|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dreis ShadowWeaver
RIP DUST 514
9354
   |
Posted - 2016.07.07 23:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
I think the capacitor idea is excellent, but not being able to shoot whilst piloting would be very boring.
+1 to native Mobile CRUs too
We did it for Nigel ( ; ~;)7
|
Dreis ShadowWeaver
RIP DUST 514
9358
|
Posted - 2016.07.10 08:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Dreis ShadowWeaver wrote:I think the capacitor idea is excellent, but not being able to shoot whilst piloting would be very boring.
+1 to native Mobile CRUs too Yeah, some vehicles should have those built in. Being able to fit them leads to stuff that doesn't make sense like LAVs that have unlimited spawns into the passenger seat, and fits being limited by having to use a slot for them. Also keep in mind that some people are fine with driving without shooting, same as some are fine with shooting while someone else drives. For people who don't like either, they can use Light vehicles.
But light vehicles are borrrrring  I wanna rain death from above and do cool barrel roll
Mobius Wyvern wrote:I don't see a way to balance something like an HAV if one person can get into it and be basically unstoppable by themselves. Similarly, it would suck to have to spend a lot of credits on an asset like that only to have it be very easy to destroy to compensate for it being able to do so much damage with only one player using it.
But I can't think of a single other FPS where you need two people in a tank for it to be usable. If they can balance it, we can too.
Honestly I think more people will want to be able to shoot than not.
We did it for Nigel ( ; ~;)7
|
Dreis ShadowWeaver
RIP DUST 514
9358
|
Posted - 2016.07.10 08:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote: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.
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.
We did it for Nigel ( ; ~;)7
|
Dreis ShadowWeaver
RIP DUST 514
9364
|
Posted - 2016.07.15 01:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
Maken Tosch 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.
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. 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.
We did it for Nigel ( ; ~;)7
|
|
|
| |
|