|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Living Rock 523
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
222
   |
Posted - 2016.03.05 17:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
I would like to see vehicles actually effected by damage. Think Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator.
For example, instead of say a dropship being fully functional even at 1 HP (silliness), let engine power, directional stability, and turret effectiveness be impacted by damage.
This goes back to my suggestion for vehicle HP to be split into sections (something along the lines of Front Mission 2), and opens up a whole new angle for the never ending war of AV/V balance.
And larger maps would be awesome, if not a must. |
Living Rock 523
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
224
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 01:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Not sure about the mini OB part lol, but I would love fighters.
Unfortunately from what I've understood the fighters CCP had envisioned (for Dust514) more than likely were of a VTOL type. This screams abuse and endangers balance, I feel, as this sort of craft would inevitably lead to far more infantry killing than it has any business doing. In response, AV damage would have to be set unreasonably high, and the only way around this would be keeping the (in my opinion) incredibly stupid system of "windows of effectivness" or "windows of opportunity", or however they refer to the function of vehicle mechanics at the moment.
PC= the ability to create large enough maps to insert and require runways for fighter craft (and hopefully bomber craft) to embark from. This would also add a new tactical layer to battles, as control of a runway could become very important in control over objectives, and therefore important to overall victory.
As I've suggested before (into the empty void that is these forums) fighters should NOT be VTOL, they should be very lightly armored, very fast, and do relatively low damage. A fighter should be for air superiority only. A fighter should only be effective against other fighters, as well as bomber aircraft. Leave ground attack combat to bombers, and to a smaller degree, dropships. If the enemy does not insert fighters or bombers into a battle, there should be absolutely no benefit to fielding fighters of your own.
Dropships should only be slightly worried about fighters, as the speed difference between the 2 craft should make targeting a dropship with a fighter unbelievably difficult.
A fighter of this type should not be concerned with small arms fire in the least, due to its speed and normal/recommended operating altitude. I would support a fighter flying extremely low/slow taking worrisome damage from small arms fire, but I would not support a fighter being able to deal damage in any way to ground troops, aside from a 1 in a trillion shot, or maybe a kamakazi style attack (which would be discouraged by the unreasonable tradeoff of 1 fighter for 1 ground troop).
I also do not know how I would feel about a fighter carrying lockon/target following munitions. Being a supposed game of skill, I do not support any fire and forget weapons, and the only thing that would even begin to sway me would be the addition of countermeasures for vehicles.
For the game we have now, I feel the swarm launcher is at best a stopgap measure to attempt to maintain balance. After seeing the many different changes to swarms and to the way they effect/interact with vehicles over the years, I feel that for the AV/V dynamic to progress past the (silly) point it is at now, damage output needs to get away from simple straight damage, and the ability to fire and forget multiple volleys of missiles over the course of a handful of seconds needs to be left behind.
And before any AV folks cry foul, please know I am of the school of thought in which vehicles should not perform well at all vs infantry. AV should be possibly a very painful thorn in the side of vehicles, and should be dealt with mainly through teamwork with infantry, not a large turret/flying craft taking potshots at ground troops. |
Living Rock 523
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
226
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 17:33:00 -
[3] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:As far as attacking dedicated fixed-wing aircraft, I would think that AV weapons would be needed that specialize in that.
As far as your fears of VTOL capability, I wouldn't worry about that. If you implement VTOL as just directing thrust downwards with no vector control, players who attempted to use that to attack infantry would end up just as dead as anyone who tries to do that with the F-35 in Battlefield games.
I may think James Cameron is an arrogant ass, but he was right in Avatar in that using aircraft that rely on runways when you're going to be operating in all kinds of conditions on all kinds of planets doesn't make any sense.
I would understand AV impacting any aircraft performing a ground attack role. Obviously a bomber swooping in would need to be deterred by more than just a fighter aircraft. But when I think of the speed and altitude that (in my opinion) would be required to justify calling something a fighter, I don't see how AV can be a justifiable threat. As I said, of course if I wanted to take my fighter low and slow, AV should become a massive concern. But being as how (again in my opinion) a fighter should have no business operating at such low altitudes and speeds, I don't feel AV v Fighters should be a realistic/common scenario.
I really hate to take into account RL scenarios because many on the forums are (somewhat justifiably) not interested in drawing parallels between a game and RL, but as far as I'm aware (not saying I'm right here, just going off the knowledge I have) most aircraft kills by handheld weapons in RL have come against aircraft performing ground attack operations. I cite Russias war in Afghanistan (not a fool proof argument I know, as Afghanistan had no aircraft of their own) in which many Russian aircraft were downed by the Stinger missile system, but being as how they were exclusively performing air to ground operations, they simply raised their operating altitude beyond the Stingers reach. At the expense of accurate munitions delivery of course.
I also would in no way be against some form of Flak/SAM installation. As in RL Flak would be Flak, and there isn't really much a fighter could do about that other than bug out. For SAMs I would like to see either countermeasures introduced, or the ability to maneuver yourself out of a SAM lock (ideally both).
On the VTOL situation, I'm not firm on my stance. As long as fighters becoming ground (infantry) attackers is not possible, I could accept VTOL craft. My only concern with straight downward thrust and no vector control would be precision landings, but that I would imagine would not be hard to address. Again, glancing at RL, all currently combat proven VTOL aircraft are not (to my knowledge) air superiority craft but ground attack craft. I know the F-35 may change this, but it seems to be heavily dependent on extremely advanced radar and smart weapons, as opposed to the classic attributes of speed and maneuverability. This upcoming little tidbit is a conversation for another place and time, but I wonder about the effectiveness of an F-35 vs a true Gen 5 air superiority fighter.
As for the Avatar scenario (I understand this was not meant to be the meat of your counterpoints lol so I won't get into it too much) Avatar did take place in an environment that was not conducive to runways, as the resources required to construct an operational air base would have been immense, and the nature of combat in that scenario would have made it difficult to split attentions between combat and construction. The forces in Avatar were also put down by natives using flying lizard things, rocks, and sticks and such. I'm kinda grasping at straws here lol but I think a Gen 5 fighter equivalent in that situation would have shifted the balance of power in some way or another.
Lastly, the environment we had in Dust (obviously I'm not sure what our future environments will hold) was devoid of foliage and was in large part empty, flat ground. Runway construction would be fairly simple, I imagine. I am of course ignoring the fact it would be a nice juicey target for orbital bombardment, but a man can dream no? lol. I mainly just like the idea of calling my fighter in to a hanger, taxi-ing out to the runway, and taking off into battle. The proper implementation of a VTOL system would obviously erase the need for runways.
At the end of the day Fighter aircraft (really any aircraft that aren't dropships) are what really got my motor going when thinking about Dust. I love the conversation, and in no way am I saying I'm right or my way is the way to go. But with near complete silence from CCP on fighter aircraft (at least during my time in Dust) I simply want to keep the conversation alive and at least narrow down the theoretical aspects so one day we can move on to practical application of the aircraft dynamic. At the moment I'm not sure I will be able to take part in the new Dust if and when it comes out, but I fully intend to position myself as a champion of the fighter/fixed wing aircraft dynamic no matter what form it takes or whether I agree with the implementation.
|
Living Rock 523
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
226
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 18:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
I can get behind this. I would have no problems with fighters being aluminum foil vs AV if the proper response was simply for a fighter to stay within its intended role. I'm all for fighters interacting with infantry being extremely discouraged, and with a fighters maneuverability being so much greater than infantry, it makes sense that AV would produce a level of damage that would make fighters stay clear, as opposed to a fighters attributes forcing AV to stay clear.
My main concern would be getting picked off by say Swarms at a fighters operational ceiling. If that wasn't a concern, I would have no issues at all, and I'm all for fighters being very squishy.
I'm also fully supportive of close coordination with friendly ground troops as that is a requirement in RL and would greatly benefit overall balance.
I hadn't takend into consideration supply depot interaction, and that is a very good point, especially when it comes to balancing a ground attack aircraft. I'm currently picturing a JU-87 carrying it's single bomb (at least early in that conflict) and delivering it with precision, then leaving battle to rearm.
I would be very supportive of aircraft being balanced by teamwork, situational awarness, and acknowledgment of intended roles. One thing I did really like about Dropships was the difficulty in actually flying them. I saw many people calling for a dumbing down of flight controls back when I played, but with the state of balance at the time I think this difficulty in simply flying a dropship with any proficiency is at least partly what kept the skies from being blackened by ADSs. |
Living Rock 523
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
226
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 20:10:00 -
[5] - Quote
Which is why this is in reference to a (possible) Dust2 |
Living Rock 523
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
226
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 21:26:00 -
[6] - Quote
If I may pick your brain a bit more Mobius, what do you see as a viable ground attack aircraft?
I personally drew myself into the vision of a dedicated bomber aircraft. In my mind I pictured a very basic Fighter/Bomber/Transport system as I have some reservations about CCPs ability (or any companies ability really) to balance the air dynamic beyond this simple setup.
Now obviously if CCP were to go full on in depth with it, we could see fighters, fighter bombers, pure bombers of both the dive and level variety, AWACS, large transports (for tanks and such), small transports (for troops, most likely a dropship), and a helicopter gunship equivalent (which is kinda how I view current ADSs).
I think the above is a bit too ambitious, at least in the beginning/without knowledge of what kind of framework/boundaries a possible new Dust would have.
I feel the cautious approach at first would be the simple fighter/bomber/transport dynamic.
My main fear (and everything I'm basing my calculations/propaganda on) is an aircraft targeting infantry with guns/lasers/rails/etc. as I worry about perceived balance and the effects this could have on aircraft. CCP (to me at least) never seemed to use incremental changes to alter balance, and instead put into place large, sweeping changes which, in my opinion, threw away any progress in regards to balance and basically reverted things back to square 1.
With that in mind, and to refine my question, should they start extremely simple and have a pure fighter, a pure bomber (no guns, only dumb bombs) and a pure transport (no guns).
**also, should aircraft be for attacking infantry at all, or only vehicles?**
Or should they introduce a ground attack aircraft with the ability to place gun/cannon fire onto infantry targets as well as bombs?
Beyond this, should the type of ground attack aircraft/bomber be dictated by race, or should each race have a vehicle of every type.
Example-
Minmatar- Dive Bomber
Amarr- Ground Attack Fighter
Gallante- Level Bomber
Caldari- uhhhhh.....I don't know lol. A balanced aircraft that is a bit of all of the above.
Or
Should each race have a Dive, level, and ground attack type? |
Living Rock 523
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
236
|
Posted - 2016.03.07 11:42:00 -
[7] - Quote
Got a replys coming Mobius/Galm, gonna be a bit but I'll post after work |
Living Rock 523
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
240
|
Posted - 2016.03.08 03:16:00 -
[8] - Quote
To start off with @Galm
Something I feel that you've missed was my request for separate variations of aircraft. To lump all of my concerns/suggestions into a single craft would obviously create some major issues. I will stand firm by my claim that I feel Fighter aircraft should not be engaging ground targets, nor should it carry any sort of dumbfire weaponry meant to target ground troops/vehicles. If a fighter is handling both ground AND air, you pretty much make all other craft other than transports redundant. Of course you could still have other aircraft, and fiddle with the stats of each, but why have a dedicated ground attack aircraft when a fighter could do both? You could give a ground attack aircraft air to air capability, but why? I strongly feel there needs to be a very clear distinction between Fighter aircraft and Ground Attack aircraft. For the sake of teamplay, RL considerations, logic, and (I feel) an overall fun experience, Ground Attack aircraft should not be able to operate, at least not efficiently, without fighter cover (unless of course the opposing team does not field fighter aircraft of their own).
On the turret front, obviously current turrets would either need to be heavily reworked, or thrown out all together. I can get on board with Mobius' suggestion of extremely limited ammunition capacity for special weapons such as air to air missiles, but in regards to fighter on fighter combat I feel that 2 evenly matched (skill wise, not SP, but skill) fighter pilots should be able to out maneuver most missile shots (as long as they are paying attention and all of that), and just as we have seen in conflicts such as Korea and Vietnam, these match ups would start with a stalemate (for whatever reasons, for my RL examples it would be the technological deficiencies of those 2 conflicts, for a new Dust it, I feel, should be due to the fact that a lock on missiles in fighter to fighter combat should be far from a sure bet unless 1 player is glued to the others tail pipe and is able to maintain a steady lock at the proper angle), then you would have the merge, and from there it would be the proverbial knife fight in a phone booth. On a more personal note, pure missile combat for fighter vs fighter just sounds boring to me, and I would hate to see a situation where someone had dedicated themselves to fighters (not in the sense of SP, but just learning the trade so to speak) and you end up with this situation- "Dang, that dude just shot me down!" "What happened? Did he out maneuver you? Did you get jumped by 2 fighters?" "Nah, he shot a missile. What are you gonna do right?"
The deficiencies in lock on air to air munitions could simply be explained away by defensive technologies of the time out performing offensive technologies. If this was not the case, aircraft would be killing each other beyond visual range, and fighters would simply be "wait for your box to turn red, hit X, profit". I know I kinda shot myself in the foot as I am the one who dragged RL into this lol, but I feel that we would need to cherry pick what RL attributes to apply to fighter aircraft in the name of fun. Whether it makes sense or not. For the most part, my recommendation for RL parallels is in regards to overall theory and tactics, not necessarily a part for part transfer of real world into new Dust.
And to touch on the skill thing real quick, I don't remember what qualifier I put in the ( ) box thing, but if the new Dust doesn't require skill on the part of the player, well then I want nothing to do with it. Currently Dust is able to be played using SP as a crutch to an extent I think most can agree is unacceptable, and obviously that needs to change.
Reading through some more of your first post you don't seem to take into account my request for clearly separated roles in regards to fighter/ground attack. A Fighter aircraft should not be targeting ground troops period. I think the mechanics should be such that yea, possibly you could kill infantry with a fighter, but more than likely this would end up with a fighter crashing into the ground due to speed.
On the VTOL thing, again I'll point out my request for separate aircraft. My fears for a VTOL fighter would be a single craft "doing it all" so to speak, and this is unacceptable in my mind.
Furthermore, you definitely miss read a good portion of my post, at least in regards to VTOL, as I am fully aware RL VTOL aircraft are (pretty much exclusively at this point, to my knowledge) ground attack aircraft. A VTOL is by no means an air superiority fighter, especially in these times when Gen 5 fighter jets are fielded by most major countries. I cite the Flaklands war in which Harriers suffered loses to enemy air superiority fighters (pretty sure it was fighters, probably MiGs and not surface to air weaponry, I'll look it up after this).
But again, my concern with VTOL was a do it all craft, a glorified dropship if you will. If a system is in place to prevent a fighter going into VTOL mode and laying waste to swarms of infantry, I am happy.
I also fully understand aircraft such as a Harrier or the Marine F-35 (I will admit in my excitement I neglected to remember that VTOL was not a feature on all F-35 models) does not simply hover over a target dropping bombs and shooting guns. I would strongly suggest reading over my posts again, as I feel you missed quite a bit of what I said.
To mop up a bit, ramming is already a problem, and while I obviously don't want to see that happening, it's not as if we don't already deal with that now.
On the dropship front.......not sure how they should fit into the new Dust. On the one hand, I would love a gunship/apache type vehicle, and obviously a dropship would be the ideal candidate for this role.......but I also remember raining the pain on infantry back in late 2013/early 2014 by using my Inky as an Apache, and serious nerfs ensued (because of mechanics, not me). |
Living Rock 523
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
240
|
Posted - 2016.03.08 03:17:00 -
[9] - Quote
This is taking way more space than I thought. Will continue, maybe tonight maybe tomorrow |
Living Rock 523
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
242
|
Posted - 2016.03.08 12:04:00 -
[10] - Quote
^
Now all of this I can start to get behind. The only thing I would like to stress is that while I do personally love (love love love) WW2 technology and tactics and the battleground it created back then, I also understand this is not what everyone likes/wants.
That being said, time and time again, the proclamation that the gun fighter is dead has been proven wrong (many times at the cost of lives of airmen), and while many picture dogfights as a WW2 Era activity, they have continued on (against the predictions of military planners) in many major conflicts since. Obviously in conflicts like the Gulf War, Syria today, Lybia, Afghanistan, and America's war on terror in general, technological gaps have prevented serious air to air combat.
But the theory that current technologies would produce a wash when they are fielded by 2 advanced countries against each other is the reason why all air superiority fighters to this day (to my knowledge) equip a cannon in the event that missile technology is not able to produce the outcomes they are predicted/theorized to produce.
I'm about to head into work, so I gotta go. Mobius I promise I'll get to your post after work lol, and I think between the 3 of us we are close to a rough outline at the least for what we should see from air operations in Dust.
Also just to throw this out there, I was never a CoD guy, or a BF guy. I was brought up on MAG, and my only serious experience with vehicular combat in a multiplayer FPS has been Dust, so I'm definitely flexible on the topic. At the end of the day all I want is balance to avoid the vicious nerf/buff cycle that drove me to drinking and ruined my marriage. Thanks CCP.
Just kidding about the drinking, and I'm not married. |
|
|
Living Rock 523
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
244
|
Posted - 2016.03.08 23:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
@Mobius
I like a lot of what you are saying. On AoE vs Precision I do agree that it is important that AoE weapons should be dumbfire, and AoE in general should be used for attacking infantry, though I could see some form of AoE/Area Denial dumbfire weapons such as a Stasis Webifier type being allowed to effect both infantry and vehicles as the result of use would simply hinder mobility as opposed to causing damage.
On the Precision front, as long as an enemy vehicle is allowed a reasonable chance for evasion, a lock on mechanic could pan out. And you do address this with the suggestion for a lock on and a weapons fired alarm for ground (and air vehicles). This could go to a variety of depths, either as standard on all vehicles, race specific (for example maybe say the Amarr have no lock on warning, but superb weapons fire warning/bonus to evasion in some way, just spit balling that one), or actual mods/equipment. I don't know what the best way would be, but that is a topic we would need to address later down the road.
I also wouldn't mind seeing levels of precision weaponry, which I haven't thought through too much, but at a basic level, the lower damage dealing lock on weapons would aquire lock on through onboard equipment, and the big heavy hitting lock on weaponry would require a sort of combat controller on the ground to "light up" the target via some for of laser designator (as you had mentioned Mobius).
At the end of the day, I feel no lock on weaponry should ever be a 100% sure bet. The ability to evade such attacks should always be a possibility, the question would be how easy/difficult would/should evasion be, and what methods/equipment would be available for this purpose. Obviously countermeasures come to mind, as does proper maneuvering and situational awareness. But for right now I'm going to leave that question alone.
The rigging mechanic pulled from EVE that you explained to me Mobius makes sense, and I am all for limited fitting slots as those combined seem like they would help keep aircraft from "outgrowing" their role and becoming something much different than they were intended to be. I think we can app agree that was one of Dusts more serious and consistent missteps. I feel like I would also like to see these riggings (weapons loadouts) effect mobility much in the same way armor plates effect our Dropships now. I should be able to feel the difference between a couple racks of relatively small missiles and one very large anti tank missile.
I'm not sure if I mentioned it anywhere in this thread (I know I mentioned it on Discord) but I do strongly agree with Mobius' suggestion that ordinance capacity be kept to a minimum. I think it would be a slippery slope to allow for the possibility of any length of smart weapons spam, though I will say that (possibly) with higher chances of enemy vehicles dodging smart weapons, carrying capacity of ground attack aircraft could be allowed to increase by some amount (not a big one). So if dodging a laser desegnated missile is extremely difficult, you should only be able to carry 1 or 2 at the most before having to head back to the supply depot to rearm.
On the topic of cannons (or lasers) for a ground attack aircraft to use on vehicles......I start to drift towards concerns of misuse/abuse. On the one hand we have plenty of RL examples to look at in terms of cannons on ground attack aircraft being applied to vehicles (and infantry). On the other hand I can see the forums exploding over aircraft sweeping in to gun down infantry.
.........
I was about to say I am firmly against the above situation and would require heavy convincing to even begin to budge from my current position, but I started thinking about the gun pods they used to equip on the F-4 Phantoms. For the moment I will stick to my position, but I imagine a gun pod in New Dust which was equipped by sacrificing a good amount of space for lock on munitions, heavily regulated by a cooldown as well as ammo limitations could maybe begin to start making me consider the possibility that one day I might think about giving a bit of ground on this topic.
The gauntlet has been laid down. Push me out of the Sumo Wrestling ring that is my opinion on cannon equipped ground attack aircraft.
To jump back to AoE munitions (sorry, I'm on a phone and jumping back into the middle of this post to edit is a pain), I would like to hear opinions on how damage should be spread within a AoE weapons blast radius. I'm picturing the ability to provide variety, in the sense that AoE munitions #1 could have a blast radius of say, for the sake of my non math brain, 100 feet. Munition #1 would do 50% of its total damage within a 25 foot radius of the impact site, 35% of its damage from the 25 to 80 foot radius, and 15% of its damage from the 80 to 100 foot radius. I'm confusing the hell out of myself here lol but basically if an AoE weapon does 1000 damage, anything in the 0 to 25 foot radius would receive 500 damage, anything in the 25 to 80 foot radius would receive 350 damage, and anything in the 80 to 100 foot radius would receive 150 damage.
Confused yet? I am. Shout out to Google for doing that percent math for me.
Anyway, munition #2 (no math here, I promise) could do say X amount of damage to say 8 different areas, each of those areas could be say an 5 foot radius, all contained within 1 large say 50 foot radius. I could have just said cluster bomb, but I didn't. Also, the numbers don't matter, only the concept.
Munition #3 could be the vaunted Stasis Webifier, which I won't throw numbers at, we all know what this concept is.
These are all just examples, but I think it's important to somewhat nail down exactly what would be going on with AoE weapons.
|
Living Rock 523
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
244
|
Posted - 2016.03.08 23:54:00 -
[12] - Quote
On the Dropship front.......I'm at a bit of a loss. We've turned Dropships in the current Dust into bootleg fighters, and my thinking is a bit poisoned because of this.
I like the idea of Dropships being simply Transports/Scouts, with the Logi Dropship making its glorious return to provide scans, transport in maybe a rescue sense (room for maybe 2 or 3 infantrymen), and very limited air support. The strafing runs as opposed to hovering for attack sound good, but I don't know that such a craft could be applied to heavy ground vehicles, especially considering the introduction of ground attack aircraft.
On the Transport front, I wouldn't mind seeing transport capacity increased, as well as limited supply depot type abilities provided by a transport dropship. I kind of feel weapons on this craft should be simply to provide cover fire against enemy infantry during troop insertion.
But overall I haven't put a lot of thought into the future of Dropships, so for the moment I will simply listen to the thoughts of others. |
Living Rock 523
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
244
|
Posted - 2016.03.08 23:59:00 -
[13] - Quote
@True Adamacne
Fair enough, warning systems being either standard, a mod, or standard with the ability to be enhanced by a mod should give sufficient wiggle room to make the mechanic work. Maybe restrict an aircrafts choices (through mod limitations) of either enhanced warning systems or countermeasures, not both.
Or just have warning systems standard and equal through all aircraft types, with no enhancement possible. |
|
|
| |
|