.
I know we don't like to drag rl into theoretical discussions on how game play mechanics should work, but obviously in rl mechanized forces fair much better in open spaces, though we have to go back to WW2 to get an honest assessment of proper armor tactics/infantry interaction (that's my opinion at least, hasn't been a fair/real clash of armor since WW2). To this day taking an Abrams into a city is a risky proposition simply because a tanks job is to kill tanks, and if your armor has pushed into a city more than likely it has already pushed through enemy armor, or enemy armor is non existant. Once in the city some of a tanks greatest attributes are completely nullified: firing on the move/long range. Targets switch from lumbering hunks of metal to single soldiers that disappear just as fast as they appear, yet pack almost as much firepower as a tank.
In my mind (keeping the thought of an old thread involving Medium Attack Vehicles being armored troop transports in mind) the thing to do is have mechanics set where when you start a match, vehicles are called in, infantry is loaded up, and a single mechanized force advances to a point where the infantry can disembark their vehicle under cover fire from vehicles, and from there the vehicle/infantry fighting somewhat seperates, with vehicles duking it out in the open areas around a city/objective, and infantry doing the fighting and hacking inside the city/objective. A lone tank wandering into a city would be nearly a sitting duck, even with infantry support (column of tanks rolling through the middle of a city? Hit the first and last then rain the pain on the rest of the now trapped convoy), and a lone merc or 3 wandering into the open land outside a city/objective would be wiped out.
Unfortunately there is still some heavy issues, because after everything I just said, what if the people of 1 team all pull out tanks? Or if they are loaded down with dropships and infantry? What if you have situations where one team consists of mainly lone wolf players? Do you limit vehicles? Force teamplay? I haven't even touched AV/V balance in all my babbling, how does that change the scheme of things? There are so many variables, so many people looking for that quirky little edge or trick that totally destroys balance. I do not envy CCP in regards to giving us what we want, but still balancing everything they give us.
Another example I like to use is the supposed fighters. In 1 thread a while back, fears of fighters targeting infantry and questions of small arms effectiveness vs fighters came to light. This, to me was an immediate wrong step. It's not even fumbling right out of the gate, it's fumbling on the way to getting into the gate. Fighters should have no business targeting ground anything, and if the maps are big enough this could be counteracted simply by the speed of a fighter, it should go too fast to target ground. And if you do that, the fighters need a reason to exist, which would be bombers.
My point is that so many things in Dust have been able to be geared towards fighting so many other things, it's made balance near impossible. I can almost guarantee with 100% certainty that had fighters been introduced to our Dust, dropship kills would not be the only victims of fighter attack. Pretty much anything other than tanks would have been fair game.
So I guess the issue becomes do you force a general balance onto everything in game across all professions/allow for casual and or lone wolf as well as hardcore and teamplay, or do you force people to remain in a role/play tightly as a team? I'm personally down for hardcore team play, as well as imbalance when it makes sense (1 dude vs 1 tank on open ground/1 tank vs 1 dude in a tight city street).
On top of all of that stuff, what's the general idea/vision of what CCP wants, overall and mechanics wise? And what kind of limitations do they have due to technology?
I'm just rambling at this point (sorry, I've got 2 roommates trying to chat me up while I'm typing this, my brains locking up), so I'll just end this and say CCP has a hell of a job on their hands and I really hope they can pull it off because I am still fully hooked on their vision, and the idea of full blown virtual warfare is just.........AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!
It would be awesome. |
Living Rock 523
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
I wouldn't mind traps effecting all vehicles the same, under certain conditions. Say traps (mines/trip wires/stasis fields, whatever) were fairly easy to detect and fairly hard to negate, require a sapper role to disarm (possibly place) traps, give a passive scan ability to a vehicle such as (assuming we get one) an APC (MAV)((LAVs/HAVs would require a Scanning Mod to detect traps independent of MAVs)), and traps take on an Area Denial vibe creating a situation where traps can become effective even without doing direct damage. Also this would (hopefully) reinforce teamplay as cohesive thrusts of forces would fair much better than random waves of troops/vehicles. Therefore equal trap damage to all vehicles would be less of an issue as the most viable counter would be avoidance as opposed to survival/HP.
I also feel like damage to different parts of a vehicle is a must. Let, at the very least, damage to treads/axels/so on be independent of overall HP. For example a tank can take damage to its treads, and as damage increases movement performance decreases, up until zero health on the treads at which point the tank is immobilized. This opens possibilities for actual mechanic roles. Frenzied fight around an immobilized tank whIle the mechanics get movement ability back up and running? Yes please.
Obviously zero HP on the movement section would not destroy a vehicle, this would require zero HP on a body section.
This could be taken some steps further (seeing Front Mission 2 HP displays in my head) by letting, for example, a body section, high slot section, low slot section, turret section and movement section be allowed to take damage separately from each other.
I feel like this would blow the AV/V game wide open, as you are no longer relying simply on raw damage to effect (affect?) vehicles. AV could do serious damage without a vehicles overall HP taking a massive hit, giving infantry a good chance of almost entirely negating a vehicle threat, but still requiring friendly vehicles to handle enemy vehicles properly. The risk/reward on vehicles going after infantry would also become a bit less appealing, I feel, if risking your vehicle going after infantry did not necessarily eliminate your main damage dealing/kill shot threat, and instead put you at risk of being immobilized when your main concern (enemy vehicles) does show up.
Just brainstorming, haven't put too much thought into this stuff. |
Living Rock 523
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
107
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 18:33:00 -
[6] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:#1-So the question becomes will my repair kit also repair my tracks of lets just say 1000 damage even if the hull is undamaged?
#2-If the hull is also damaged along with my tracks what will take priority? could i choose what to repair?
#3-Could the tracks soak up damage even if they are destroyed which would otherwise hit the hull?
#4-Could AV weapons lock on to parts of the vehicle such as tracks/gun etc?
#5-Could infantry repair tools target damage areas and repair?
#6-Do my resistance modules extend to the tracks?
The thing with having numbers attached to modules means that you could target the main gun or wheels all day long and effectively make it useless, with WOT there is a hint of RNG and chance, yes you can aim at the gun but does not mean you will always damage it.
#1- I would say assuming there was an introduction of different vehicle sections that could be damaged, as well as a "mechanic" infantry role, then a pure vehicle rep tool could be introduced. This would allow for repair of any vehicle part, no matter the damage level of any other part.
#2- This could go either way, but thinking about it I think it would be cool to be able to decide which part to repair first. This would allow for strategic options (Don't rep the gun!! Rep the Fuel Injectors and let's get the f*ck outta here!!! or We have high ground and backup, rep the gun and get back in the turret, we can get the treads once the area is clear!!). The only basic options for vehicle repping when vehicle sections are in play would be A- all sections are repped at the same rate at the same time B- sections are selected randomly and repped one at a time C- Player chooses which sections to rep.
Out of these 3 C would make the most sense, A would be acceptable but not as desirable, and B would suck. There is the possibility of having separate reppers that maybe behaved differently, but I think the base mechanic should be player selects section to rep.
#3- Short answer, no. Longer answer-
Part of the reason I feel like sectioning up vehicles would be good for AV/V balance is that, to me, it is stupid (struggling to stay civil) that the only method available to damage vehicles is simple raw damage, granted there are some modifiers thrown on from time to time (explosive vs armor type stuff, what ever it is), but at the end of the day it's all just raw damage. And when the time comes when a proto suit with proto AV and a proto tank with proto mods run into each other it's gonna be a problem (I feel). To me there is just not enough there to balance with.
Anyway I got off track a bit there (ha, no pun intended), but with different vehicle sections the opportunity is presented for more specialized AV weaponry. As a very crude example, say there was a Swarm variant that fired a single missile in a straight line, and was purpose built for damaging mobility related vehicle sections. If a tanks tread section was destroyed and it was immobile, any hits by this Swarm variant would do absolutely no damage at the very least, and just for example we will say 5ish% of total weapon damage to any sections not related to mobility at the most. The latter makes more sense from a real world perspective, but either way can work on a basic level.
So to sum it up, no, a destroyed section would not absorb damage that could otherwise effect a different undestroyed section. So let's say there was a Forge Gun that hit for X amount of straight damage spread evenly across all vehicle sections. If any one of those sections is already destroyed, that damage is redirect to an undestroyed part, still enabling full damage.
Or as I said they could get fancy with it and take that imaginary Swarm I mentioned with X amount total damage and let it do 100% of that damage to mobility sections (or turret sections, or high slot sections or whatever), but still let it do 10% of total damage to other sections it is not designed to damage. To me this feels a bit more realistic, the thought of a tank being rocked by explosions but taking no damage because it's treads are already destroyed is a bit silly.
#4- I would definitely say different vehicle sections could be damaged simply by using specific AV weapons.
For actual Lock On weaponry, I personally don't know how I feel about that subject, and nothing I ever think of in my head sounds good. I won't lie I was never to crazy about the simplicity of the Swarm Launcher. I know it had its ups and downs, but overall the level of fire and forget it had/has seems to me a bit much. That's just my opinion, and it's definitely not a game breaking deal for me, more so an annoyance. Because of that I don't really feel I should be commenting quite yet on weapons with Lock On mechanics.
I would like to see shot placement become a bigger thing. For example an anti tank rifle designed to damage turrets scoring a hit on a turret would obviously do full damage, but a hit to the treads would lessen overall damage by a decent amount (application of damage would remain the same, with the turret receiving a lessened amount of its full damage, and as I said in #3 other sections still only receiving their 5-10% of full damage done).
But yeah, the player using AV would be able to target specific sections through weapon selection, actual shot placement, and maybe lock on. Or even some or all of these (all is probably the way to go).
#5- I would say either let infantry repair tools rep very small amounts of HP on "body" sections (which in my head would simply be pure HP, Front Mission 2 style) or let infantry rep tools rep even smaller amounts spread over the entire tank, with no control over section. A mechanic role would allow for specific and efficient repairs. Require destroyed vehicle sections to be repped up to say 5% before they can become active again, to avoid cheese.
#6- Short answer because I'm running out of room, yes. |
Living Rock 523
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
107
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 18:48:00 -
[7] - Quote
On RNG and targeting specific parts with other vehicles, I'd say (obviously) no to any kind of RNG at all, and I'd say keep vehicle turrets more toward raw damage with damage spread more or less evenly across the all sections of enemy vehicles. Allow for the critical hit spots that (I think?) we have now, but it shouldn't be easy at all for one tank to say "I'll just target the enemy tank turret and wipe it out in 2 shots".
|
|
|
| |
|