|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Scheneighnay McBob
Penumbra or something
7883
|
Posted - 2016.07.08 14:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
ADS shouldn't even be in Nova. It was a halfassed attempt at replacing fighters.
Current state of the forums
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Penumbra or something
7884
|
Posted - 2016.07.09 03:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
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.
Current state of the forums
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Penumbra or something
7884
|
Posted - 2016.07.09 03:31:00 -
[3] - Quote
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.
Current state of the forums
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Penumbra or something
7884
|
Posted - 2016.07.10 15:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
ARMA requires 2 people for for most vehicles to be useful, for the record.
Current state of the forums
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Penumbra or something
7884
|
Posted - 2016.07.11 14:28:00 -
[5] - 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 Sounds like someone needs to git gud
Current state of the forums
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Penumbra or something
7886
|
Posted - 2016.07.12 21:47:00 -
[6] - Quote
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.
Current state of the forums
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Penumbra or something
7886
|
Posted - 2016.07.12 23:55:00 -
[7] - 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. Not to mention that, like with Dust, infantry shouldn't have problems avoiding vehicles.
If you need to worry about your entire squad getting run over by an LAV, you need to rethink your squad's decision to sit out in the open.
Current state of the forums
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Penumbra or something
7887
|
Posted - 2016.07.13 15:02:00 -
[8] - 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. No redline snipers (because there's now no redline), but there are still snipers.
Hell, they already added the minmatar sniper rifle just for that little showcasing of Noca.
Current state of the forums
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Penumbra or something
7888
|
Posted - 2016.07.13 21:52:00 -
[9] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote: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. IRL, small arms fire won't do **** to a HMMWV. Then again, our trucks are actually ******* enclosed.
Which brings up a point: nova's LAVs need to be completely redesigned, rather being the Dust ones with upgraded graphics. We need them to have a higher capacity (driver, 3 passengers, and a gunner), and of course be closed off.
This of course means that the turret, wherever it's placed, will have a much larger blind spot, but I that could be easily balanced by making small turrets stronger and/or with more range. It also means that if an enemy gets too close, someone would have to dismount to fight them before they get covered in REs or take an AV grenade.
Current state of the forums
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Penumbra or something
7888
|
Posted - 2016.07.13 22:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Fox Gaden wrote: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. IRL, small arms fire won't do **** to a HMMWV. Then again, our trucks are actually ******* enclosed. Which brings up a point: nova's LAVs need to be completely redesigned, rather being the Dust ones with upgraded graphics. We need them to have a higher capacity (driver, 3 passengers, and a gunner), and of course be closed off. This of course means that the turret, wherever it's placed, will have a much larger blind spot, but I that could be easily balanced by making small turrets stronger and/or with more range. It also means that if an enemy gets too close, someone would have to dismount to fight them before they get covered in REs or take an AV grenade. Real Life small arms won't hurt a hummvee? What real life are you living in? About 10 .30 caliber bullets through the front grille will disable a hummvee. Diesel engines aren't actually bulletproof (military hummers tend to use diesel) Also, there's no reality in which I think a rifle should do more than scratch paint on an HAV. Hence, scaling. Rather like dropsuits have different sizes, speeds and damage tolerances, vehicles should be scaled for resistance by size and role. That's because the grille is unarmored. The actual armor is more than enough to stop a .30 cal If the devs want to throw in a random weak point, fine by me.
Current state of the forums
|
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Penumbra or something
7888
|
Posted - 2016.07.13 22:59:00 -
[11] - Quote
Back on the topic of reworking turrets: I don't think we should see large turrets primarily killing infantry unless said turret does it in a way that smaller weapons can't. If that small blaster on your HAV can kill someone easily, why do you need a massive blaster for it?
For example, large missiles could be reworked into indirect fire weapons. Require them to lock onto a designator painted either by infantry or a small turret, then fire missiles to home in on the painted area. The missiles should have some delay before the homing kicks in. This allows the gunner to curve the missiles around objects that would otherwise get in the way, and allow for some skill on their part.
Another idea of a bit crazier weapon would be some sort of minmatar locus ballista- launch a timed charge into an area that can roll/bounce around a bit before exploding. Definitely a lot of skill required and definitely a trickshot weapon, but it would be invaluable for firing into areas no other weapon can reach. Think of it as a giant, tank-mounted locus grenade.
Current state of the forums
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Penumbra or something
7888
|
Posted - 2016.07.14 02:06:00 -
[12] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Back on the topic of reworking turrets: I don't think we should see large turrets primarily killing infantry unless said turret does it in a way that smaller weapons can't. If that small blaster on your HAV can kill someone easily, why do you need a massive blaster for it?
For example, large missiles could be reworked into indirect fire weapons. Require them to lock onto a designator painted either by infantry or a small turret, then fire missiles to home in on the painted area. The missiles should have some delay before the homing kicks in. This allows the gunner to curve the missiles around objects that would otherwise get in the way, and allow for some skill on their part.
Another idea of a bit crazier weapon would be some sort of minmatar locus ballista- launch a timed charge into an area that can roll/bounce around a bit before exploding. Definitely a lot of skill required and definitely a trickshot weapon, but it would be invaluable for firing into areas no other weapon can reach. Think of it as a giant, tank-mounted locus grenade. Honestly there isn't any reason tanks shouldn't have an AoE Cannon Blast. If things are set right, that should absolutely be an option. It's a give/take and balance thing, but a slow-firing, high-damage AoE blast isn't unreasonable for a tank. There's dozens of games that include that, and do it well. Great for clearing bunkers and such. It's dependent upon how the hulls are implemented. If they're done like DUST? yeah, no let's stick to the point-fire turrets. My honest opinion is that light turrets should be basically sentinel heavy weapons on a pintle mount. Forge guns, HMGs, etc. Heavier vehicles (not HAVs) might have twin-linked heavy weapons like twin-assault forges that alternate barrels, etc. Sh*t like that. I highly recommend we think less "DUST did it this way" and look at interesting ideas (I'm fond of W40k vehicles). Heavy turrets should be big, slow, and carry a rather large, noticeable punch, IMHO. I detest the amount of pussyfooting around that we've had to go through with the turrets. An M-1 Can theoretically do a bit over an 8 second rotation 360 degrees. That's about 40 Degrees per second, according to internet sources that I may or may not find dubious. Similarly a challenger has a 9 second rotation. That rotation rate isn't what I'd call great for tracking lemming infantry in close. works just fine for distant enemies with a coaxial machinegun though. All heavy turrets should have a coaxial. There's some real-world conventions that just work WELL. There are some that may not translate to the game well. But i like tanks that can punch hard. I actually felt better about gunnlogis when they had splash, oddly enough. There's a LOT of neat room to play for turrets. I just hope we don't repeat the Madrugar .50 caliber anti-infantry machinegun.... err, I mean Plasma cannon.... Seriously that thing fired more or less identically to an M2 .50 cal machinegun. Coaxial guns definitely need to be a thing.
With real tanks, or at least the WWII era ones, the cannon was actually considered to be a secondary weapon- only used if you come across fortifications or an enemy tank. The machine guns saw more use.
Current state of the forums
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Penumbra or something
7889
|
Posted - 2016.07.15 01:22:00 -
[13] - Quote
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.
Current state of the forums
|
|
|
|