DUST Search - Rework ADS, HAVs require main gunner, LAV passengers can shoot, etc

All Channels

General Discussions

Rework ADS, HAVs require main gunner, LAV passengers can shoot, etc

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13071	Posted - 2016.07.07 18:38:00 - [1] - Quote ADS was a lazy, poor design. Replace with This right here and make it a proper VSTOL vehicle. ADS can burn in hell. Keep the normal dropship for transport, but give combat pilots something that doesn't look and maneuver like a brick-shaped metal turd that achieves the "assault" nickname by adding a gun. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13073	Posted - 2016.07.08 23:27:00 - [2] - Quote Bear in mind a vehicle alowed by siege mode would become more vulnerable to weakpoint assault, which was why I am always against EVE "Dreadnaught" style immobile siege modes. I would honestly like to see tanks used more like titanfall titans, with allowances for the difference in vehicle stylings of course. But powerful offense, and well-hardened against casual attack, but vulnerable to actual weapons intended to kill them, the suits tasked for that, as well as each other. But I also would like to see them differ from the DUST model of vehicles. DUST handled vehicles terribly overall, and bluntly there wasn't anything rattatis team could have done to make them "good" and I feel they were limited to making them as not-rage-inducing as possible. Same for AV. Both felt like they were stapled on. Now, I am going to say I would rather if we get vehicles in the future, we get them because the devs can devote their full attention and time to balancing them for the game, making sure the controls work, the weapons and defenses are appropriate, the costs appropriate and that they will interact with the infantry as a primary support platform as much as a good scout or sentinel. I would rather not have them than to have them "like in DUST," which was terrible to begin with. I am willing to deal with no vehicles on release if it means when they release, they are done right, not a giant bag of ass, not fun to drive, not fun to fight, and the cause of incessant, b*tching and arguing. I do not want vehicles as they were in DUST. Period. I do not want AV as it was in DUST. Period. Both were bad. They could be fun. But they were bad. So very simply, we're getting a new game. The infantry play is familiar, but it will be new. If and when vehicles are introduced I do not want DUST vehicles even if they look familiar, and I do not want EVE vehicles. I want Nova vehicles. And I want them to be as simplistic or complex as they need to be in order for them to be balanced, fun and part of NOVA. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13074	Posted - 2016.07.09 03:20:00 - [3] - Quote I think I can safely say that If/When the developers move to vehicles, they will not play like DUST vehicles. Nor should they. One of the stupidest things ever envisioned was making jeeps immune to small arms fire. Vehicles were poorly, poorly done across the board. Some of the balance conventions were absolutely out there on the far side of Flemdar as far as logic goes, tanks did not act like tanks, LAVs did not act like LAVs, and bluntly there was no balance, parity or overarching plan. Then there was the whole "Balance with price tag" thing. It never works. EVE proved it never works. We proved it never works. Scorch the earth and rebuild them from zero. Nothing keeps unless it is deemed to fit in the new game. Unless it adds gameplay value, is fun to play, and is fun to fight, then it has no place in a game. If vehicles are added, and only the vehicle players are having fun when they hit the deck, then they are not built fairly. If they hit the deck, and the vehicle players are miserable because people can instapop them and they don't matter at all, then they are not built fairly. DUST was never built fairly in the AV/V interaction. Ever. A few of us are nostalgic for the beta days of chrome, because either you drove tanks, or you were like me and were good at showing tank drivers that "skill does matter" and killing the bastards solo anyway. the few of us who were nostalgic do not change the fact that even chrome was hella unbalanced, deeply in favor of the tank drivers. Maybe one AV gunner in 50-100 was able to tackle a Marauder and win. It was not unusual for me to rack up 60-80 kills on my tank alt, Blapathon Tanker in beta between madrugar losses. When the ADS were introduced, for over a year they racked up an AVERAGE K/D rating of 50/1. And people defended this, saying that was completely fair. The trend has continued on the pendulum back and forth for the entirety of the game, and bluntly there's no value in keeping the old DUST conventions for vehicles. They didn't work, the controls were sluggish, the hit detection was a joke, and the measures needed to keep vehicles from casually farming infantry like a god-possessed combine harvester in a wheat field made them less fun to use, because it always felt like they were completely off. We just got used to them. I'm of the opinion that the only things from DUST the devs should keep of the vehicles, period, are the models. I feel that everything else should be changed to fit the new game, rather than being shoehorned in "because tanks are cool" That's how we got the vehicles we had, and they were hella unbalanced, and usually not fun to play on the field with or in, at all. I say let the devs rebuild them entirely. It would be incredibly hard to make them worse, overall. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13074	Posted - 2016.07.09 03:41:00 - [4] - Quote DUST Fiend, I would bluntly rather wait for vehicles than have them shoehorned in without as much thought and development time as the infantry side. As far as commitment, CCP is committed to making this game, and making it as good as they can I can actually tell you that right now. I cannot promise you that they're going to work up the features you want on an acceptable timetable as defined by you. Rattati said vehicles would not be available at release? I'd take him at his word, because there is nothing you, or I can say that will change the timetable. Unless he and his team get all of the development they need for nova release done, debugged and ready really early, then get a wild hair up their collective arses to do vehicles, I'm pretty certain you can take him at his word. We can spitball what would be cool all we want, but there is nothing you, or I, or any member of the CPM past or present can do to make them change their development timeline. They decided that they are doing the infantry game first. When that is done, then other things will likely to be worked on. The more constructive commentary on the topic? The more likely we are to see it upped in priority. The more griping and grumping about CCP devs on the forums about the vehicle topic? The more "personal outrage" we show that "OMG WAI U NOT DO WHAT I WANT NOW CCP?" The less likely they're going to want to make it a priority. It's human nature, but as far as interactions with the vehicle community about vehicles, combined with the imbalances in their interaction with AV infantry? Our community has been nothing short of toxic, so don't expect your normal tacks of conversation to get any traction. Cynical commentary is one thing, it's expected. But we as a group abuse the privilege. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13074	Posted - 2016.07.09 03:52:00 - [5] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I've also said this before, will say this again, and will say this many more times even after vehicles are added to nova: It's a huge mistake to try balancing infantry separate from vehicles. They will always be inseparable; whenever there are vehicles, infantry balance will be affected by them. Take for example, the sentinel. Without LAVs and dropships to cart their fat asses around the map, they won't be able to maneuver easily, and won't be able to find vantage points. They also won't have to worry about much if they're slowly hobbling across open areas. They'll be balanced around that. Now, after they're balanced, throw in vehicles. They'll now be able to reach where they could never reach before, move faster than they ever could (and be able to react as quickly as an assault can), and any of them that try hobbling across open areas with get run over, blown apart by an HAV, or both. Their combat niche will be completely changed by vehicles, making any balance beforehand pointless. Yeah, even without dropships and LAVs, I don't know too many sentinels who actually had a problem getting into a position to p*ss off literally everyone. They're another thing on my list of things that were "Poorly thought out from the outset," and I would hope that they get rebuilt as something more easily functional even if we do retain the ability for them to trundle around in jeeps. I am of the opinion that the speed/HP/Ewar slider triangle wasn't a good balance point to begin with, and the dropsuits really only ever felt faster or slower inside the helmet while pretty much varying only in whether they could literally dodge bullets like Neo in the matrix, or just sponge up the bullets like the Terminator. I'm hoping that the dropsuit roles are built as actual ROLES in the game, so that some dropsuits may benefit from a jeep. But some dropsuits should never need one except as a minor convenience or as a group support attack vehicle. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13075	Posted - 2016.07.09 04:48:00 - [6] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: CCP is committed to making this game, and making it as good as they can I can actually tell you that right now. Hilmar can tell us it's Greenlit, until then it's CCP TM Vapourware :/ Also you sit here telling me about griping and unconstructive threads, in my constructive thread that immediately admits that it's a fruitless venture. Do you even read bro. I wasn't addressing this thread, sorry if I was unclear on that one. People have been remarkably sane and cooperative with each other in this one, so yes, I can read. When I say "we as a community" I don't exclude myself from the statement. That was a generalized statement that applies to the forums at large, not "this thread." And yeah, sure, it's nova-vaporware until it's released, fine. I'll give you that much. But back to your regularly scheduled vehicular philosophy thread. I have no interest in seeing this one end. I've actually been taking notes, just in case I ever hear "We are going to start on vehicles..." I may disagree on a lot of the design philosophies people want to see, but that doesn't mean I don't want to see them, or see them presented. If CCP does start developing vehicles, there's a lot of excellent input here that can be presented and polished. I'd be happy if other threads that crop up on the topic stay close to where this one is. The only thing I want to see for vehicles in nova is honestly that vehicles feel as organic as infantry, part of the landscape, part of the dynamic. If one of the ideas presented I disagree with now will accomplish that, then I goddamn well want that one, that's for sure. Don't let my love for the soapbox stop the discussion, please. And screw AV/V interaction, that can get hammered out later. A few things from my perspective: FAVs, LAVs and MAVs: Fast Attack Vehicle is closer to the jeep type things we have in DUST. I think they're a shoe in for a light, disposable transport with a big gun, but not very tanky. They shouldn't be immune to small arms fire. they should have resistance, but they should be vulnerable to regular infantry attack. Light Armored Vehicles I think should be closer to what you guys think of as MAVs, things like AMTRAKs, and Bradley Fighting Vehicles fit better, but with the dropships I feel the ground troop transport is largely redundant. So I would say make LAVs a fast, enclosed, lightly armored vehicle that might be able to weather a heavy shot without instantly exploding. It should also have nasty attack options. Think twin-linked heavy infantry weapons like twin assault forge guns and you have an idea how I'd like to see LAVs armed. Think of them like Shermans against the Tiger tanks. You use them in wolfpacks to keep the enemy from simply overwhelming them with heavy firepower. Medium Armored Vehicles I see as being largely redundant as I said. Unless we wind up with game modes eventually that have 32 vs 32 MAVs won't be particularly useful or desirable. But as far as troop transports, they're not a bad idea. They just lose most of their utility when there's only 16 players on a team. a dropship can likely do it faster, cheaper and more easily evacuated when it's engines get knocked out. Vehicle destruction I don't think should be an automatic explosion. Once it hits zero HP or whatever they're calling it, the thing should grind to a halt and start to burn, becoming a wreck until the reactor/gas tank/whatever goes critical, which shouldn't necessarily happen on a five-second timer automatically. You can get out of a disabled vehicle, bail out, whatever. The exception should be catastrophic damage. If you're about dead anyway, and someone lunks a forge/rail/bigass salmon through your tank that does damage over a threshold point should cause a catastrophic kill. If you put another shot into a wreck, you can cause it to explode while the crew is trying to escape, or the fatty is trying to un-squeeze himself from the seat. Dropships and theorized fighter craft can explode when they hit the ground, on impact. thoughts? Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13075	Posted - 2016.07.09 04:52:00 - [7] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: thoughts? I'd like to address a few posts including yours but I'm far too tired. Will try to pick this back up tomorrow. Cool Rest well. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13075	Posted - 2016.07.09 08:11:00 - [8] - Quote there is a vast gulf of difference between "Shouldn't need" and "should run faster." And no, LAVs were not the best-balanced vehicle in the game. The equivalent of an Army Hummvee required anti-tank weapons to kill, and cost more than the power armor. Modern solution to a hummvee is "Riddle it with bullets." Answer to a DUST jeep should have been "riddle it with bullets," not "deploy heavy anti-vehicle countermeasures." Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.09 16:57:00 - [9] - Quote I have picked pilots out of driver seats with forge guns. Just because it was possible does not mean it was balanced. And troop transport derpships were the best balanced. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.09 17:11:00 - [10] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Yeah, something like an LAV should be vulnerable to small arms. I'm not saying the damage needs to be 1:1 with suits - which would make it nearly impossible to survive - but the native resistance needs to be as low as possible while still allowing the vehicle some measure of survivability. Honestly though, why would vehicle powered shields not be able to take most if not all of the bite away from small arms fire? If there is sidearm AV and personal deployable turrets, why would you need to be able to insta pop a jeep with your AR? Why can't you use an HMG that already tears them apart, or a single AV grenade, or a free LAV, or an RE, or a turret, or just don't stand out in the open? Why can't people aim at the exposed occupants? Why exactly does a high tech vehicle have to explode to periodic pistol fire? The same question could be askdd of dropsuits. Why should they die to periodic pistol fire when they have high powered shields? Sentinels had as much shield HP as a methana. Same argument could be applied there. And the answer is "scaling." If all vehicles have the same damage scale then you can't balance them by role. You have to balance them by the same HP/speed slider we got with dropsuits. I mean let's use the Bolt Pistol as an example. It's the DUST equivalent of the .50 AE Desert Eagle. .50 cal pistols would crack an engine block and disable a Jeep easy. Nailing a helicopter is more iffy, and doing more than scuffing the paint on a tank is laughable. Scaling keeps things more dynamic. If you don't need to bust out the forges, or even swarms then HAVs might have a chance to reach targets without automatically coming under Forge Gun fire. If a Forge Gun is less useful for killing dropships than say a light weapon machinegun then you get a situation where you can scale vehicles to purpose. But if all vehicles are the same scale what you get is me and one other guy with forge guns chilling in a central location with lots of cover waiting for your ADS so we can pump slug after slug into your ship to deny you the airspace because even if there's no tanks on the map, we still need the forge guns to get anywhere with enemy jeeps on the field. And we'll not mention all of the swarmandos. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.09 17:42:00 - [11] - Quote I was thinking more a 30-40% reduction from small arms damage with specific weapons being exception. That way if you lone wolf charge a vehicle into a squad? Yeah you're getting pasted. You deserve to get pasted for being stupid. But if you drop your fighter (I hate ADS because they were dumb) on a squad of enemies or a vehicle already engaged and strafe the bejeezus out of them? Sure you'll take a bit of fire, but you're likely to hit them and be gone before more than a handful realize what the hell just happened. And you have enough resistance that one or two chuckleheads with combat rifles aren't very likely to down your bird. Sure, it's possible. But it shouldn't be particularly likely. And while your bird is a huge threat, if they feel they have a chance of hitting you with small arms, they won't be pushing to stick a sentinel on a high spot just to deny you half the map. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.09 17:49:00 - [12] - Quote Oh, and who said anything about a rifle being able to take advantage of a weakspot? If it's a weapon tagged to do full damage to that type of vehicle? Sure, weakspot. If it's some chucklef**k with a scrambler pistol? No weakspot for you. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.09 17:54:00 - [13] - Quote Also, I'm only talking about LIGHT vehicles with 30-40% resistance. Mediums should be hogher, to account for more armor, reinforced structure, or in the case of dropships, most of tthe vehicle being empty space with a few hard points. HEAVY vehicles like tanks should require anti-tank weaponry. Period. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.09 18:07:00 - [14] - Quote If all vehicles require AV weapons, we fall back on the scaling issues that made AV/V impossible to reconcile. Not all vehicles have to be amazing. They merely have to serve a purpose. Light, cheap vehicles were created so that you can throw dozens of them into the fray and casually replace them. Vehicles do not have to individually force strategic change at all levels in all cases. Fighting an a*hole in a jeep shouldn't be orders of magnitude harder than fighting a guy on foot. In many cases the jeep should be at as much disadvantage as the infantryman. Not every vehicle on the field should be considered a strategic asset. Nor should vehicle drivers have any more protection against death than any other player when their vulnerabilities are exploited. What you suggest makes every single vehicle, no matter how shtty into a strategic asset rather than a disposable taxtical asset. Because they dictate how EVERYONE must be outfitted on the field. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.09 18:42:00 - [15] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: This is why I am glad Nova will be on the PC so that we can finally have access to our own test server and try things out without breaking the game on the live server. Here's hoping. God this stuff needs testing. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.09 19:18:00 - [16] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I have picked pilots out of driver seats with forge guns. Just because it was possible does not mean it was balanced. And troop transport derpships were the best balanced. Forge guns aren't light weapons, I'm talking jumping over an LAV and pumping a shotgun in their face, this was pre-pogo514. Literally everything could stop an LAV if used with an ounce of sense. All your ideas seem to revolve around "I should just be able to shoot it" no strategy, no thinking. The disadvantage of vehicles is that they can't go everywhere that a dropsuit can, you use them to block the movement of infantry between certain open spaces... If any old dropsuit can just pew-pew any vehicle without thinking, then there's no point in using the vehicle because the dropsuit can do more. Transport dropships zig-zagged between unusable and easily exploitable, they had the same rep/harder exploits that tanks had... You could just squish people without a worry, unless half the enemy team had AV... For a while I'd just park one on annoying uplinks and leave it hardened while I got out and pew pew-ed... Free kills while AV fails to blow it up. Also, vehicles did actually take damage from sustained weapons fire... It was just negated by certain bastardized rep mods. Again, basing a balance argument on an implementation late in the game is pointless, and the jump mods had their own exploitation issue. Let me be clear: balance modifications should not be predicated upon implements that were, themselves, not amazingly balanced. Jump mods may have begat some interesting tactics, but making a vehicle into a special mechanic bossfight to win is not fun. DUST was a combined-arms tactical sci-fi warfare simulator. It was set up for warfare stylings. Jump mods did not make the LAVs balanced, suddenly. It did not correct the inherent design flaws. And bluntly in a first person shooter, "aim and fire" should almost always be a valid solution. Driving a buggy down a road should never upgrade a player from "player X" to "boss fight, special mechanics required." Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.09 19:27:00 - [17] - Quote New game, new platform, new possibilities. A lot of the limitations on the PS3 are no longer valid, so we're all shooting in the dark, because infantry combat changes drastically without the slideshow. How will dropship pilots change with good frames? Suddenly vehicles are more fluid. Because of the platform change alone, everything we know about vehicle gameplay is wrong. I'll admit, even my Comments are pure speculation driven by what DUST was. Good hit detection, framerate and intuitive play at a core level will likely change literally everything. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.09 20:27:00 - [18] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: As for dropship pilots on Nova, makes me wonder how the handling of aerial vehicles will be since now joysticks are an available control to the masses on PC. I have a joystick as well due to my addiction to X-Plane 10 and the Boeing 767-300ER Flight Factor add-on. I strongly doubt it would make too much of a difference, assuming vehicles make it back some day I really doubt they'll have complex controls. I'm getting my HOTAS for SC though so I'll probably use it regardless. If dropships flew with similar controls to the battlefield 2 blackhawks? I would have been flying them nonstop. I mastered takeoff, landing, deploying squads in hot zones, then moving squads from their actual points on the map to where they needed to be. It was fun, and I could land without crashing. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.10 01:32:00 - [19] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: BREAKING THINGS I think you're right about Light Vehicles taking 30 to even 50% damage from light arms fire. HOWEVER. Oh yea. Mhm. Feel it. It feels good baby. Light Vehicles are now single operator vehicles such as FUCKIN SPEEDERS and MTACs mmm yea suck in that sweet sweet dream juice. Mm. Then, make LAVs a Medium Vehicle that's basically the same thing just a little bit bigger so you can have the back turret or two transpo seats. Medium vehicles take 10-25% light arms damage Heavy vehicles take 2-7% light arms damage, because if we're going down this rabbit hole then a large amount of concentrated light arms should theoretically punch through their defenses in time. LAVs would, in my universe take 70-50% damage based on fit. MAVs (troop transports) would take about 20%. MTACs would fall here. Dropships too because they're mostly empty space. Weakpoints would take 100% from hand weapons, not the weakpoint bonus. Heavy vehicles would require anti-materiel weapons or heavy weapons. Period. 0% damage from rifles and sidearms. Bear in mind i would scale this up or down based upon vehicle role. I consider weak points viable targets for weapons scaled to hit them. Rifles doing damage to LAVs I'm cool with. But they shouldn't get a damage bonus that takes them over their normal damage as they are infantry scale weapons. Your python, with a rocket launcher? Weakspot? Yup. LAV, you be buggered. If CCP does the scaling of damage to vehicle type well? Balance becomes easier. LAVs get to be faster and shoot harder, and infantry grunts don't get to **** and moan about invulnerable vehicles. Sure your fighter is a glass cannon that hits like a truck but dies if a fart hits it. If it's fast and maneuverable enough, hitting the bastard should rightly be a challenge. The kind of balance where speed matters, falloff matters, and how you drive it is as (if not more) important as how many shield extenders and plates you slap on it. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.10 03:20:00 - [20] - Quote Price point has always been a sticking point with me. In DUST, half the point has always been "Disposable heroes." A vehicle that requires 10 full matches of regular play to replace is never "disposable." Keeping vehicles ungodly expensive is, IMHO missing the point of the immortal warriors who die and come back, die and come back in a vicious cycle of destruction. The vehicles need to feel powerful in their own right, but destructible the right way, and priced according to the game philosophy of "Immortal who has shed the fear of death and loss." Making vehicles cost half a million ISK a pop to fit and field always missed that core point of the game to me. Because half a million ISK is never "Disposable" when you get 120,000-210,000 ISK per match, and you still have to replace the dropsuit you lost in that glorious fire? You can't make a game where "Live, die, learn, repeat" is the entire premise of the game then make something so valuable that you fear destruction. it undermines the point of the core premise of the game in every imaginable way. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13079	Posted - 2016.07.10 09:25:00 - [21] - Quote Dreis ShadowWeaver wrote: By that logic, we should get rid of all ISK so we can reinforce that 'live, die, learn, repeat' thing. Personally, ISK was my favourite part of the game. I loved how for immortal mercenaries, money was the only thing that mattered. I like the idea of desperately wanting to protect something because it costs a load of money and it'll take you a long time to replace. It's like saying Titans are against the philosophy of EVE. That's as far as I can go in my speculative stuff without actually delving into things I don't remember if I have been cleared to say under NDA. I apologize, but I can't carry this speculative angle any further at this time. Price point in DUST has been my sticking point for a reason. For Nova, there are things. I unfortunately cannot go into the ideas of how resources may or may not play out at this time, so I will not. I can talk about DUST, and what I perceived to be it's issues on pricing, but not for Nova. Partly, again, because of NDA, but also because anything I may or may not know can change without notice and be the cause of me shtting up the forums with expectations that may not be valid five minutes from now. I will say yes, ISK mattered, SHOULD matter, and hopefully will in the future. In DUST, the ISK factor was disproportionate to the scale of the game compared to EVE, and risk/reward curve was skewed a little too hard to Risk without much incentive reward overall. PC could have been the reward, Faction warfare could have been a reward area. Unfortunately both were plagued by their own quirks, problems and foibles, so it was either inaccessible or undesirable to most players to become involved. For example, when Goonfeet held districts, sure, we profited, we held the districts, and we did well. But the framerate issues from the get-go hurt, coordination and dropped match glitches, no-shows and the need to show up every day like it was a nine-to-five job every day for the three districts we held stopped being fun. It wasn't a game anymore, it was a chore, and not a particularly useful or interesting chore. So we put up a token defense and let the districts flip, as our way of removing ourselves from the game mode we found less than entertaining. Sure, the ISK was there, but the gameplay by and large was not fun. I had a blast on the few FC runs I did, getting everyone moving and defending (or assaulting) districts. But SSDD (Same Sht, Different Day) means the fun wore thin entirely too fast. DUST had a remarkable knack for providing ISK sinks, but did not inherently have many means of profiting without deliberately utilizing Basic and militia suits, whether BPO or 3k ISK fits that you could lose by the dozen and still profit. Even at the advanced level (with an appropriate fit) you could only afford to lose a small handful of mid-grade suits before you dropped into the red. With vehicles, the problem was exacerbated to the extreme. I always figured if vehicles were made cheaper, they could be more destructible, and instead of the risk-averse pussyfooting most pilots utilized, we might have seen a more aggressive, balls-to-the-wall aggressive playstyle that the game should have encouraged from the get-go. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13080	Posted - 2016.07.10 15:38:00 - [22] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: ARMA requires 2 people for for most vehicles to be useful, for the record. Arma requires two people to work the keyboard and mouse in order to get the correct implement you need out and operating in anything resembling a timely fashion when playing a lone infantryman Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13080	Posted - 2016.07.10 17:48:00 - [23] - Quote IMMORTAL WAR HERO wrote: ADS battles better than EVE I cannot find fault with this statement. Carry on. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13087	Posted - 2016.07.12 20:05:00 - [24] - Quote I was thinking more "squad of several people riddles vehicle with bullets." Sure one person could, but not without a protracted fight. You get a squad hosing? Yeah, fairly quick. But not to the point where vehicles go down at dropsuit kill speeds. There's no point in using them were that the case. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13087	Posted - 2016.07.12 22:25:00 - [25] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Well I was going off of 30-40% base damage on small arms, which considering their range and accuracy, would melt a typical LAV before it could even leave the one infantrymans range. Nevermind the fact that every last player on the field now has efficient AV 100% of the time, so even if it only moderately damaged it, passing even a single infantryman at any point almost guarantees your death. That's my gripe, and why I suggest something closer to 10-20% small arms damage instead. Still allows non AV to support AV / defend themselves, but doesn't turn the entire map into one giant AV nest. The point I have been trying to make is there needs to be grades of distinction here. Not every vehicle needs to be badass. Making light vehicles not require specific AV weapons to tackle allows scaling of medium and heavy vehicles make more sense. It's like dropships that took as much raw punishment as an HAV. That never should have been a thing. But because there's no scaling of damage, it had to happen. If I am an infantryman, I shouldn't be defaulting to a sentinel with a forge for literally everything. For a jeep? Throw an AV nade and riddle with bullets. For dropships/MAV/medium vehicles, again light anti-material weapons should be my go-to. I should be busting out heavy weapons and heavy rail guns when someone schleps a madrugar onto the field. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13088	Posted - 2016.07.13 03:30:00 - [26] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: But what I'm saying is that if you have 16 plus players on the field, where EVERY weapon deals distinct damage to vehicles, PLUS AV, Turrets, and other Vehicles, you've basically just removed any reason to call in LAVs what so ever. They may as well all be free, pre fit, and laying around your spawn point, because you would actually have to try to NOT kill it when EVERYTHING is AV. I think having a well rounded team is important. If everyone just always has the answer to everything then team comp breaks down and it basically becomes a solo game where you never have to really pay attention to what your team runs. Just run your go to fit because it handles all situations, ezpz. This is also why I recommend making most vehicles require 2 to operate, so that way it requires coordination right out the gate in order to be a pilot. I think that DUST requiring Heavy Anti-vehicle options to kill the most basic vehicles set the bar of expectation the wrong way. It's literally the only game ever in FPS where riddling a jeep with bullets was not a viable option. Not necessarily a GREAT option, but still viable. Just because the Devs wanted it to be different didn't make that design decision a good one. It eliminated the need to be intelligent when operating light vehicles. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13088	Posted - 2016.07.13 06:38:00 - [27] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Living up to your name Quit cherry-picking things and then taking the quote out of context to prove your point. Your arguments have been absolutely one-sided, and you're bluntly not doing anything but coming up with arguments that have little to nothing to do with my comments. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13088	Posted - 2016.07.13 06:40:00 - [28] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Really, why are we balancing the game for bads now? Why do you want to balance the game like literally everything needs to be high-difficulty? Game needs content for all skill levels, not just the "Skilled elite." You balance the game for average and above average players, then let the people sink or shine in that environment. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13089	Posted - 2016.07.13 21:59:00 - [29] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: It seems a little odd to require specialized AV weapons to take out a jeep. That depends, a lot of comparisons here are using "real world" arguments... But in this fictional universe what if the LAV is actually made of the same materials as the tank, only its lightness come from smaller size and not having a roof. In which case both the tank and LAV would be bullet-proof, except in the areas where there are no materials to block them, aka the roof... Leaving the driver open to... Pretty much every weapon in the game. At least, that's what I was assuming we needed the AV for. Yeah, but my Dropsuit is also made out of the same materials a the tank. And in the real world a jeep is usually made out of essentially the same material as a tank. It is just that a bullet has an easier time penetrating a couple of millimeters of steel than it does making a dent in over an inch of steel. IRL, small arms fire won't do ** to a HMMWV. Then again, our trucks are actually ***** enclosed. Which brings up a point: nova's LAVs need to be completely redesigned, rather being the Dust ones with upgraded graphics. We need them to have a higher capacity (driver, 3 passengers, and a gunner), and of course be closed off. This of course means that the turret, wherever it's placed, will have a much larger blind spot, but I that could be easily balanced by making small turrets stronger and/or with more range. It also means that if an enemy gets too close, someone would have to dismount to fight them before they get covered in REs or take an AV grenade. Real Life small arms won't hurt a hummvee? What real life are you living in? About 10 .30 caliber bullets through the front grille will disable a hummvee. Diesel engines aren't actually bulletproof (military hummers tend to use diesel) Also, there's no reality in which I think a rifle should do more than scratch paint on an HAV. Hence, scaling. Rather like dropsuits have different sizes, speeds and damage tolerances, vehicles should be scaled for resistance by size and role. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13089	Posted - 2016.07.14 01:17:00 - [30] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Back on the topic of reworking turrets: I don't think we should see large turrets primarily killing infantry unless said turret does it in a way that smaller weapons can't. If that small blaster on your HAV can kill someone easily, why do you need a massive blaster for it? For example, large missiles could be reworked into indirect fire weapons. Require them to lock onto a designator painted either by infantry or a small turret, then fire missiles to home in on the painted area. The missiles should have some delay before the homing kicks in. This allows the gunner to curve the missiles around objects that would otherwise get in the way, and allow for some skill on their part. Another idea of a bit crazier weapon would be some sort of minmatar locus ballista- launch a timed charge into an area that can roll/bounce around a bit before exploding. Definitely a lot of skill required and definitely a trickshot weapon, but it would be invaluable for firing into areas no other weapon can reach. Think of it as a giant, tank-mounted locus grenade. Honestly there isn't any reason tanks shouldn't have an AoE Cannon Blast. If things are set right, that should absolutely be an option. It's a give/take and balance thing, but a slow-firing, high-damage AoE blast isn't unreasonable for a tank. There's dozens of games that include that, and do it well. Great for clearing bunkers and such. It's dependent upon how the hulls are implemented. If they're done like DUST? yeah, no let's stick to the point-fire turrets. My honest opinion is that light turrets should be basically sentinel heavy weapons on a pintle mount. Forge guns, HMGs, etc. Heavier vehicles (not HAVs) might have twin-linked heavy weapons like twin-assault forges that alternate barrels, etc. Sh*t like that. I highly recommend we think less "DUST did it this way" and look at interesting ideas (I'm fond of W40k vehicles). Heavy turrets should be big, slow, and carry a rather large, noticeable punch, IMHO. I detest the amount of pussyfooting around that we've had to go through with the turrets. An M-1 Can theoretically do a bit over an 8 second rotation 360 degrees. That's about 40 Degrees per second, according to internet sources that I may or may not find dubious. Similarly a challenger has a 9 second rotation. That rotation rate isn't what I'd call great for tracking lemming infantry in close. works just fine for distant enemies with a coaxial machinegun though. All heavy turrets should have a coaxial. There's some real-world conventions that just work WELL. There are some that may not translate to the game well. But i like tanks that can punch hard. I actually felt better about gunnlogis when they had splash, oddly enough. There's a LOT of neat room to play for turrets. I just hope we don't repeat the Madrugar .50 caliber anti-infantry machinegun.... err, I mean Plasma cannon.... Seriously that thing fired more or less identically to an M2 .50 cal machinegun. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13095	Posted - 2016.07.14 20:17:00 - [31] - Quote A VTOL fighter doesn't have to have slow lateral movement. It can be fast. Make 'em fast, light and violent. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13095	Posted - 2016.07.14 20:18:00 - [32] - Quote I also don't want fire & forget missiles ever again. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13095	Posted - 2016.07.15 00:16:00 - [33] - Quote I would say if you lose lock, missiles go on terminal ballistic path. IE they fly straight and fast in whatever direction they were pointed. And traditional fixed-wing aircraft are problematic in the extreme on maps that aren't huge. I was thinking somewhere between Harrier and Cobra gunship for intent on flying vehicles. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13095	Posted - 2016.07.16 00:45:00 - [34] - Quote Echo 1991 wrote: Ripley Riley wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: "Weakspot" is a relative term. It might be more literal to say "Weaker spot". Just popping in to say this. A weak spot doesn't have to be a "critical hit" location. It can simply mean small arms do damage when hitting [insert location]. Which would mean anything bigger should do more damage too. A forge gun is gonna be more destructive to that point than it would on area that isn't "weak". I would actually posit that a Forge gun hitting an LAV is pretty much a Death warrant, weakspot or no. It's kinda hard to up the destructive power of "goes through the engine and still kills the driver" by and large. LAVs shouldn't be scaled to weather anti-tank weapons. Aircraft should be nimble enough that casually hitting one with an anti-tank weapon should be challenging enough to be called a skillshot. If AT weapons are at their most effective against tanks, period, and lesser weapons will do sufficient damage to lighter vehicles so as to be unnecessary, then most people won't waste time lugging AT Forge Guns across a battlefield. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13095	Posted - 2016.07.16 00:50:00 - [35] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I would say if you lose lock, missiles go on terminal ballistic path. IE they fly straight and fast in whatever direction they were pointed. As long as they're designed not to fire forwards this would be fine, otherwise you'll get a lot of people not holding the lock for more than a millisecond, because it's already launching forwards. Not a huge problem for vehicles that move a lot on multiple axis like dropships, but ground vehicles and possibly infantry would be at risk of fire and forget gameplay. If however the missiles follow the lock, it would allow for interesting manoeuvring of the missiles, allowing the person launching to fire around multiple obstacles and friendly assets, or even just to juke a dropship into dodging one way and ending up in a whole world of trouble. My thoughts here exactly. My idea is Lock to fire. Meaning without an actual vehicle lock, you cannot fire the guided missiles. Must hold lock for missiles to track all the way to target. If lock is lost, Missiles take terminal ballistic path to target or until they expire/hit an obstacle. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13095	Posted - 2016.07.16 18:15:00 - [36] - Quote I understand your point. But until we get confirmation that countermeasures and such are in the cards, I tend to plan and prep for worst-case scenario. In this case, we get a guided missile weapon without any kind of countermeasures. My concern with that being if missile range is short, missiles might be too easy to evade with countermeasures. If missile range is too long, then you are continually being bombarded and they only delay inevitability. I'm more a fan of stinger missile style AA missiles that have to maintain a lock precisely because they force the gunner to take as much risk and exposure as the target, or a forge gunner. But if missiles can only alter course 15-20 degrees per second that also solves a lot of issues. But all of this is entirely dependent on what the devs can do with the engine they are using. I'm not a programmer, so I cannot give a realistic assessment of what is possible, or what is worth plugging in the man-hours. Some things could be so calculation-heavy that they might slow FPS. That would be the fastest way for a feature to get dumped. Right now I'm going purely on what I know is possible, what we might get at minimum. So bear in mind that I'm poking at worst-case scenarios, because I am not going to set myself up for disappointment. That is where my perspective is at. Another part of it is even if I do know something is doable/being worked on/planned, I cannot base my premises on that knowledge, publically. I respect your perspective, mobius. Please understand that my ability to spitball with you is more sharply limited than derpty or DUST Fiend. So please don't take my limited-perspective comments as disagreement, or my full perspective on the topic. I simply prefer to not pour gasoline and lit matches on bridges with false hope or NDA breaches. The instant that I am allowed to add more to the conversation, you will KNOW. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13098	Posted - 2016.07.17 17:58:00 - [37] - Quote Oh my God, what have I done? We're discussing realistic situation assessment on the DUST forums! Crapcrapcrap quick, someone call someone a no-skill scrub! Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13099	Posted - 2016.07.18 21:12:00 - [38] - Quote Having spots where they can go "hull down" isn't necessarily a bad idea either. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13129	Posted - 2016.08.05 20:50:00 - [39] - Quote I actually suck driving titans. I'm a lot better at wasting them as a foot soldier in that game. I think titanfall did a good job making titans things that very much altered the flow of the game while still being destructible by the infantry players. I will admit going toe to toe with other titans was just good fun. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13138	Posted - 2016.08.17 00:21:00 - [40] - Quote MEDICO RITARDATO wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Crapcrapcrap quick, someone call someone a no-skill scrub! I vote Medico, everyone loved it when he called someone a scrub... I miss Medico... that lovely skraaaaaab. Skrab I approve of this message and/or service. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.