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)
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7791	Posted - 2016.07.07 16:04:00 - [1] - Quote Overall I really like your ideas DUST Fiend. (ADS) However I think FraggerMike has a point about ADS. I think ADS should have a fixed weapons controlled by the pilot, as in, the pilot aims by steering the dropship. This would mean that strafing runs would really be strafing runs, as the pilot would not be able to hover and shoot at someone below them. They would have to dip the nose, which would require forward movement to avoid crashing. Dropships, particularly ADS, need level indicators added to the first person perspective view. You need instruments to tell you how far you are tilted forward/back and left/right. At the very least, set a bottle of whisky on the dash board so I can look at the water line (whisky line?) to tell when the dropship is level. An indication of net force would be useful too, as in an arrow telling you at what angle up or down and in which direction relative to your dropship's orientation you are going to go with the current combination of thrust vectors and gravity. One instrumentation idea would be to have a 3D semitransparent representation of your dropship inside a spire projected onto the corner of your HUD. The spear would have a ring at the equator representing level, and another ring that indicates the angle of your dropship. You make the rings line up and you are level. Then add an arrow through the centre of the spire that indicates the direction of net force (the direction your dropship is moving due to thrust, gravity, and other forces) and have the length of the arrow indicate the net speed. This would make flying in 1st person view much easier. (Tanks) I support the idea of separating the Tank Driver and the Primary Gunner. Let the Driver have a small nose turret attached to his exterior camera. Include an overlay for the driver similar to the overlay on a carGÇÖs backup camera with lines that indicate the direction the tank is facing and indicates the width of space the tank will take up, so it is easier to orient the vehicle when not facing straight ahead. Solo tank drivers will have to change seats to fire the big gun, which makes the tank immobile when firing. This is a balance factor which allows the tanks to be made harder to kill, since they either require 2 operators, or with 1 operator canGÇÖt have full offensive and defensive capabilities at the same time. This will allow the tanks to be made truly powerful while maintaining AV balance. (MAVs) I propose two types of MAVGÇÖs. Assault MAVGÇÖs (Light solo tanks), and Troop transport MAVGÇÖs. (Assault MAV) For those solo tanking fans, I propose a MAV with 1 seat, and a medium forward facing turret. Probably 6 wheeled rather than tracked, the Assault MAV would have less acceleration than a LAV, but maybe 50% more armor, and be able to spin in place like a tank. It would be faster and more maneuverable than a tank (HAV) but would not have near as much armour, and only have a medium turret. I am thinking along the line of 8 to 10 shots from a medium turret to kill a HAV, and 2 to 3 shots from a large turret to kill an Assault MAV, so a small pack of Assault MAVGÇÖs could take down tanks, or a MAV with AV support, while at the same time a squad with just anti infantry weapons could still take out a MAV if given enough time. (Troop MAV) The Troop MAV would be able to hold a full squad, and have two turrets (one forward, one aft) which are controlled by the person sitting in that position. It would have less acceleration than a LAV, but have more armor. Faster, with less armor than a HAV. Enclosed, except possibly the turret seats. Not gun for the Buss driver. (LAV) About what DUST had, except with DUST FiendGÇÖs suggestion that passengers by able to fire their weapons from the vehicle. CanGÇÖt fire through the windshield or other parts of the vehicle though so field of fire is somewhat restricted, and the vehicle is open as DUST LAVGÇÖs where to you can be shot too. With the bouncing around of the vehicle effecting your aim, I donGÇÖt see being able to fire from a vehicle as being too OP. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7792	Posted - 2016.07.07 16:20:00 - [2] - Quote Ripley Riley wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Similar to their EVE counterparts I'm going to say this, and it might make someone a bit pissy but Imma say it anyway: I am concerned about how Rattati would interpret "Do [insert thing], you know, like they have in EVE". CCP Rattati doesn't like EVE and admits to having only played it for a few minutes. Maybe we should phrase it as "The capacitor mechanic they use in EVE Online would work well as a balance mechanism for vehicles in an FPS game as well. It is an enjoyable mechanic to manage, and it introduces effective ways to provide game balance, making V/AV balance easier to achieve." This might go over better than the "But EVE does it this way" approach that some have taken with Rattati in the past. Basically, having modules, turrets, propulsion, and shields all use power, from a capacitor that is recharging at a constant rate, and has a finite capacity (power reservoir) allows the Developer to tune power consumption rates to prevent the operator from being able to do too much at the same time, or at least not for an extended time, to prevent the vehicle from being too powerful. It also allows for weapons that attack the power reserve rather than doing damage, to provide more variety to the tactical game play. Doe that about summarize it? It might also be worth pointing out to Rattati that EVE Online is a game of vehicle combat. This point of view both validates his assertion that what works in EVE does not necessarily work in a FPS game, while at the same time supports the case for using EVE mechanics in vehicles. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7793	Posted - 2016.07.07 17:24:00 - [3] - Quote I should also comment that with a fixed nose cannon (rather than a movable turret) combined with a good level indicator could make ADS dogfights in 1st person view a thing. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7794	Posted - 2016.07.08 11:59:00 - [4] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. I am not apposed to that. That thing looks a lot more fun to fly than a Assault Dropship. Less armor, more speed and maneuverability. Smaller target. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7795	Posted - 2016.07.08 12:12:00 - [5] - Quote I should point out that the reason capacitor control, with turning modules on and off to regulate power usage, works well in EVE is because the computer is aiming the turrets for you. If the driver and gunner positions in a tank are separated, then the driver can concentrate more on micro managing power systems, which would make the capacitor mechanic work very well. It would be fun and require skill from the driver, while the turret orator gets to shoot stuff and watch for heat buildup and ammo usage. The crewed vehicles could get a lot more module slots than the solo vehicles. Solo vehicles would rely on speed and maneuverability to avoid damage, while crewed vehicles would be slower and tougher and rely on use of active modules to survive. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7795	Posted - 2016.07.08 12:29:00 - [6] - Quote Slayer Deathbringer wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: I like your idea except for the last one. Energy Vamps and Neutralizers should only be limited to vehicles as modules since those logically take up a lot of power and processing to do what they do. If you look at Eve Online you will often see ships that are fitted with Energy Vamps and Neuts be also fitted with Capacitor Booster to compensate for the massive drain that the Vamps and Neuts have on the ship that is using them. Engineering/lore wise, it makes sense to make Vamps and Neuts in Project Nova restricted to vehicles as modules. The effect of these Cap-hindering modules should primarily affect the turrets. Vehicles should have the ability to drive away even under these conditions because the engineering of the vehicles (thinking lore here) includes one such redundancy where the powerplant of the vehicle being targeted doesn't need capacitor as it is the part of the vehicle that provides Capacitor in the first place. If the onboard computers sense a sudden increase in the demand for more power that exceeds its type design it will assume that the Capacitor is being energy drained and thus the system will automatically cut power to the Capacitor and use that power instead to drive the wheels so that the vehicle can get to safety. The Capacitor will be drained eventually but at least the pilot can get away to safety so that the onboard computer can switch back to recharging the Cap. But once the Cap is drained, all primary and secondary weapons will be rendered useless unless that weapon happens to be projectile-based such an Autocannon or Missile Turret. Rail, Blaster and laser turrets depend heavily on Capacitor and thus become non-functioning once Cap is completely drained. Obviously you don't need Cap for a weapon the only fires crude gun-powder ammunition or self-guided missiles that only need a tiny spark to light the propellants. This would give other vehicles stronger logistics roles if Energy Transfer modules are implemented. What do you think? I think that if that is the case than blasters, missiles, rails, and lasers should hit significantly harder than other turrets Based on your earlier posts I don't think you have a very sophisticated understanding of balance. There is more to the equation than just damage. It would make more sense to balance a situational strength with another situation strength. Damage is a factor in every battle. Energy Neutralizers will be used far less often, unless they become FOTM. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7795	Posted - 2016.07.08 12:42:00 - [7] - 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. 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. As I mentioned in an earlier post, for solo tanking fans I suggest a MAV that is tougher than a LAV, but still can be taken out by concentrated fire from 3 or 4 infantry weapons if given time, particularly if it gets stuck. I am thinking less module slots, and a lot less armor than a HAV, but more acceleration and maneuverability. The operator would rely on their driving rather than module management, to survive. Also, I am thinking a medium turret. Large turrets should only be in crewed vehicles. But the medium turret should be able to do enough damage that Assault MAV's can gang up to kill a HAV the same way infantry can team up to kill an Assault MAV. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7795	Posted - 2016.07.08 13:10:00 - [8] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Let's not forget one very important thing here. For us to even get a chance to see vehicles in Project Nova in the future (and by future I mean distant) we have to ask ourselves some very important questions. Do these vehicle types (LAVs, HAV & ADS) have any purpose being in Project Nova? If so, what is their purpose and when should it be needed? As I have proposed a while ago on DiscordApp, I suggested the following roles be assigned for the following reasons: LAVs What is its purpose? Long distance travel at very high speeds. In other words, strictly as a transport. Sure there can be a turret but the turret should only serve as a defensive tool to ward off attackers, not be the attack platform itself. When is it needed? Very large open maps where the terrain is so vast that even the fastest scout will find it a hindrance to just rely on running on foot. That scout will likely just call in an LAV anyways because what kind of scout would want to waste half an hour running from point A to point B when an LAV can do the same in 5 minutes? ADS What is its purpose? Long distance travel at moderate speeds. Mainly as a transport like the LAV but has slightly better guns since it can be used as an assault platform. When is it needed? Very large maps where mountains are plenty and can render LAVs vulnerable to an ambush. ADS can also serve as scouting platforms to get a set of eyes over that one ridge you are not sure of. This can be a perfect platform for delivering scouts as well. Notice how I only mentioned ADS because I feel that all dropships should be the same in terms of role. No more regular dropships that are completely redundant to assault types. Either make all dropships be ADS with MCRU built in (as the OP recommended) or don't include them at all. HAVs What is their purpose? Siege Platforms. When is it needed? When your opponent is bunkered in and you really want to break through their defenses where your ADS fails. Another situation where one is needed is when your opponent has set up some kind of structure that hinders your progress and your ADS, AV infantry and even the most powerful forge gun can't break through its defenses except for a HAV that is in siege mode. When in siege mode, it dishes out enough fire power to make a dent on an MCC but it is completely immobile for a set amount of time until the cycle completes. This is similar to dreadnoughts in Eve that are forced to stay stationary in the same way. Agree that vehicles need a purpose that is well defined before they are added. Agree on LAV's. I think LAV's were well implemented in DUST, generally. I would still like to be able to shoot infantry weapons from the passenger seat, since the passenger is in the open and can take external damage. Disagree somewhat on ADS. Implement Dropships as they were in DUST, for squad transport. Replace ADS with 1 man fighters, which maneuver like dropships, but are more responsive and much faster while also being a lot more squishy. They should have fixed weapons aimed by pointing the fighter at the enemy, rather than a turret that can be shot downward while hovering. Give them 4 AV missiles, that they have to return to base to reload. Purpose would be to harass infantry with strafing runs (less devastating than hovering ADS with amiable turret) and harassing Dropships and LAV's with turrets, or taking on Tanks, Ground Turrets, or other infrastructure with missiles. But the most important is for the Tank to have a purpose. - Destructible gates that Tanks can take out, or Dropships can fly over. - Taking out Shields or Shield Generators that protect District infrastructure. - Taking out Anti Personnel defense turrets. - Taking out large Drones. Any other ideas? Of course Remote Explosives, and various hand held AV weapons can be used if tanks are not available, but the point is that there should be things that need doing that are easier to do with a tank. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7795	Posted - 2016.07.08 13:19:00 - [9] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: I think we need to draw a line of ALL suits based on vehicle class, and have it be based on turrets specifically. A small turret on an HAV should be just as effective against infantry as a small turret on an LAV. However, a Large Turret should be virtually incapable of being a major threat to infantry. Consider today where most tank shells are either solid penetrators or shaped-charges with very little splash radius because they're designed for piercing the armor of other tanks. This is one area where emulating reality actually assists with game balance rather than detracting from it. I agree, although if that solid shell actually hits an infantry directly it should be an instant kill. But with no splash, and slow turret tracking, so it is hard to get a direct hit on such a small moving target. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7799	Posted - 2016.07.11 12:44:00 - [10] - Quote Slayer Deathbringer wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: I think we need to draw a line of ALL suits based on vehicle class, and have it be based on turrets specifically. A small turret on an HAV should be just as effective against infantry as a small turret on an LAV. However, a Large Turret should be virtually incapable of being a major threat to infantry. Consider today where most tank shells are either solid penetrators or shaped-charges with very little splash radius because they're designed for piercing the armor of other tanks. This is one area where emulating reality actually assists with game balance rather than detracting from it. I agree, although if that solid shell actually hits an infantry directly it should be an instant kill. But with no splash, and slow turret tracking, so it is hard to get a direct hit on such a small moving target. Right again. Designing Larger turrets in that way rewards practice and precision with kills, rather than essential trolling infantry by shooting the ground near them repeatedly to kill them while they can't do anything to stop you. That's also part of why I prefer the idea of Turrets being empty sets of hardpoints on a vehicle and Vehicle Weapons being their own distinct entity. Ideally an HAV turret would have a Large and Small weapon hardpoint, so the gunner can engage infantry with the Small turret which would provide higher rate of fire or higher splash damage to make it better for engaging infantry at the cost of damage per shot. The Small Weapon would still be in the HAV turret though, and thus restricted to that turret's rotation speed. Well why exactly is that I mean what about blaster turrets I think that they should be capable of massacring infantry but are weaker against vehicles Correct. I was talking about Rail Turrets, Artillery, and Heavy Pulse Lasers. I did not mention Blasters or Auto cannons because I did not want to muddy the water. But yes, Large turret types that are better against infantry should be weaker against vehicles, making anti infantry tanks susceptible to anti vehicle tanks. That would be the balance trade-off. There would be range trad-offs as well. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.

Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7799	Posted - 2016.07.11 13:04:00 - [11] - Quote byte modal wrote: I don't imagine all play fields need this, but to give a reasonable return on investment by the pilot and crew to play these new specialized roles, then we should consider other HAV opportunities for level designs that may not have such structures, or just not as many. With that in mind, HAV vs. HAV could fill that role on such battlefields. I am suggesting that HAV damage will be greatly reduced against infantry (tracking, accuracy, damage spread, etc.), while being quite efficient against other vehicles. Let them play their meta vs other vehicle crews and/or AV groups as needed for balance for the games when support as listed earlier is not needed. There are a couple things in this paragraph I wanted to elaborate on. - As long as a vehicle oriented player can always chose to queue for a game mode that has vehicles, I don't see a problem with there being game modes where there are not vehicles. (Combat on ships or in stations for instance.) That also works with CCP's plans to develop the non-vehicle modes first, and get infantry combat sorted. Then they can introduce vehicles and the game modes that give them a purpose at the same time. - I would change your phrasing to say HAV "Effectiveness" against infantry would be much lower than against vehicles. If infantry actually gets hit by a shell meant to take out a vehicle, then it is bound to do a lot of "Damage". The balance measures would be geared more to making it hard to hit infantry in the first place. - I can see there being planet based modes (skirmishes etc.) that don't have as much of a need for tanks, but it still would not hurt to include some destructible gates that would make Tanks beneficial. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7799	Posted - 2016.07.11 13:58:00 - [12] - Quote Attention CCP lurkers: Since vehicles are not being developed at this stage and are not planned to be part of the initial build, that means that this discussion is all theoretical in nature. Therefor I see no reason you can not participate in this theoretical discussion about how vehicles might best be implemented into a New Eden themed FPS game. Maybe we can reach some consensus, and solve some problems, before you even get to the drawing board. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7799	Posted - 2016.07.11 14:16:00 - [13] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Slayer Deathbringer wrote: Well why exactly is that I mean what about blaster turrets I think that they should be capable of massacring infantry but are weaker against vehicles NOPE. I've talked to True Adamance about this many times, and I am firmly of the opinion that Large Blaster turrets were a stupid idea and had no business in the game. A proper Blaster turret should have a low rate of fire, slow-flying projectiles like a Plasma Cannon, and as little splash damage as possible. No Large Weapon for a vehicle should be able to be primarily used for killing infantry. Actually, that is a really good point, and I like your Large Plasma Turret concept. Auto Cannons should be designed for anti aircraft work (fighters) and be good for taking out those nimble little LAV's. Maybe 2 rounds a second. Maybe with exploding ammo that does not explode when hitting a softer target, resulting in lower (kinetic only) damage against infantry and higher (kinetic + explosive) damage against vehicles. (Like when that Navy ship fired on those gun boats at the beginning of the Vietnam war, and the shells punched right through the light hulls without exploding.) Small turrets should be anit infantry, and medium turrets should be more in between, being able to damage vehicles (but not able to solo Tanks) and being able to kill infantry (but not optimal for doing so). Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7802	Posted - 2016.07.11 15:05:00 - [14] - Quote Siege Mode I have not yet decided whether I like the Siege Mode idea or not, but I do have some thoughts on how it would work if it was implemented. - Entering Siege Mode would transfer power from the main drive engine to give additional power to the Large Turret and to the Shields. - A Rail or Laser Turret would do more damage if it had more power. - A Blaster Turret would have more range if it had more power. - Caldari and Minmatar tanks would gain much stronger shields. - Gallente and Amarr tanks could deploy armor panels over their engine heat exchangers and down over their tracks, which would make them less vulnerable while in Siege Mode. (Eliminate their soft spots.) The important part is that it would take time to switch out of Siege Mode. Power needs to be switched back, the engine warmed up, armor plates retracted into the hull. There would be a delay between deactivating Siege Mode and the tank becoming mobile. The damage bonus of Siege Mode would stop the moment the tank operator deactivates Siege Mode, as power is redirected back to warming up the engine, then there might even be 5 seconds of vulnerability at the end when it is not getting the defensive benefits of Siege Mode either, but can't yet move. (While shield power is being redirected and armor plates retracted.) So leaving Siege Mode would take maybe 15 seconds, with no damage bonus, and no defensive bonus for the last 5 seconds. (I believe in EVE Siege Mode lasts for a set time period, but I think that being able to drop out of Siege Mode at any time, but it requiring time to make the switch, would work better on the ground.) I see Siege Mode as making Tanks much tougher, but certainly not invulnerable. Maybe greatly increase HP, but without any increase to HP recovery, so you can ware them down over time. Solo tankers might like it, so they can essentially convert their tank into a stationary turret. If they can't drive and shoot at the same time, then Siege Mode gives the solo player a viable play style. I think the idea of Siege Mode is more geared to laying Siege to District defenses though. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7805	Posted - 2016.07.12 12:03:00 - [15] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: FOX GADEN I don't mean to be ignoring your feedback, it's just you always post such good ** and I want to give it the proper energy to respond to but the past few days I just haven't had it in me. Some days I'm really into this topic and others it bums me out since at best its years away, but still. Same goes to anyone else I've "ignored", I read everything and I'm glad to see some of you still posting good ** like always o7 Yeah, well I am so busy this week that I have not had a chance to read pages 5 and 6 in this thread yet. Technically I probably should not have spent that hour posting yesterday when I have so much work to do, but I am finding the discussion in this thread really interesting, and with the Dev's not talking right now, there aren't a lot of interesting discussions going on right now. I think the fact we know that vehicles are not being worked on yet actually opens things up and makes anything possible. With infantry mechanics I would like to know what they have set in stone at this point before I make suggestions, but with vehicles we are free to debate and try to come to a consensus, before they even get to the drawing board. Thanks for the shout out! Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7805	Posted - 2016.07.12 13:49:00 - [16] - 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. I get the impression that the infantry only maps they are starting with will be smaller indoor maps (ships, stations) that would be similar balance wise to the indoor areas in the DUST maps, where vehicles could not reach anyway. Slow Sentinels should not have problems in smaller indoor maps. Now if they introduced large outdoor maps, without adding vehicles at the same time, then that would likely present balance problems. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7806	Posted - 2016.07.12 14:08:00 - [17] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. I actually started to post this same concept, but cancelled my post wanting to think on it a little more, and then I read this post which sums up what I was thinking. I was thinking of treating it like clones were treated in DUST. There is a hidden hit point pool between the vehicle becoming disabled and it blowing up. - Small arms fire is likely to disable a light vehicle rather than blowing it up, which means that light vehicles can be susceptible to small arms fire without becoming death traps. - AV weapons do enough damage that a dedicated AV player will likely achieve the desired explosion and rack up the full kill count. - Disabled vehicles might be reparable by an Logi or Engineer with the right tools (equipment). - Fighters would probably have a very small structure HP pool. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7806	Posted - 2016.07.12 14:18:00 - [18] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. 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 think we can all agree that the whole problem with ADS was due to me neglecting to write a guide on how to shoot them down! You can't expect a Blueberry to figure these things out for themselves. ... its a joke... you saw the winky face right? Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7806	Posted - 2016.07.12 14:57:00 - [19] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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." The fact that LAVs required the same weapons to be killed that an HAV required meant that there was no room for "escalation of force." You just accepted that someone has to start the match with AV just to pop the jeeps, which invariably meant the teams were always ready to just punch the tanks in the face. Dropships and LAVs needing the same scale of firepower to kill as an HAV buggered the scaling and pacing of the game straight to hell. It also robbed the HAV drivers of "Tank shock" value for their vehicles. Scaling needs to be done right for new vehicles, in order to make the game more organic. A dune buggy with a gun should not take the same firepower as a hummvee, should not take the same firepower as a helicopter, should not require the same scale of firepower as a tank. if there was scaling then the Forge Gun/rail gun might have had a chance to blast a hole clean through the dropship without doing massive damage unless they hit the engines, as both were intended to bounce shots off of a tank's glacis plate. Honestly, if a nickel-iron solid slug flying at Mach Yes nails a heavy vehicle in a heavy plate, you have a massive transfer of kinetic force. If it hits a soft skinned vehicle it's going to go clean through, you'll just have to sponge the passenger out of the seat, but the ship will still fly! Very good points! I think your idea of a damage threshold for disabling vehicles before the damage threshold to make them explode would make it easier to balance LAV's to allow damage by small arms fire. In DUST when LAV's were made soft enough that you could take them out with infantry weapons, they became death traps and no one would use them. (That was a brief period in DUST history.) If small arms fire could bring a LAV to a stop, without instantly killing the occupants, then LAV's could be useful and vulnerable a the same time. I would say Fighters should be vulnerable to small arms fire as well, relying on being a relatively small fast moving target to avoid being shot down by infantry weapons. If a Fighter pilot decides to just hover there and spray a bunch of infantry rather than doing a strafing run, then the infantry should be able to shoot it down. In both cases I think it should take a fair amount of concentrated fire to take out a light vehicle with anti infantry weapons, but they should be effective enough that the operator can't risk sticking around for too long. The idea is to punish stupid, and to give infantry a sense that they can defend themselves so they don't feel victimized by the small fast vehicles. The heavily armored vehicles that can shrug off small arms fire, should be slower and less maneuverable, so they are easier for infantry to avoid. I don't like the fast tanks of DUST. Slow them down, and give the driver a skill based active defensive system such as active modules with power requirements that have to be balanced by the driver against a limited power source, such as the capacitor setup in EVE. (EVE is a vehicle combat game after all.) My point being that running away should not be the only answer for a heavily armed vehicle to deal with AV. I don't have a problem with a fast Tank if it is going fast because the driver has diverted all the power from its shields into its engines, so that it's shield HP is dropping at a steady rate as long as the speed increase applies. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7808	Posted - 2016.07.12 15:09:00 - [20] - 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? Light Vehicles have light shields as well as light armor. Which is to say, heavier than you can fit on a Dropsuit, even a Heavy Dropsuit, but much lighter than on the heavy vehicles. Also, I am fairly sure no one said "insta pop" when saying that small arms should be able to do damage to LAV's. We are not saying that small arms should be an efficient way to kill LAV's. We are saying that if a solder finds cover that prevents him from being run over, he should be able to do enough damage to a LAV to make it go away, or disable it if it stays too long. Or that four or five solders firing at a LAV charging at them should be able to disable it, at least on its second pass. The idea is to make the infantry feel like they can defend themselves against LAV's, while insuring that the LAV drivers don't feel like they are driving death traps. (Reference structure HP, and disabling in my earlier post.) Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.

Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7810	Posted - 2016.07.13 12:22:00 - [21] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: 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? Light Vehicles have light shields as well as light armor. Which is to say, heavier than you can fit on a Dropsuit, even a Heavy Dropsuit, but much lighter than on the heavy vehicles. Also, I am fairly sure no one said "insta pop" when saying that small arms should be able to do damage to LAV's. We are not saying that small arms should be an efficient way to kill LAV's. We are saying that if a solder finds cover that prevents him from being run over, he should be able to do enough damage to a LAV to make it go away, or disable it if it stays too long. Or that four or five solders firing at a LAV charging at them should be able to disable it, at least on its second pass. The idea is to make the infantry feel like they can defend themselves against LAV's, while insuring that the LAV drivers don't feel like they are driving death traps. (Reference structure HP, and disabling in my earlier post.) 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. If they explode too quickly to light arms fire, then give them more health. We don't want LAV's to be one shotted by a Swarm Launcher anyway. Maybe light weapon effectiveness against armor should be: 40% against Light Armor. 25% against Medium Armor. 5% against Heavy Armor Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7810	Posted - 2016.07.13 13:13:00 - [22] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: On the topic of MCCs: we really haven't said anything about those. Should they still exist? Should they stay an objective and nothing else? Really, it depends on what kind of FPS nova is going to be, but still. Like other vehicles, I believe MCCs should be corporation-owned assets that, while not necessary to field, would be extremely beneficial, and would decide how battles are fought. They would be susceptible to damage from heavy weaponry (forge gun and larger), and provide a variety of support roles. Obviously providing a heavy-use (150 clone capacity) spawn point would be an obvious one. Any orbital links, such as being able to call in a bombardment, would have to be forwarded by the MCC. It could also be fitted with active modules so that the MCC can provide its own forms of support: -AA weaponry by faction (lasers, missiles, autocannons, etc) -Ground bombardment weaponry by faction (rockets, plasma mortars, etc) -Ewar support, which could boost precision or range of nearby friendly scans, also the option of using jammers to lower enemy precision -Launching drones to scan small areas -Launching drones that act as nanohives They could also be crucial in corp battles- being able to hack a district's command node, or store looted materials. Lots of possibilities. - The MCC should be the Mobile Command Center that the attacking force stages from in Planetary Conquest. - The Defensive force in Planetary Conquest will have a Command Center in the district. - When fighting over an uncontested district, or if Command Center infrastructure has not been built in a district, both sides will stage our of an MCC. - The MCC vs MCC and MCC vs Command Center can both be used for public match and Faction Warfare modes as well. 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. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7810	Posted - 2016.07.13 13:59:00 - [23] - 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. You correlating infantry weapons being able to do damage to LAV's to " EVERY weapon deals distinct damage to vehicles" is either deliberately or accidentally obtuse. In real life you can stop a jeep, or even a MAC truck with an AK47, but you can't stop a Tank with an AK47. It makes sense that Medium and Heavy armor would be more resistant to small arms fire than Light armor. It does not mean that someone should be able to solo a LAV with an Assault Rifle without having to reload a few times. And if you can't get your LAV out of there while that guy unloads 3 magazines, then you are either stuck, or otherwise impaired. We are also not talking about light weapons having any significant effect against Tanks. Dropships are Medium Armored, so light weapons would have some effect, but much less than against a LAV. Fighters would be Light Armor like a LAV, but would not stay still long enough for light weapon fire to be a problem. (In the Vietnam War a farmer shot a low flying Fighter Jet down with a hunting riffle. A lucky shot, but still.) Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7810	Posted - 2016.07.13 14:13:00 - [24] - Quote 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. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7810	Posted - 2016.07.13 14:35:00 - [25] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: 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. The balance of LAV's was not bad, but Breakin Stuff's point is that the way that was achieved negatively effected the balance of other vehicles. He is suggesting the LAV should be about where it was, but the mechanics used to get it to that balance should be adjusted to fit into the bigger picture better. To your second point here, when they lowered LAV health in DUST to the point where they could be taken out by combined small arms fire, their health was so low that they could be one shotted by a Swarm Launcher, which made them death traps and no one wanted to use them (which is why they were given more health again). By adjusting resistances to small arms fire we can make LAV's killable by concentrated small arms fire, without making them more vulnerable to AV. Adding the hidden Structure health like Clones have also means that LAV's taken out by small arms fire will not automatically blow up, so a disabled LAV would not mean everyone in it dies. That keeps them from being death traps. While at the same time, AV would do enough damage to take out the structure too, so dedicated AV players can get those multi clone kills. Just to be clear, when I say Light Weapons, or Small Arms, I am excluding AV weapons. For the purpose of the vehicle discussion, AV weapons are a distinct category regardless of their size. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7810	Posted - 2016.07.13 14:48:00 - [26] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: It's a god damn LAV.... Seriously, right ******* now, how many of you felt you had to be "skilled elite" to down one? It's a light vehicle that's ALREADY easy to kill, I'm offering suggestions to let every single player regardless of fit to do some damage to it, give more AV options through sidearm AV and additional grenade slots for some, webifier grenades, and personal deployable turrets, yet somehow the LAV is still just too damn strong. You can fart at a god damn LAV and kill it as is, what more do you want? Perhaps those specialized AV options would be useful for dealing with Tanks? Adding new AV options to deal with LAV's is like cutting two of your chair legs shorter because your floor is not level. It seems a little odd to require specialized AV weapons to take out a jeep. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7810	Posted - 2016.07.13 18:02:00 - [27] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: 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. First, I would not want to deprive Snipers of that one in a million Tank kill by reducing light weapon damage to 0% for the rest of the vehicle. 2% or 3% is functionally close to zero. A light weapon round would at least scuff the pain and leave a bit of a dent. Maybe sever that last piece of mettle that is holding the left drive unit to the rest of the heavily damaged tank. Secondly, I thin the size of the weak points on the LAV and Tank are fine. On the LAV, if you can aim it will be a lot faster to kill the driver. While we are arguing that you should be able to take out a LAV by shooting it in the engine, we are also saying it should take a while, as in a lot longer than it would take to kill the driver. Therefore it is reasonable for the weak spot on the LAV to be bigger than the driver's head. On a Tank, the resists will be higher against light weapons, even in the weak spot, so you are not going to take out a Tank solely with light weapons unless you have all 16 team members firing at it. And the weak spot needs to be big enough to be able to hit it with a Rail turret from 300m away, because that is part of Tank vs Tack strategic game play. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7810	Posted - 2016.07.13 18:17:00 - [28] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: 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. I can't say you are wrong... A lot of people would like a more tactical role. Someone who can monitor the whole battle from a map interface, to coordinate troop movements, and to drop orbital strikes when and where they are needed most. They envision this person being able to take part in the battle in other strategic ways as well, such as calling in infrastructure such as CRU's, Turrets, Supply Depots, etc. Maybe being able to call in some drones and direct their movements. The thought being that this person would be in the command center. And if it is a Mobile Command Center, then why not make this position the pilot? However, now that I think about it, and think about there being Command Center bunkers as well, maybe this role should be called Field Commander or Combat Operator. Part of this comes out of people constantly getting shot while looking at their map interface, or missing the perfect Orbital Strike because they could not find a safe place to open their interface. Part of it comes from old geezers like me who are better at tactics than twitch muscle aiming. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7810	Posted - 2016.07.13 18:25:00 - [29] - Quote 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. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7811	Posted - 2016.07.14 14:53:00 - [30] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Well as for dropsuits I think it's mostly that a dropsuit has flesh directly underneath it, where vehicles just have more layers of armor beneath them. Lets also not forget that from a purely gameplay point of view, it's a ** load easier to tag a vehicle or its weakspot than it is to hit a dropsuit or its weakspot. As for needing AV to hurt vehicles, again what if we had AV sidearms and personal deployable turret installations? Then basically only people who refuse to deploy AV wouldn't have AV, in which case that's their own damn fault. I mean maybe LAVs can take 10-20% damage from small arms (possibly dropships too), but anything more than that and vehicles would just evaporate the second they try to move past a few enemies. (I am finally getting around to reading pages 5 and 6.) The things of significance under the LAV"s armor would include wires, capacitors, cooling systems, lubrication lines (electric engines) or spark plugs, fuel lines, wires, cooling systems, etc (combustion engines). You damage enough of these components and the LAV is going to lose its ability to move on its own. DUST Fiend wrote:** maybe LAVs can take 10-20% damage from small arms (possibly dropships too), but anything more than that and vehicles would just evaporate the second they try to move past a few enemies. You seem to be assuming that LAV's would have very low health. If a LAV can survive being hit by a Swarm of missiles doing 100% damage, then it should be able to survive for a reasonable amount of time against a number or rifles doing 40% damage. If not, then the difference between AV damage and small arms damage is not great enough. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.

Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7811	Posted - 2016.07.14 15:33:00 - [31] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: But literally every single player on the map then has AV. Without boosting vehicle HP a ton, how do vehicles not simply explode when moving past basically anywhere on the map? Automatic weapons can maintain damage at range very easily with virtually no way for the pilot to tell where it's coming from. Maps would have to be massive with small player counts for this not to immediately imbalance every engagment against vehicles. Also don't forget that on top of almost 100% of players on the map now possessing AV, there are ALSO actual AV weapons and other vehicles on the field. I guess I'm more in favor of everyone using teamwork to take out various threats as oppossed to simply taking the thought out of things and giving everyone AV all the time. (Yeah, responding to another old Page 5 post, but you state your concerns clearly in this post, which makes it worth responding to.) You should not be thinking of all vehicles as the same. Here is my vision: LAV / Fighter (Light Armor): They should be susceptible to infantry weapon fire, but have the hit point pool to be able to face infantry weapon fire long enough to do a few strafing runs or drive-bys. Light weapons do 40% to weak spots, 15% damage to the rest of the vehicle. Fighters have smaller weak points than Dropships. These vehicles have the speed and agility to bug out when taking too much damage, go somewhere else to use active repair modules, and then come back. MAV / Dropship (Medium Armor): They should only be moderately susceptible to infantry weapon fire (25% against weak points/ 10% against the rest of the vehicle), and have a larger HP pool so they are also less susceptible to AV. Dropships delivering troops need to be able to stick around long enough for pick up or offload, so they need more survivability. The same would go for a troop transport MAV. An Assault MAV would have more acceleration, and less hit points than a troop transport. HAV (Heavy Armor): Infantry weapons would only do 10% damage to weak points / 3% damage to the rest. Heavy armor would be functionally impervious to small arms fire. A weapon is not an AV weapon unless it can do noticeable damage to a Tank. A non AV weapon could stop a lightly armored vehicle, and maybe have some impact on a medium armored vehicle, but have no significant effect on a heavily armored vehicle. An AV weapon is effective against any vehicle. And in case you are wondering why a LAV or a Fighter would not have more armor, it is because adding more weight would reduce their acceleration, and both rely on speed and maneuverability to survive. I also see Fighters as being faster and more nimble than the Assault Dropships we had in DUST. A Fighter should be able to out maneuver a missile if the pilot is skilled enough. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7811	Posted - 2016.07.14 15:43:00 - [32] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. The weak spot on a vehicle should be more susceptible to any weapon. Of course the term "more" in this case is relative to damage that weapon can inflict. A scrambler pistol should do "more" damage to the front grill of a LAV than it would do to the side of the cab, but whether "more" represents significant damage depends on the damage profile of the weapon vs that vehicle. "Weakspot" is a relative term. It might be more literal to say "Weaker spot". But that would be a clunky term. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7811	Posted - 2016.07.14 16:06:00 - [33] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: I just worry about that idea a lot since LAVs were already tremendously useless despite having potential to be useful additions to the battle. They're already paper trucks as is, so if kept similarly there would literally never be a reason to deploy one because any jackass could shoot in your general direction and take you out, or severely wound you before even getting where you're going. I feel that 10-20% damage is better, but have more sidearm AV options, possibly a dropsuit with two grenade slots, and the long since "promised" personal deployable turret installations. This would make it so every single player would have options to handle vehicles at all points in any given match, unless they straight up refused to use them. If every solder carries an actual AV weapon, then Tanks would need to be balanced against every solder having AV, at which point Tanks become either impossible to kill (OP) or death traps (UP). If infantry don't normally carry AV weapons, then the choice to switch to AV weapons to take on a Tank has the balancing effect of making them less effective against infantry. LAV's can be balanced on every solder being able to damage them because LAV's don't have a lot of offensive ability. Yes they can run over people standing in the open, but that can be countered by getting behind a post or wall... or just jumping to the side at the last moment. And anyone manning the turret is not protected, so you don't have to take out a LAV to take out the gunner. Since they are not strong offensively they can be given enough health that they are not easy to kill. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7811	Posted - 2016.07.14 18:34:00 - [34] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: I still remember the debate between dropship pilots and swarm launcher players. It was nothing but constant back and forth bickering with no one willing to compromise on anything even if a single idea benefits everyone. And the players who did come up with such ideas were often shot down by both sides of the debate. Period. That's incorrect. We came up with many ideas that would were agreed on by both sides, like lock-on warnings and countermeasure modules. The reason nothing ever came out of those discussions is because the solutions we found that made both sides happy were apparently beyond the developers to implement, so we could never go beyond futile attempts to try and create a TTK for Swarm Launchers against aircraft. Mobius Wyvern has a point. We did figure out how to balance Dropships and Swarm Launchers in a way that would be fun and engaging for both sides. It is just that the solutions we came up with were out of scope for the DUST on the PS3. But with NOVA on the PC, we have a chance to do aircraft and anti aircraft right. So lets talk about that a bit. - Missiles and their con trails rendering for pilots.. imagine that! - Attempted lock warning, Lock on warning, and Missile pursuit warning. (Better than not knowing until the first one hits.) - Missile proximity warning. The beep for the Missile pursuit warning beeps faster the closer it gets. - Counter Measures (flairs, flack, chafe). Chance of decoying a missile increasing with proximity so that timing on releasing the Counter Measures directly effects their effectiveness. The flack/flairs/chafe only hangs in the air for a few seconds before it falls away and become ineffective. - Fighters should be maneuverable enough to turn more sharply than a missile, so a good pilot should be able to out maneuver them. This is dependent on the pilot being able to spot the missile and getting their timing right. - Fighters should carry four large anti vehicle missiles with lock on mechanics. They need to reload at a supply Depot. The swarm launcher would still be the bane of the existence of inexperienced or incompetent pilots, but good pilots would be more concerned about Forge Guns. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7812	Posted - 2016.07.15 12:05:00 - [35] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I also don't want fire & forget missiles ever again. Why not? Is there a game with fighters that does not have fire and forget missiles? Can our experience with DUST really give us a fair impression of fire & forget missiles when DUST did not have Lock on warnings, or counter measures? Fire and forget missiles give pilots so many chances to challenge themselves and show off their skills if they were done right. Having the first missile hit being a pilot's first warning that they are being targeted is not the way to do fire & forget missiles! Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7812	Posted - 2016.07.15 12:12:00 - [36] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: A VTOL fighter doesn't have to have slow lateral movement. It can be fast. Make 'em fast, light and violent. For a jet, VTOL needs to be for landing only. We don't want some kind of multi-mode aircraft that can do everything and makes other aircraft obsolete. Even if it doesn't do that, balancing will be a nightmare. There's a reason why no one takes the "ESF"s in Planetside 2 seriously. Jets and helicopter-type vehicles need to be separated in order to have both be balanced and fun. Are there going to be other aircraft besides Fighters and Dropships? Fighters (Light Aircraft): light, fast, and nimble. No passengers. Dropships (Medium Aircraft): Bigger, slower, heavier, and tougher than Fighters and carry 6 passengers. There is not a whole lot of overlap there. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7814	Posted - 2016.07.15 16:29:00 - [37] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: What I'm saying is we already had confirmed for us that Fighter weren't in Dust because the maps were too small. That and the design shown at FanFest 2012 both fairly clearly indicate that they were meant as Fixed-Wing only and not meant to function in any capacity as a pseudo-gunship. Also, similar to your example of not using Dust as an example of the only way that knock-on weapons can work, I don't think Dust should be used as any example of map size in Nova, especially considering that we were eventually supposed to get all 25 square kilometers in Dust maps before then moving bigger. I would be very surprised if CCP Ratatti's master plan is to bring back Territorial Warfare in small maps with 32 players maximum. Well if they bring in maps big enough to support them, I don't have a problem with fixed wing aircraft. The Fighter I was envisioning does not have to have a fixed wing mode. (I suggested the fixed wing mode because I did not think that exclusively fixed wing craft would be viable, and I wanted that fixed wing feel for dog fights.) The Fighter I was thinking of would be a one person craft slightly large than a LAV with stubby rear wings and a forward canard. A large articulating thruster at the end of each wing, and a small articulating thruster at either end of the canard. Low weight/high thrust, so it can change direction easily. It would probably require finesse and skill to bring it to a stop or land in a tight spot, but you would not have to wary as much about your momentum as you can overcome it with counter thrust much faster than with a Dropship. Hopefully aircraft would actually have some instrumentation this time around: - Pitch indicator - Yaw indicator - Movement vector in relation to the direction the craft is pointing. - Flight speed indicator. I like the idea of a sphare with a ring at the equator representing level flight, a second ring indicating the pitch and yaw of the aircraft, and an arrow from the center of the sphere indicating the actual direction the craft is traveling in, with forward being the direction the craft is pointed in. Have the arrow's length be proportional to movement speed. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7816	Posted - 2016.07.28 11:51:00 - [38] - Quote I have not lost interest in this topic. I have just been too busy over the last week or so to read the forms. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.

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.