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

Breakin Stuff wrote:

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."


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1475	Posted - 2016.07.07 17:13:00 - [1] - Quote FraggerMike wrote: ADS -- don't think those who fly them well will like the idea of not being able to shoot - makes them more of a Chauffeur. I think you'll find most ads pilots just really liked flying them, if anything having to point that silly turret at things made flying less fun, because it limited how you could fly (although I think we all found some nice ways to keep it interesting.) But yeah, I used to enjoy flying teams around in my ships, back when useful people actually got in. A lot of the time with tanks I'd fit small blasters and just point the front and at enemies to let them farm up(possibly because I'm lazy) but I was fine with just ferrying people around, especially when they were good with the turrets. One other request, is that I'd like to be able to name my vehicles and keep a list of each ones stats, lol.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1476	Posted - 2016.07.09 05:30:00 - [2] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: One of the stupidest things ever envisioned was making jeeps immune to small arms fire. 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. LAV's were quite literally the best balanced vehicle in the game... Even when they were stupidly overpowered you could still easily counter them, because the driver was never safe, especially when trying to drive into you. People claimed the ADS was fair despite getting a beefy kdr a lot of the time, probably had something to do with the level of intelligence of your average blueberry... A lot of us ADS pilots used AV as well and were very capable of blowing each other to pieces. Take note, even after the changes to buggy swarms, we still managed to get beefy kdr's in matches where people were too stupid to shoot back from a safe place... A nice bit of hypocrisy where pilots were being told to have to run away and hide to pick our moments and use more skill, while AV was given a nice pat on the back for standing still out in the open. I'd like to suggest that there should always be some way to kill the pilot of a vehicle, allow infantry to drop a grenade down the turret of a tank if they manage to get close enough, put a windscreen on the dropships and let that be its weakness to small weapons fire... And the LAV, well the LAV was fine, if a little buggy on small bumps in the road. Also, infantry shouldn't run faster than anything, with the exception of (up to) medium suits against tanks... Scouts rushing the objective was a poor design choice, which made the start of each game quite boring.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1476	Posted - 2016.07.09 16:31:00 - [3] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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." In your opinion what was the best balanced vehicle then? Also, I stopped many LAV's using light weapons, just had to adjust the aim... Hence my belief that they were the best balanced vehicle in the game. Only people who couldn't aim needed AV for LAV's... Not to mention mines and explosives left on the floor = easy LAV kill.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1476	Posted - 2016.07.09 18:50:00 - [4] - Quote 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.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1476	Posted - 2016.07.09 19:42:00 - [5] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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." Feel free to re-read understanding that "pre" means before.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1478	Posted - 2016.07.10 16:51:00 - [6] - 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. Managing money could have been great, but it needed balancing. All that time people were able to make money doing next to nothing ruined the games they were in for their team, then ruined the balance of isk risk/reward in future matches where someone had billions to waste against people spamming free gear. If only they were going for an Eve connection again, we could see Eve players creating contracts and managing what an objective was worth, so that you actually have to take part in something to get any money... Removing the whole "money for nothing" part of the game, while rewarding those who take risks. Extend this ability to charge for things to Nova players, so you can put bounties on peoples heads and charge for the use of your equipment, which would mean no more money for people throwing uplinks everywhere, because no one is going to pay you to spawn on a poorly placed uplink, when they can pay another guy who's risked his arse putting one behind enemy lines, which will allow you to make your money back easily as you shoot half the enemy team in the back. I'd personally hate to see isk risk gone completely, because in games that don't have any risk to death (other than "oh nose my kdr") You get more people running in without thinking, which without punishment for failure creates a very boring circle of events.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1479	Posted - 2016.07.13 04:03:00 - [7] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I think that DUST requiring Heavy Anti-vehicle options to kill the most basic vehicles set the bar of expectation the wrong way. Swarm launcher, plasma cannon, grenades, remote explosives and proximity mines are all not heavy AV, all of which easily downed an LAV, not to mention being very effective against other vehicles. Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. It literally isn't, many FPS have vehicles that are completely immortal to weapons fire, most of which allow you to shoot out the driver/gunner... Some even force you to disable the vehicle as the only way to get them out. Being able to shoot out the driver with any weapon in the game was a viable option, it seems like a bad design decision to allow bullets aimed at the license plate to deal enough damage to disable the whole vehicle, even if it wasn't a super high tech, futuristic vehicle. Breakin Stuff wrote: It eliminated the need to be intelligent when operating light vehicles. The balance was fine with LAVs. Clever infantry would not allow themselves to get run over, they would set traps and/or aim at the driver/gunner. The only time one or the other had an advantage was when one side was more stupid than the other, aka infantry standing in the middle of the road, or an LAV driver that constantly crashes into a wall depleting their shields. Once again I'll repeat, LAV's (not just the driver) took damage from all weapons... Meanwhile everyone agreed constant armour reps were wrong and needed removing/replacing.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1479	Posted - 2016.07.13 09:20:00 - [8] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. They were separate paragraphs... Not exactly cherry picking. Perhaps you might re-read my comments, because this is twice now you've lacked understanding. Your first one revolving heavily around jump mods, due to what can only have been a lack of reading comprehension.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1480	Posted - 2016.07.13 14:51:00 - [9] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: it seems like a bad design decision to allow bullets aimed at the license plate to deal enough damage to disable the whole vehicle, even if it wasn't a super high tech, futuristic vehicle. I would be fine with the % damage by light weapons only being higher for a vehicle's weak spots. Say light weapons apply 10% damage to LAV's in general, but 50% damage against LAV's when hitting the engine. (LAV's took higher damage in DUST when you hit the engine, so the mechanic for that spot being more vulnerable is already there.) It makes sense. Shooting anywhere but the engine or the tires is going to put holes in a LAV but it is not going to stop it. I'd suggest 0 damage to anything that isn't considered a weakpoint, take into account the size of vehicles compared to dropsuits, it would take a full on moron to miss a target that size... And stupidity should yield no reward (in my opinion.) People unable to aim their light weapons can always pick up AV. I also wouldn't jump to conclusions on exact numbers, since hopefully constant reps will never be reintroduced and all weapon damages will likely be different... Suffice to say heavily reduced would be fine. If tanks took damage from light weapons, but only to the weakpoint at the back of the vehicle and heavily reduced, it could add a nice bit of strategy to positioning the tank and therefore also to disabling it. However I would also suggest smaller weakpoints, there's no point in using an LAV if 3 people wildly spraying it render it useless, meanwhile 3 people focusing fire on one point would be a cause for concern. Although I'm not sure how infantry would take this idea, since the majority don't think shooting the driver out was a valid way to disable Dust LAVs. Take into account the Gal dropships had weakpoints half the size of the vehicle, perhaps just the exhaust gaps in the bottom of the 2 engines would suffice as weakpoints. Fox Gaden wrote: In Planetary Conquest I would like to see the MCC pilot skill added and the ability for one person to control the MCC in a logistical and strategic role. But setting that up would be a fair amount of work over and above all the work of setting up vehicles, so I would expect MCC piloting to come in a later expansion (after vehicles.) The MCC in its DUST like configuration would have a roll though, as soon as planet surface maps are added. I don't see the MCC as being something that needs a pilot, more just something the squad leader can order to move around at a set height, allowing to push closer to some objectives when disabling anti-MCC weaponry in the area.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1481	Posted - 2016.07.13 15:03:00 - [10] - Quote 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.

Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1481	Posted - 2016.07.13 17:43:00 - [11] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff's Escelation of Force reasoning makes sense from a gameplay perspective...especially if the LAV is made so that it isn't trivial to take out even with AV weaponry I highly doubt he wants to buff its defence against AV, since mixed with a low damage from rifles, that would in itself push people to need to shoot the gunner and driver if standing in the open, which was already the most viable tactic anyway. Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: the argument you're using cuts both ways. True, although it does stand to reason that a dropsuit would need to be somewhat flexible, unlike a vehicle, which could cause some additional weakness in its design.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1481	Posted - 2016.07.14 22:35:00 - [12] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: A properly designed Fire-and-Forget weapon would have restrictions in turning most importantly such that you can out-turn the missiles if you fly well. Countermeasures like flares and chaff should also be available to try and break their lock. It would have been good fun dodging missiles, if the only way to avoid them wasn't to crash into something at full speed and hope the physics engine glitched to let you bounce off it without taking damage... Still one of my happiest moments in Dust. Mobius Wyvern wrote: Now, I do like the idea of a weapon that requires you to hold a lock and thus fires a missile that is harder to defeat. That would be quite nice as the swarm-like turret people wanted for vehicles, force the pilot to keep the target in its sights while the missiles are flying towards the target... Menwhile having to dodge forge blasts because one hit would bounce your aim clean off sending the missiles off to visit a nearby wall.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1482	Posted - 2016.07.15 08:36:00 - [13] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: As far as missiles not rendering, that was a PS3 issue above anything else. The missiles would be fired from beyond projectile/effect rendering distance, and then move in faster than the PS3's GPU could process them. Running the game on something other than a potato wouldn't have issues like that. It was a programming issue, the systems limitations should have been well known to everyone that needed to know. Not that a more powerful system wont help... But power alone doesn't make up for bad code... I can program something that will slow down the whole system while doing absolutely nothing of use, no matter how decent the hardware.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1482	Posted - 2016.07.15 08:51:00 - [14] - Quote 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. Dreis ShadowWeaver wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: Auto-Target would be fun. Except they might also auto-target your friendly vehicles as well. Happened in Eve Online one time when someone brought in a Caldari ship to a PvP fight in low-sec but ended up wiping out his own roam fleet because he used Auto-Targeting missiles. Needless to say, his intended targets got away. I'm sure CCP could make sure that doesn't happen. Hopefully they keep the risk, misuse should have consequences... And it would be funny as hell.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1483	Posted - 2016.07.15 22:54:00 - [15] - Quote Nomed Deeps wrote: Back to vehicle spawning, it could have easily decreased lag if there were ground vehicle spawns you could buy in while in war barge. Would also have been good if vehicle drops were limited per match (not counting initial vehicle buy ins) and if your team's RDV was destroyed, vehicles would not drop for a set amount of time. I think those would not only decrease lag but add strategy. I never personally noticed an increase in lag from RDV's... Even when they were stuck in the middle of the map playing the yoyo glitch. As nice as it would be to not have to wait for deployment at the start of a match, I'm neither here nor there on the issue. Having the max amount of vehicles already set out could actually take away strategy, since it removes the need to decide the order vehicles are brought in. Then again on the other hand, if the vehicles are still brought in by RDV's at the start of battle, being able to decide where each one is brought in could be interesting, especially for decoying those pesky start of match barrages we used to get. Nomed Deeps wrote: I always wondered why there were no small single person vehicles in DUST 514; Probably because with the vehicle limits you'd have had the LAV spam problem, but on a larger scale. All the vehicle slots taken up by disposable jeeps, but with no extra seats to carry your team in with you, even less teamwork would have been bad.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1484	Posted - 2016.07.17 19:59:00 - [16] - Quote 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.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1485	Posted - 2016.07.18 07:33:00 - [17] - Quote byte modal wrote: I thought we (they?) were already doing that on page 1. ? Only scrubs read page 1... scrub...
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1486	Posted - 2016.07.18 18:04:00 - [18] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: It really is pretty cool we've been having a discussion this long. As sad as it makes me to think about sometimes, I think losing one of our favorite games had the effect of making us nicer to each other. Nah, I think (almost) everyone was nice before they came to the game, then through playing the game we all got a bit **** towards each other and now with it gone for a while, we've calmed back down a little. Anyway vehicles... If we can have destructible environments, how about something that digs tunnels... But give the main buildings/sockets defences so you can't just tunnel under the null cannons and just drop it to the centre of the planet. Edit - Or even just let tanks dig down and spring up out of nowhere! lol... "peekaboo mother ***!!!" boom*
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1498	Posted - 2016.07.28 12:01:00 - [19] - Quote OK new stupid idea, instead of EvE people blowing us up, why don't we blow them up? We invade a ship and fight like crazy, call in a tank/dropship and start pew-pewing the very ship we're in until "Boom!" everyone dies... Mission accomplished, harvest some scrap metal and space ship tears.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1529	Posted - 2016.08.17 07:27:00 - [20] - 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 il gatto e sul tavolo... il gatto Skraaaaaaaaaaaaab!