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)
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8275	Posted - 2016.07.07 16:02:00 - [1] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: FraggerMike wrote: ADS -- don't think those who fly them well will like the idea of not being able to shoot - makes them more of a Chauffeur. HAV -- kinda the same as the ADS idea. I probably wouldn't even want to drive one if I couldn't run and gun at same time. :D As a basically full time ADS pilot I would personally enjoy a more support oriented role, but that's just me. Really though this is kind of the point. People who want to be racking up kills by themselves should be running infantry. Vehicles should require coordination to operate since they should also require coordination to destroy. Having less slayers and more support players in vehicle roles will probably never be a bad thing. See, what I would love is to actually emulate Battlefield in one regard: 1. A Little Bird style light transport VTOL that holds 4 passengers and has a fixed front gun. That way you have to aim the aircraft body to aim the gun, and you engage targets by doing passes over them. 2. A dedicated Gunship with a separate pilot and gunner seat. The gunner gets a fully mobile turret under the nose, and the pilot could have some unguided rockets locked to the aircraft body like the gun on the "Little Bird" style VTOL. I never really liked how Dust tried to combine both of those into one aircraft that honestly failed at both. As far as your idea on manning vehicles, that's part of why I'd like to see them re-designed towards being assets expensive enough that Corporations do the buying rather than individuals, so that individuals don't have to bear the brunt of the cost while also having to only use 50% of their purchase's potential unless they find someone else to use it with them. Players join Corporations to have fun with like-minded others, so finding a "buddy" in your Corporation to run vehicles with would seem like a natural extension. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8276	Posted - 2016.07.07 16:31:00 - [2] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: 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. Yeah, we aren't trying to propose copying EVE, but the issue with trying to present this concept is that EVE Online is basically the only game we can use for an analogy. I mean, Armored Core basically uses capacitors as well, but that's...well, actually.... Armored Core isn't a bad example. In that game even your weapons draw from the capacitor as well as all your other hardware like defensive systems and jump-jets. Obviously we don't want to be trying to limit being able to use weapons by having to balance capacitor draw, but that game also illustrates how a capacitor based system could work. In fact, I just remembered something! In the earlier Armored Core games your energy bar would recharge normally until you got down into the red zone at the bottom of the bar. At that point your energy would recharge much slower, and if you emptied it completely you would have to wait through a cooldown before it would start to recharge at all. A mechanic like that applied to vehicles combined with infantry having a weapon like a Neutralizer Grenade could allow infantry to temporarily disable all modules on a vehicle in order to then use AV weapons to kill it before the energy recharge kicks back in. This would emphasize working together with infantry such that they can defend you from anyone who tries to run close and throw Neut Grenades at you. It would also mean that getting caught up in the moment and not paying attention to your energy level can be very deadly, which promotes learning how to manage your energy under fire and increases the value of skilled pilots. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8276	Posted - 2016.07.07 20:48:00 - [3] - Quote Joel II X wrote: I think they should just take away the Assault DS. It always seemed silly to me, since it seemed like it was a placeholder for an actual Assault Heli or something. Dropships should stay dropships to deliver infantry, and ADS should have its own branch for Heli style flight, or jet style flight. Agreed. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8276	Posted - 2016.07.07 22:27:00 - [4] - Quote Slayer Deathbringer wrote: Maybe there should be the normal SHAV and an assault HAV with a extra large crew controlled turret and a pilot controlled medum turret in the front and as an addition have a gunship with a pilot controlled large turret a extra large top and bottom turret, two large side turrets and a medum back turret Ideally I'd like to move away from single-player-juggernaut style vehicles as a whole as the first stage in redesign. As soon as you get over Light vehicle hulls, any offensive capability should rely on teamwork. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8277	Posted - 2016.07.07 23:20:00 - [5] - Quote 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. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8277	Posted - 2016.07.08 00:17:00 - [6] - Quote 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. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8279	Posted - 2016.07.08 11:59:00 - [7] - Quote Slayer Deathbringer wrote: 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. That's why I think that for single person vehicles they should be able to kill lower size tier suits easily but equal or higher size tier suits would be a challenge 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. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8280	Posted - 2016.07.08 12:20:00 - [8] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: 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. Exactly, Fox! The driver will be managing power flow into the modules to allow the vehicle to be survivable via effort rather than just cycling long cooldowns or relying on passive armor reps. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8281	Posted - 2016.07.08 12:51:00 - [9] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: 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. What if we built such a vehicle around different mechanics, though? What if that MAV was a hover-vehicle and has no independent turret, kind of like the Nekomata hover tank in Battlefield 2142? In that way it could have slow strafing capability and "driftier" mechanics. Hover vehicles have been talked about a LOT in New Eden lore, but we've never seen them in-game. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8281	Posted - 2016.07.08 14:16:00 - [10] - Quote 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. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector

Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8281	Posted - 2016.07.08 16:23:00 - [11] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: ADS shouldn't even be in Nova. It was a halfassed attempt at replacing fighters. It bears repeating. It was a hack-job that just made the game balance even worse. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8282	Posted - 2016.07.08 23:21:00 - [12] - 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 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. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8286	Posted - 2016.07.09 13:51:00 - [13] - 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! 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. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8286	Posted - 2016.07.09 15:32:00 - [14] - 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? Well they already have a pretty high hit-point pool. Say for instance you take an automatic 50% off of small-arms damage. That means you'd need a big group emptying their magazines into you to really be a threat, and by the time they're halfway through a mag you could be behind cover letting your shield-regen kick in, or using your energy to run a few rep/boost cycles before going back into the fray. Maken Tosch wrote: 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. Considering Planetside 2 manages 100 square kilometers while doing ballistic calculations for all weapons, I'm fairly confident that a future Project Nova still using hit-scan could work with terrain that large. The thing is, I see Territorial Warfare as BIG, something that might take a year or more to actually complete and put into the game. If they can make this game successful with 32-player lobby matches in a variety of EVE Online ships for maps, they can acquire more funding over time to develop TW as far as possible before releasing it. I would go so far as to say that if they can't at least match both map-size and player count of a continent in Planetside 2, they'll have a hard time getting customers to take them seriously. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8286	Posted - 2016.07.09 19:08:00 - [15] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: 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. 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. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8286	Posted - 2016.07.09 23:49:00 - [16] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: As for dropship pilots on Nova, makes me wonder how the handling of aerial vehicles will be since now joysticks are an available control to the masses on PC. I have a joystick as well due to my addiction to X-Plane 10 and the Boeing 767-300ER Flight Factor add-on. I strongly doubt it would make too much of a difference, assuming vehicles make it back some day I really doubt they'll have complex controls. I'm getting my HOTAS for SC though so I'll probably use it regardless. If dropships flew with similar controls to the battlefield 2 blackhawks? I would have been flying them nonstop. I mastered takeoff, landing, deploying squads in hot zones, then moving squads from their actual points on the map to where they needed to be. It was fun, and I could land without crashing. I'm a pilot so I don't really care how the controls are, I will master them and I will incite rage with them. That said, better controls with actual flight tools would be welcome. Agreed. Even moreso for "jets" or whatever they call them. I'd really like to finally see those in-game, but they shouldn't be designed to be as simple as the Battlefield implementation. Actually, the new Ace Combat game is going to evolve the "high-G turn" ability from Ace Combat 6 into being able to effectively turn off your plane's Angle-of-Attack limiter and really play with airflow. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8286	Posted - 2016.07.10 02:21:00 - [17] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Sure your fighter is a glass cannon that hits like a truck but dies if a fart hits it. If it's fast and maneuverable enough, hitting the bastard should rightly be a challenge. Yeah, that's the same thing I was thinking. Countermeasure modules should be available to defeat lock-on weapons, but they should have some kind of cycle time so you can't just leave them on. Basically think of the way Valkyrie does countermeasures. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8286	Posted - 2016.07.10 14:13:00 - [18] - Quote Dreis ShadowWeaver wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Dreis ShadowWeaver wrote: I think the capacitor idea is excellent, but not being able to shoot whilst piloting would be very boring. +1 to native Mobile CRUs too Yeah, some vehicles should have those built in. Being able to fit them leads to stuff that doesn't make sense like LAVs that have unlimited spawns into the passenger seat, and fits being limited by having to use a slot for them. Also keep in mind that some people are fine with driving without shooting, same as some are fine with shooting while someone else drives. For people who don't like either, they can use Light vehicles. But light vehicles are borrrrring I wanna rain death from above and do cool barrel roll Mobius Wyvern wrote: I don't see a way to balance something like an HAV if one person can get into it and be basically unstoppable by themselves. Similarly, it would suck to have to spend a lot of credits on an asset like that only to have it be very easy to destroy to compensate for it being able to do so much damage with only one player using it. But I can't think of a single other FPS where you need two people in a tank for it to be usable. If they can balance it, we can too. Honestly I think more people will want to be able to shoot than not. Other games have low player counts and comparatively weaker vehicles. Also, there have been several first-person games that require 2 players to operate a vehicle that powerful, and besides, trying to emulate every other FPS is frequently how you end up like Brink: dead. In an environment with larger player counts and vehicles that don't require a massive investment on the part of the player themselves, designing them to require teamwork seems far more reasonable than it would have been in Dust 514. It presents an opportunity for players to form bonds with others who are good at operating the other seats of the vehicle. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8286	Posted - 2016.07.10 17:19:00 - [19] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: ARMA requires 2 people for for most vehicles to be useful, for the record. Arma requires two people to work the keyboard and mouse in order to get the correct implement you need out and operating in anything resembling a timely fashion when playing a lone infantryman Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8289	Posted - 2016.07.11 15:16:00 - [20] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: 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). Yeah, when I was talking to True he was initially against the idea of auto-cannons because those would be like a powered-up version of the Blaster Turrets we had in Dust, but then someone else pointed out they could be used for anti-air, which is a very good role for a weapon like that. Similar to Flak in Planetside 2, they could maybe set those up with rounds that detonate in proximity to vehicles, but not when fired at infantry since they use a proximity sensor that can only detect larger objects. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector

Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8298	Posted - 2016.07.14 19:55:00 - [21] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: 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. Lock-on Missile Counters: - 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. - Dropships should be tough enough to take a few hits. 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. Fighter Wing Hardpoints for Missiles: - 4 hard points to mount ordinance on the wings. Need to land at a supply depot or base facility to reload. - Locking missiles with the same lock on mechanics as a Swarm Launcher. A single Fighter missile would do damage equivalent to a Swarm of the smaller Swarm Launcher missiles. - Dumb fire missiles that do more damage than Locking missiles (one shot other Fighters, and do significant damage to tanks). Fixed Nose Turrets: Fighters should also have a medium turret (possibly a pair of medium turrets) mounted in a fixed position firing in the direction the fighter is pointed. (If paired turrets, the streams should not converge enough for both turrets to hit a target as amll as a solder.) Having the turret fixed is a balance measure to prevent fighter pilots from camping infantry on the ground. We know what happens when an aircraft points its nose at the ground for too long. Fighter Mobility: Fighters should use the same type of propulsion as Dropships, but being lighter, they should be much more responsive. They should also have stubby wings which provide lift when they are moving at high speed. Have a button to toggle to fix the fighter engines in a forward thrust configuration, or release them into Dropship mode. Have flaps and rudder engage when engines are in forward thrust configuration. Make the switch a manual toggle, so pilots are able to engage in stalling maneuvers, which an automatic switch based on flight speed would not allow. It would be a bit like a Harrier Jet, but with the maneuverability of a helicopter in hover mode. I would personally strongly oppose any kind of multi-person design because the issues with balance between firepower, hp, and mobility would be a nightmare to say the least. I would say we should in all cases have VTOL and Fixed-Wing aircraft as separate entities. Consider that in order to balance their potential firepower, Fighters have been proposed by many as having the lowest EHP of all vehicles, making them a large and vulnerable target relying entirely on speed and maneuverability to stay alive. A Dropship, however, is a heavier air vehicle built around hovering and having the highpoints to take some hits and stay airborne. A Fighter having to use its powerful weapons in passes because they are all fixed-mounts helps balance their firepower. A Fighter being able to select modes would mean they'd need hp to survive hovering at low speeds which would be extension unbalance their offensive capabilities or require them to be laughably weak offensively. HOWEVER, some of you may remember my thread on the idea of MTACs being modular "mechs" that basically perform as the Tech-III of Dust(now Nova) vehicles. They would be very expensive but also allow one player some serious offensive potential at the cost of having some drawbacks to balance them. What if - at some point in the future - we could have mode-switching aircraft that can perform a VTOL gunship AND Fighter role, and with bonuses that apply in each mode similar to Tactical Destroyers in EVE? Hover Mode could give bonuses to defensive modules, and Fighter mode could give bonuses to mobility modules. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8298	Posted - 2016.07.14 21:01:00 - [22] - Quote 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. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8298	Posted - 2016.07.14 21:46:00 - [23] - Quote Joel II X wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I also don't want fire & forget missiles ever again. In order for the missiles to hit their target, the AV should keep the lock-on on the vehicle as much as they can. Doing so increases the speed of the missiles, while losing lock-on would slow the missiles. If they get too slow, or change target, the missiles detonate early. The Launcher would have an X-Range for activating lock and releasing payload, while their lock could extend up to Y-Range so as to balance vehicle speed. Fire-and-Forget is NOT a problem. Not at all. The only reason they presented a problem in Dust 514 was because they didn't obey the laws of physics and had virtually no limitations. Even after multiple nerfs they still flew super fast and turned nearly on a dime, and there were no countermeasures to spoof them. A properly designed Fire-and-Forget weapon would have restrictions in turning most importantly such that you can out-turn the missiles if you fly well. Countermeasures like flares and chaff should also be available to try and break their lock. Now, I do like the idea of a weapon that requires you to hold a lock and thus fires a missile that is harder to defeat. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8302	Posted - 2016.07.15 08:49:00 - [24] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: As far as missiles not rendering, that was a PS3 issue above anything else. The missiles would be fired from beyond projectile/effect rendering distance, and then move in faster than the PS3's GPU could process them. Running the game on something other than a potato wouldn't have issues like that. It was a programming issue, the systems limitations should have been well known to everyone that needed to know. Not that a more powerful system wont help... But power alone doesn't make up for bad code... I can program something that will slow down the whole system while doing absolutely nothing of use, no matter how decent the hardware. Precisely. No matter how beefy your rig if you're running needlessly chunky software designed specifically to use every last resource, your beefy rig is going to run like a Pentium 1 from the 90s. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8302	Posted - 2016.07.15 11:41:00 - [25] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I would say if you lose lock, missiles go on terminal ballistic path. IE they fly straight and fast in whatever direction they were pointed. As long as they're designed not to fire forwards this would be fine, otherwise you'll get a lot of people not holding the lock for more than a millisecond, because it's already launching forwards. Not a huge problem for vehicles that move a lot on multiple axis like dropships, but ground vehicles and possibly infantry would be at risk of fire and forget gameplay. If however the missiles follow the lock, it would allow for interesting manoeuvring of the missiles, allowing the person launching to fire around multiple obstacles and friendly assets, or even just to juke a dropship into dodging one way and ending up in a whole world of trouble. Dreis ShadowWeaver wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: Auto-Target would be fun. Except they might also auto-target your friendly vehicles as well. Happened in Eve Online one time when someone brought in a Caldari ship to a PvP fight in low-sec but ended up wiping out his own roam fleet because he used Auto-Targeting missiles. Needless to say, his intended targets got away. I'm sure CCP could make sure that doesn't happen. Hopefully they keep the risk, misuse should have consequences... And it would be funny as hell. I'm not sure if that would be a good idea for a game, but I do remember a hilarious instance of a YouTube recording of DCS World where the player fired a heatseeking missile without knowing his friend had hit his afterburners above and in front of him, which caused the missile to make a sharp turn up and detonate right behind him, which wiped him out in one shot. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8303	Posted - 2016.07.15 13:50:00 - [26] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: 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. And as Breakin Stuff mentioned in another post, exclusively fixed winged aircraft are problematic on small maps, and let's not forget that a huge map for infantry is still a small map for a Fighter. Allowing the Fighter to hover does not necessitate making it tanky. Being able to hover and be maneuverable at low speeds would allow them to take cover between buildings, or fly down a street in a complex. Then they only have to deal with local dangers, and if things get hot locally, they can head up, pick up speed, and head out. Either that, or just duck around a corner. Fixed wing mode is really more to give the full fighter experience in Fighter vs Fighter combat. But entirely fixed winged Fighters would have little use on maps sized for an infantry game. 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. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8304	Posted - 2016.07.15 18:38:00 - [27] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: 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. Your description of a Fighter actually sounds like what I would consider an ideal setup for a single-seater Gunship. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8304	Posted - 2016.07.16 14:20:00 - [28] - Quote Guys, seriously, fire-and-forget missiles are not automatically a bad thing. Dust 514 had Super-Ultra-Physics-Defying fire-and-forget missiles. They were in no way an example of proper mechanics for designing fire-and-forget missiles. As long as the missiles can be evaded through a pilot being skilled with controlling their vehicle, and there are some forms of countermeasure available to allow a few get-out-of-jail-free cards in case you get a bunch of them shot at you at once, they'll be perfectly fine in forms of balance. The important factor to consider here is that AV is a dual purpose role of destroying vehicles but also of area-denial. If there are enough fire-and-forget launches in an area to make a pilot nervous about flying there, you're already doing your job to help support your teammates. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8307	Posted - 2016.07.17 14:43:00 - [29] - Quote No need to explain that part. I'm used to that with everyone I know that's been on the CPM. You've all been pretty consistent with expressing irritation at trying to converse with anyone else about game balance or progress since you can only bring half or less of your total knowledge of the picture to the table. Basically just theory-crafting here. For all our talk, planets were confirmed, but vehicles were not. We still have no way of knowing if Rattati intends this to be an infantry-only game universally. Obviously myself and others hope not, which is why we're so invested in keeping threads like this going to try and present the situation in a different light. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8307	Posted - 2016.07.18 12:54:00 - [30] - Quote I would normally be warning about going off topic, but there aren't any ISD for the Dust forums so I guess threads will only get locked excessive profanity or slurs and stuff. It really is pretty cool we've been having a discussion this long. As sad as it makes me to think about sometimes, I think losing one of our favorite games had the effect of making us nicer to each other. Now we're all here without the game we got sucked into and not knowing what will be in the new one or even when it will come. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector

Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8311	Posted - 2016.07.20 14:55:00 - [31] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: It really is pretty cool we've been having a discussion this long. As sad as it makes me to think about sometimes, I think losing one of our favorite games had the effect of making us nicer to each other. Nah, I think (almost) everyone was nice before they came to the game, then through playing the game we all got a bit **** towards each other and now with it gone for a while, we've calmed back down a little. Anyway vehicles... If we can have destructible environments, how about something that digs tunnels... But give the main buildings/sockets defences so you can't just tunnel under the null cannons and just drop it to the centre of the planet. Edit - Or even just let tanks dig down and spring up out of nowhere! lol... "peekaboo mother ***!!!" boom* Tunneling would be VERY hard to pull off. You have to consider that the server needs to track every shift in the terrain and then rebroadcast that to every connected client. The lag would be horrifying. I can totally get behind allowing craters, because you can automate the generation of those and they rarely involve going that deep. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8326	Posted - 2016.07.24 10:15:00 - [32] - Quote So, hey, a German gaming magazine's spread on Star Citizen's planet building tech just had some of its pages leaked recently. With everyone hopping on the Procedural Generation train, one can only hope CCP builds themselves a system for that within the next few years for whatever Nova becomes. It'd be pretty nice to have insanely large spaces to battle on and over, if nothing else. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8334	Posted - 2016.07.26 11:53:00 - [33] - Quote Joel II X wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: So, hey, a German gaming magazine's spread on Star Citizen's planet building tech just had some of its pages leaked recently. With everyone hopping on the Procedural Generation train, one can only hope CCP builds themselves a system for that within the next few years for whatever Nova becomes. It'd be pretty nice to have insanely large spaces to battle on and over, if nothing else. I doubt it. I don't doubt it at all. CCP Rattati already said he'll go as far as he can with this game, and that's a logical step in my opinion, considering how essential massive-scale PvP is to EVE Online. If you're going to have another game in the same universe, it would make sense to push the scale of combat as large as you can. Obviously Valkyrie is an exception to that considering it's an arcade-style game. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8341	Posted - 2016.08.03 12:38:00 - [34] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: OK new stupid idea, instead of EvE people blowing us up, why don't we blow them up? We invade a ship and fight like crazy, call in a tank/dropship and start pew-pewing the very ship we're in until "Boom!" everyone dies... Mission accomplished, harvest some scrap metal and space ship tears. Except of course that'd be the fastest way possible to get the entire EVE community unanimously against any form of interaction with whatever Project Nova becomes. That's not good. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8342	Posted - 2016.08.05 18:50:00 - [35] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Ripley Riley wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Nova feels like it needs to be its own separate thing just like Valk, as much as I hate to say it. Rattati did say integration was something he wanted to do. I believe he said linking the economies was possible. It's not that it will never happen, just that it isn't a priority. Like vehicles. When you have a tiny dev team with low resources you've gotta start somewhere. Here's hoping we have news of an Alpha before next year. I hope so too. I plan to have fun with Titanfall 2 this fall but no matter how many free map packs they release I'm eventually going to start wanting Nova again. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector

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.