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

Mobius Wyvern wrote:

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.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
byte modal 881	Posted - 2016.07.07 14:21:00 - [1] - Quote My only honest experience with HAVs was getting blown up as soon as I entered them, so my perspective isn't biased as much as it is probably just ignorance. With that said, I have always been fascinated by the idea of crew-run vehicles. Teamwork is teamwork is teamwork, and I always found it weird that a LAV had a driver and an independent gunner. Clearly the concept was there, so why it never translated to HAV was odd to me. I love the idea of cooperative modes where a gunnery can provide visual intel to the driver, and the driver can position the vehicle to aid in range targeting. Or whatever. What could be cooler than a DUST (er, NOVA) equivalent of Maverick and Goose? To the post, I love the idea of recycling modules from EVE such as capacitor, and some sort of capacitor neutralizers and webifiers (though I imagine the name and concept would be different). Not sure about the co-pilot bumping whoever is sitting on a side gun just because. That seems arbitrary and possibly very confusing from the perspective of the passenger. Leave the gun seat as last to be filled, but if it does get filled then that's that. IMHO. I also love the idea of firing from a LAV as a passenger---with a limited field of view, of course. If I'm passenger-side, I'm not going to be shooting behind us. Same for whoever is sitting in the bed, relative to their perspective. @Ripley: I did not know that. That does concern me too. I would never expect a 1:1 of NOVA:EvE, but being a sister game in the same universe I would assume some core philosophies would be (need to be?) transcribed. Of course I assumed that also with DUST and we still got active SP gains, so meh. Fingers crossed. As Fiend noted, all we can really do is post pointless crusades as we get bored and hope for the best. kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 881	Posted - 2016.07.07 14:22:00 - [2] - Quote ^ doncha just hate combo-breaker posts? kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 881	Posted - 2016.07.07 14:28:00 - [3] - Quote FraggerMike wrote: ^^ I get your point in that, and it does make sense, given the real-world factor in both types of vehicles, but do you really think there would be a sufficient amount of players who would prefer only a support role? I would rather specialize in supporting a pilot or be a supported pilot, TBH. I'm no measure of the community, but considering it will kill two birds with one stone I'm game even more so. Those birds being: 1) the conceptual practicality of separating the roles, and 2) the constant forum back-and-forth between vehicle and AV roles where it requires teamwork on the infantry side to efficiently remove a solo pilot of various vehicles. Balance. Or at least an honest step in that direction. That's another topic for another post, but the point stands. kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 885	Posted - 2016.07.07 14:34:00 - [4] - Quote Yeah, good point. If additional modules are being added, then that's even more reasons to specialize in strictly piloting a vehicle rather than both. Driving and handling mods in real time is probably enough. Same for a gunner specialist. I would imagine there should be mods for that role as well? Driver becomes a better driver. Gunner becomes a better gunner. AV won't complain nearly as much (maybe!) having to use teamwork to kill them. For me, that increases the hunt/satisfaction of a kill even more from both vehicle and AV perspectives. That's just me of course. kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 886	Posted - 2016.07.07 23:01:00 - [5] - 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 Yes. And the new swarms should have laser painting target systems with a skill that adds +1 additional target per level upgrade for a maximum of five targets painted simultaneously. Then when I dumb-fire my cartridge (five missile capacity btw, because of a maxed swarm proficiency skill of course), all swarms are fired at once straight up into the air. Each missile will then home-in on one of the five painted targets and track absolutely until impact. Damage will be for 9,000Hp (each). This will take care of redline HAV too because target painting has the same scope and display render as a sniper rifle. Missiles will self-destruct if target is not acquired with 20,000 meters or 3 minutes. Whichever comes first. If that doesn't work, then there should be a Defender-style smart bomb grenade that immediately clears the board of all red air and ground-based vehicles. At the cost of one clone and loadout. With a 2-minute cooldown. You know. For balance. kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 889	Posted - 2016.07.08 19:05:00 - [6] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Snipped because posting said I exceeded character count though I am within the limit. grrr. ^ I think Fox's post linked above pretty much sums up the overall idea best. And I agree that finding a purpose for the HAV is vital before it can really exist. I think doing so will probably make the HAV unrecognizable to DUST vehicle vets, but that may not be a bad thing. I also think that such a change would demand a cascade of other changes to our assumptions of purpose and gameplay relative to what we have all learned within DUST. --- TL/DR: The point is that taking these steps may require a considerable shift on how we as players should perceive roles and how development of these dynamics should be viewed, or at least explored before getting too bogged down in details. For example: HAV roles are (just for the sake of argument!) now siege, structural damage, and AV. This will greatly affect mobility and combat capability of HAVs as compared to what we have grown accustomed to in DUST becoming slower, heavier, and less efficient against infantry while having more armor, control (modules, fitted hard ports, and crew-enabled features), and higher damage against structures and other vehicles. For that to exist, you are right in that there must be purpose other than rolling a tank for the sake of tank. So now the battlefield must be populated with somewhat progressive encounters that would require HAV support (or some other suitable approach that invites the need for HAV support other than infantry squishing). Maybe not require HAVs, but using them would at least increase efficiency of progression to make short work of what infantry could do, just considerably slower (structure infiltration, anti-infantry turrets, AV, whatever). I don't imagine all play fields need this, but to give a reasonable return on investment by the pilot and crew to play these new specialized roles, then we should consider other HAV opportunities for level designs that may not have such structures, or just not as many. With that in mind, HAV vs. HAV could fill that role on such battlefields. I am suggesting that HAV damage will be greatly reduced against infantry (tracking, accuracy, damage spread, etc.), while being quite efficient against other vehicles. Let them play their meta vs other vehicle crews and/or AV groups as needed for balance for the games when support as listed earlier is not needed. Don't get me wrong! I am not suggesting that HAVs submit and roll over to solo infantry AV. On the contrary, due to increase armor capabilities (especially in siege mode), it should require a competent team of infantry to just wear down a HAV during siege. Also a minor assumed detail here may benefit the HAV: if in siege mode, then it is reasonable to assume in this example at least that the tank is attempting to penetrate some fortification or access point. Would primary opposing forces then be *behind* that fortification and less likely to overwhelm a sieged HAV? In such a case, the fortified enemy may strategically send a dedicated AV team "over the wall" via transport dropship; or whatever other hypothetical encounter may come to exist. All of this is only meant to demonstrate how a shift in our understanding of roles could lead to very dynamic countermeasures depending on the field---if we are willing to allow it. I believe if certain aspects are introduced correctly, then concepts will begin to reinforce each other. If HAVs require a separation of specialized roles (pilot and turret OP, to keep it simple), then that mode reinforces teamwork. Requiring a small squad of AV (ever how many for balance purposes) to counter that HAV reinforces the same strategy. With this dynamic at play, I truly believe the idea of support will be well-seeded in this gameplay philosophy. Bringing in infantry reinforcements to counter infantry AV would only be one more logical step in support of the sieged HAV. Cooperative play becomes more fundamental due to strategic requirements of shared roles and responsibilities. DUST HAVs never really needed support. Or at least never needed it when I was on foot. ;P~ This could change that. Perhaps I'm biased? It's still just an example of one way to look at this. Personally, I would feel good requiring a team of AV to take down a HAV knowing that there is a crew inside. After all, that's team vs. team. Add to that the slower movement or even stationary siege mode with considerably more armor and a specialized ammo type for structural and armor-piercing AV damage (I assume this would mean less efficiency against infantry as a result?), and I think I would be quite happy playing a long engagement of attrition. If ammo capacity is a variable, then that only adds to the logistical requirements to hold out for as long as possible given that the enemy (both sides) only has a finite supply of rounds. I am not at all saying buff this or nerf that. I'm only presenting a simple example of how some of these ideas being tossed about might require a rework of other seemingly unrelated dynamics. I do think that such shifts could only improve the game using DUST as a point of reference so that whatever may come of vehicle use in NOVA (if anything) won't fall victim to past faults in development and balance. That, or I'm just bored and want to type on and on for no good reason. <3 kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 892	Posted - 2016.07.11 14:52:00 - [7] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: byte modal wrote: I don't imagine all play fields need this, but to give a reasonable return on investment by the pilot and crew to play these new specialized roles, then we should consider other HAV opportunities for level designs that may not have such structures, or just not as many. With that in mind, HAV vs. HAV could fill that role on such battlefields. I am suggesting that HAV damage will be greatly reduced against infantry (tracking, accuracy, damage spread, etc.), while being quite efficient against other vehicles. Let them play their meta vs other vehicle crews and/or AV groups as needed for balance for the games when support as listed earlier is not needed. There are a couple things in this paragraph I wanted to elaborate on. - As long as a vehicle oriented player can always chose to queue for a game mode that has vehicles, I don't see a problem with there being game modes where there are not vehicles. (Combat on ships or in stations for instance.) That also works with CCP's plans to develop the non-vehicle modes first, and get infantry combat sorted. Then they can introduce vehicles and the game modes that give them a purpose at the same time. I think that is fair. Please understand that through all that I typed, I hoped that it would read as a very open-ended example of one of many ways to look at these issues. I only narrowed the sample to make the point, though I did not mean for my example to be the definition of that point. If there are games that do not require (or worst case, allow?) vehicles, then by all means make it so. I think the discussion in that specific train of thought should then focus on how to fluidly handle segregation. For example: "I want to play HAV, but all the fun objectives only exist in non-HAV level designs!" But I take your meaning and generally agree. Fox Gaden wrote: - I would change your phrasing to say HAV "Effectiveness" against infantry would be much lower than against vehicles. If infantry actually gets hit by a shell meant to take out a vehicle, then it is bound to do a lot of "Damage". The balance measures would be geared more to making it hard to hit infantry in the first place. Yes. Perhaps that was a poor word choice on my part. I wanted to be a little clearer in my intent so I followed that word with examples such as tracking, accuracy, damage spread, etc., to keep the idea around efficiency; but you are right. I will edit my post to replace the word. Nice subtle catch :) Fox Gaden wrote: - Since Tanks are a strong anti vehicle platform, giving purpose to any vehicle will give a purpose to Tanks. For instance, if the Salvage Grounds described for Legion were implemented, and infantry had limited carrying capacity, then they would need vehicles to hall all the salvage back for extraction. Then Tanks would be useful to disable or destroy the transport vehicles in order to steel people's salvage. #Metagame, #Pirates, #GiveVehiclesPurpose (Did I do the hash tags right? I don't Twitter.) Absolutely agree. Also, don't forget to apply the universal hashtag hand gesture when doing so! ugh. sorry. kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 911	Posted - 2016.07.15 14:45:00 - [8] - Quote fight! fight! fight!!!!!! Forum fight in the hallway!! RUN!!! friday. bored@work. kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 911	Posted - 2016.07.15 14:46:00 - [9] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: 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. FF FTW!!! kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 917	Posted - 2016.07.17 17:42:00 - [10] - Quote I think at this point, the few remaining willing to play the forum game are dedicated to the spirit of this conversation and (hopefully) smart enough to read the difference between personal opinion and NDA filters. Though I empathize with your concern, I do believe it best to filter through open discussion rather than internal judgment based on a possibilty of misunderstaning. I would like to think we're better than that (at this point). Judging by the positive and non-derailing attitude of what is now 12 or 13 pages I think there is little to assume otherwise. Also, I tend to lean towards putting all ideas on the table aiming high. If we only aim short, we hit short. We will never go farther than the restrictions we place upon ourselves. And really, this is all fan fantasy preproduction theory crafting on a dead forum for another game that may never exist. So there's that. kitten bacon taco (nom)

byte modal 918	Posted - 2016.07.17 21:01:00 - [11] - Quote I thought we (they?) were already doing that on page 1. ? kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 919	Posted - 2016.07.18 15:07:00 - [12] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: byte modal wrote: I thought we (they?) were already doing that on page 1. ? Only scrubs read page 1... scrub... lol <3<3<3 kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 919	Posted - 2016.07.18 15:16:00 - [13] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: 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. I wonder though. Most of the people still posting and replying have (for the most part!) a history of offering thoughtful discussion. We all get testy, and even snarky from time to time but that's going to happen in anything in life. Game forums are probably more susceptible to sarcasm, jaded perceptions, and BVS---here maybe more than most! Still though, whining is gone. Trolls have picked up camp and migrated to greener pastures. The ones that have stayed are either truly dedicated or have a borderline masochistic personality. Either way, it's all good. We all need our egos checked... from time to time. kitten bacon taco (nom)