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

Mobius Wyvern 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?

However, consider Void Bombs in EVE Online. Those are one-time-use AoE weapons that neutralize capacitor in a wide area.

A Void Grenade could have a very large model and a shorter throw distance than the other grenades, meaning you have to get closer to get it to affect a vehicle. We could take that even further and make it a single-use high-fitting piece of equipment that you need to sneak up next to the vehicle and then deploy near it to get the effects.

I agree on vehicles being mobile even without energy, but I disagree on turrets requiring energy to function. I think that's taking the complexity a little bit too far and will serve to be more frustrating than intriguing.

Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13588	Posted - 2016.07.07 23:03:00 - [1] - Quote 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? Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13588	Posted - 2016.07.07 23:44:00 - [2] - Quote Mobius Wyvern 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? However, consider Void Bombs in EVE Online. Those are one-time-use AoE weapons that neutralize capacitor in a wide area. A Void Grenade could have a very large model and a shorter throw distance than the other grenades, meaning you have to get closer to get it to affect a vehicle. We could take that even further and make it a single-use high-fitting piece of equipment that you need to sneak up next to the vehicle and then deploy near it to get the effects. I agree on vehicles being mobile even without energy, but I disagree on turrets requiring energy to function. I think that's taking the complexity a little bit too far and will serve to be more frustrating than intriguing. Assuming we let turrets operate even without capacitor, would you be willing to compromise and agree to making the tracking speed of the turrets get affected and possibly damage output? After all, those motors that turn the turrets do take up power. And in an emergency situation, the powerplant would want to focus as much power as possible to the wheels so that the pilot can safely drive away. EDIT: Keep in mind that the turrets would likely still be fully effective even while the cap is being vamped or neuted so long as there is some capacitor remaining. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13588	Posted - 2016.07.08 01:57:00 - [3] - Quote 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. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13588	Posted - 2016.07.08 03:09:00 - [4] - Quote Slayer Deathbringer wrote: So HAVs will either be slow or immobile why I never mentioned they would be slow. At least outside of siege mode. The speed I left that out so you guy can debate it. EDIT: Lore wise I would say that the HAV going into siege mode is devoting much of its power to the primary weapon as the onboard computer recalculates based on the new configuration. I would probably wager that during this phase the HAV has buffs against EWAR attacks during its cycle. Energy vamps and neuts might not work against it since the powerplant would likely dish out more cap boosting than what the vamps and neuts can take away. Of course that is assuming capacitors are ever implemented into the game. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13589	Posted - 2016.07.08 22:06:00 - [5] - Quote Let's not forget that vehicles are not likely to be included in Project Nova on release. It will take a long time for vehicles to be implemented as that would require maps that are probably going to be built from scratch. For now, we are going to be stuck indoors. But it doesn't hurt to talk about it now to help CCP get an idea of what to aim for in the future. Honestly I would prefer that CCP build outdoor maps from scratch like they are doing with Project Nova as a whole because then that will mean no glitches from Dust 514 carrying over to Project Nova. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13589	Posted - 2016.07.09 01:36:00 - [6] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Bear in mind a vehicle alowed by siege mode would become more vulnerable to weakpoint assault, which was why I am always against EVE "Dreadnaught" style immobile siege modes. I would honestly like to see tanks used more like titanfall titans, with allowances for the difference in vehicle stylings of course. But powerful offense, and well-hardened against casual attack, but vulnerable to actual weapons intended to kill them, the suits tasked for that, as well as each other. But I also would like to see them differ from the DUST model of vehicles. DUST handled vehicles terribly overall, and bluntly there wasn't anything rattatis team could have done to make them "good" and I feel they were limited to making them as not-rage-inducing as possible. Same for AV. Both felt like they were stapled on. Now, I am going to say I would rather if we get vehicles in the future, we get them because the devs can devote their full attention and time to balancing them for the game, making sure the controls work, the weapons and defenses are appropriate, the costs appropriate and that they will interact with the infantry as a primary support platform as much as a good scout or sentinel. I would rather not have them than to have them "like in DUST," which was terrible to begin with. I am willing to deal with no vehicles on release if it means when they release, they are done right, not a giant bag of ass, not fun to drive, not fun to fight, and the cause of incessant, b*tching and arguing. I do not want vehicles as they were in DUST. Period. I do not want AV as it was in DUST. Period. Both were bad. They could be fun. But they were bad. So very simply, we're getting a new game. The infantry play is familiar, but it will be new. If and when vehicles are introduced I do not want DUST vehicles even if they look familiar, and I do not want EVE vehicles. I want Nova vehicles. And I want them to be as simplistic or complex as they need to be in order for them to be balanced, fun and part of NOVA. I will admit that is a very powerful point. In the 3 years that I have been playing Dust 514 the one thing that has always remained consistent with vehicles is how they were always out of balance in every way possible. I have seen tanks that dominated maps that were practically killing every infantry on the field and were moving too fast for the AV infantry to counter effectively. And that was before CCP tried doing balance passes and even then the vehicles were still out of balance in many ways. If you want an example just ask any of the dedicated tank pilots and AV infantry who can quickly point out specific flaws with how vehicles in Dust 514 were implemented. Dropships vs AV Swarm balance was even worse. Overall, we do need a new approach when it comes to vehicles and balance. My "Eve Dreadnought" idea was something to be used as an example but I'm positive someone out there has a better idea for balance. The only reason dreadnoughts work well with siege mode is because of how Eve Online was built. It is possible that my dreadnought idea might not work the same way nor have the same effectiveness in Nova. This is why CCP will have to do extensive playtesting (cough-test-server-cough) to see if such an idea would work or not. And that's another thing. Test Servers If we want to see properly balanced vehicles in the future for Nova, CCP will definitely need to give us access to the test servers so we can try them out and give our critical feedback before it hits the live server. CCP can only internally playtest so much before they have to test a new feature on a larger scale. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.09 15:11:00 - [7] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: 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? It seems we have very different ideas about the purpose of scouts. To me, the whole point of running a scout it being low-profile. Both electronically, and visually. I would be willing to go half an hour on foot in a scout suit going from point A to point B if that meant getting there undetected, as opposed to tearing through in an LAV. The speed scouts have is simply to aid in their stealth, not to bypass a vehicle. If you want speed in combat, throw some kincats on an assault. Of course when the situation permits, dropship insertion can cut a good chunk of that time out if total stealth isn't the goal. Speaking of which, I remember an idea a dev talked about before beta- a special infiltration type of dropship that can disguise itself as a friendly. Might be good to revisit that idea. If the scout wants to take the long way from point A to point B by going on foot then that's fine by me. No harm no foul. However, if time ever becomes a factor (which sometimes it can be) then the LAV can help that scout get as close as he/she can comfortable be to the destination without getting detected, ditch/recall the vehicle and start going the rest of the way on foot. The mountains and hills can mask their approach but at the same time they can be dangerous as they can hide an ambush as well. This is where dropships can help the scout in evading a potential ambush. If attacked, the scout can eject and fall down to some place where they can't reach him in time. Again, this is assuming very large maps are ever introduced. And they have to be vast. Like 5km^2 large at least. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.09 15:15:00 - [8] - Quote That brings me to my next point. How big do you feel the ground map needs to be in order for vehicles to be of actual use? For me that's 5km^2 but that was based on the original terrain size in Dust 514. However only a fraction of that terrain was ever used in Dust because of the redline. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.09 17:44:00 - [9] - Quote Unholy HateGore wrote: Vehicles should stay. Without them it would be just like any other shooter. I hate the small map COD type games. I love Dust for what it was and could have been. I agree as well but we have to face the harsh reality. CCP has already made it clear that vehicles are not likely to be available upon release because the first-person-shooter aspect of the game (the very core of it) NEEDS to be stable and enjoyable for everyone first. The lack of stable FPS in Dust was the biggest thing that killed Dust 514 from the start and as a result because the bane of our existence (especially for dropship pilots) for the 3 years that followed. What I am saying here is that I would rather just play a very stable game that is strictly a FPS game without vehicles for 3 years if it means the vehicles will be well-balanced and have an absolute purpose like they were suppose to later on down the line when they get added as an update. I'm not sure if you feel the same way, but I do and that is because of my experience Dust 514. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.09 17:57:00 - [10] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: CCP has already made it clear that vehicles are not likely to be available upon release because the first-person-shooter aspect of the game (the very core of it) NEEDS to be stable and enjoyable for everyone first Let's not be coy. CCP isn't taking this approach because it's what they have to do. It's because they refuse to invest in the DUST / NOVA team / project any further, keeping it a small side project that they will slowly pluck away at. Ultimately the reality is the same, but the reasoning is certainly different. I would not speculate that far. All we know so far is what CCP said which it is not likely to implement vehicles on release and they already said they want to focus on the core of the game first which is what everyone in the community was asking for 3 years ago to be frank with you. Yes, I want to see vehicles too but ONLY under the condition that they are implemented with careful attention to detail. If they just get shoehorned in just for the sake of appeasing vehicle players then CCP would have once again falling in the same death spiral that they fell into for Dust 514 and never got a chance to get out of it. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy

Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.09 18:06:00 - [11] - 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. Maken Tosch wrote: Yes, I want to see vehicles too but ONLY under the condition that they are implemented with careful attention to detail. If they just get shoehorned in just for the sake of appeasing vehicle players then CCP would have once again falling in the same death spiral that they fell into for Dust 514 and never got a chance to get out of it. But that's just the thing. If they build the entire game around them NOT existing, then essentially even with all the thought in the world, unless the game is remade yet again, it will HAVE to be shoehorned in. Why CCP can't just develop the game fully before releasing it will probably always be beyond me. Because they don't have to shoehorn the vehicles in. We all saw the result of that decision when CCP shoehorned them in for Dust 514. It was an epic disaster. And to make matters worse, the ideas that players kept suggesting were either favoring vehicle players too much or favoring AV players too much. It was almost impossible to find someone who came up with a neutral approach to how to balance vehicles with AV. 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. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.09 18:09:00 - [12] - Quote This is why I am glad Nova will be on the PC so that we can finally have access to our own test server and try things out without breaking the game on the live server. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.09 19:20:00 - [13] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: 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. Even then, that ultimately meant nothing more than constant bickering over locking distance/time for the swarms, splash damage, hardener bonuses, knockback, rocket turn radius, rocket speed, etc. as players were basing their suggestions on what CCP CAN DO with Dust's legacy code. And it surely didn't help that Dropship pilots were trying to survive in an environment where there was constant lag and frame rate drops which caused many pilots to lose control and crash. Then there was the invisible walls. Now that I think of it, this means the terrain has to be focused on extensively to ensure **** like invisible walls and vehicles falling through the ground while looking at the overview map will not come back to haunt us anymore. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.09 19:38:00 - [14] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: New game, new platform, new possibilities. A lot of the limitations on the PS3 are no longer valid, so we're all shooting in the dark, because infantry combat changes drastically without the slideshow. How will dropship pilots change with good frames? Suddenly vehicles are more fluid. Because of the platform change alone, everything we know about vehicle gameplay is wrong. I'll admit, even my Comments are pure speculation driven by what DUST was. Good hit detection, framerate and intuitive play at a core level will likely change literally everything. I agree. Just rebuilding the code from scratch on a new engine on a stronger platform alone will vastly improve the quality of life of dropship pilots especially when reacting quickly to sudden changes in the environment becomes very critical. This will also have an impact on AV players who were originally use to the Dust 514 environment. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.09 19:46:00 - [15] - Quote As for dropship pilots on Nova, makes me wonder how the handling of aerial vehicles will be since now joysticks are an available control to the masses on PC. I have a joystick as well due to my addiction to X-Plane 10 and the Boeing 767-300ER Flight Factor add-on. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.09 20:45:00 - [16] - Quote Now comes the next question for vehicles especially dropships. Harrier Jump Jet stability or Quadcopter stability? Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.12 22:00:00 - [17] - Quote LOL KILLZ wrote: I'd like for vehicles to be included in the new game. Being a Calmando made me feel like a bad ass taking down infantry and vehicles in one suit. 2) PlanetarybConquest kind of looses its luster if we don't have open maps with ADS support. Good pilots made a match or could break you. This was sometimes way more important to gameplay than great Assault and scouts due to the need to establish Overwatch on a point and setting good uplinks. 3) Tanks offered a way to force enemies to redirect their resources to AV instead of just shooting people to take a point. Bottom line, if we don't get vehicles in the new game all we will have to do to take a district is field the best Mercs from the corp or pay the best to fight for you. The game will crash and burn faster than Dust did. Just remember that vehicles are not likely to be introduced until well after Project Nova is launched. As we have all seen already from the raw footage taken by Fanfest attendees earlier this year and by the fact that CCP LogicLoop seems to be working on indoor maps, we now know that the main battlefield will be strictly inside either a ship or station in space for the time being. And you know what that also means. Large open maps where the fight is happening on the planet surface will not be around for a while either and we need those large open maps for vehicles to be completely effective unless CCP somehow manages to let us fight inside a Citadel where parts of these "cities in the heavens" have wide-open spaces for vehicles. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.12 22:03:00 - [18] - 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. I say remove the MCCs until there is an absolute need for them later on down the line. So far they served as nothing more than fortified spawn points in Dust. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 13591	Posted - 2016.07.13 22:30:00 - [19] - Quote Nomed Deeps wrote: Sorry to get off subject here but someone above commented on smaller indoor maps only for the beginning of Project Nova. Not only does that mean no vehicles but also no snipers. I am not sure what those who used to live in the redline will do in Project Nova. Umm... there are snipers in Project Nova. It's called the Minmatar Precision Rifle and it's got an adjustable scope. I just don't see any redlines. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 13592	Posted - 2016.07.15 01:01:00 - [20] - 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. 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. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy