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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.09 18:06:00 - [91] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: I just worry about that idea a lot since LAVs were already tremendously useless despite having potential to be useful additions to the battle. They're already paper trucks as is, so if kept similarly there would literally never be a reason to deploy one because any jackass could shoot in your general direction and take you out, or severely wound you before even getting where you're going. I feel that 10-20% damage is better, but have more sidearm AV options, possibly a dropsuit with two grenade slots, and the long since "promised" personal deployable turret installations. This would make it so every single player would have options to handle vehicles at all points in any given match, unless they straight up refused to use them. Maken Tosch wrote: Yes, I want to see vehicles too but ONLY under the condition that they are implemented with careful attention to detail. If they just get shoehorned in just for the sake of appeasing vehicle players then CCP would have once again falling in the same death spiral that they fell into for Dust 514 and never got a chance to get out of it. But that's just the thing. If they build the entire game around them NOT existing, then essentially even with all the thought in the world, unless the game is remade yet again, it will HAVE to be shoehorned in. Why CCP can't just develop the game fully before releasing it will probably always be beyond me. Because they don't have to shoehorn the vehicles in. We all saw the result of that decision when CCP shoehorned them in for Dust 514. It was an epic disaster. And to make matters worse, the ideas that players kept suggesting were either favoring vehicle players too much or favoring AV players too much. It was almost impossible to find someone who came up with a neutral approach to how to balance vehicles with AV. I still remember the debate between dropship pilots and swarm launcher players. It was nothing but constant back and forth bickering with no one willing to compromise on anything even if a single idea benefits everyone. And the players who did come up with such ideas were often shot down by both sides of the debate. Period. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.09 18:07:00 - [92] - Quote If all vehicles require AV weapons, we fall back on the scaling issues that made AV/V impossible to reconcile. Not all vehicles have to be amazing. They merely have to serve a purpose. Light, cheap vehicles were created so that you can throw dozens of them into the fray and casually replace them. Vehicles do not have to individually force strategic change at all levels in all cases. Fighting an a*hole in a jeep shouldn't be orders of magnitude harder than fighting a guy on foot. In many cases the jeep should be at as much disadvantage as the infantryman. Not every vehicle on the field should be considered a strategic asset. Nor should vehicle drivers have any more protection against death than any other player when their vulnerabilities are exploited. What you suggest makes every single vehicle, no matter how shtty into a strategic asset rather than a disposable taxtical asset. Because they dictate how EVERYONE must be outfitted on the field. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.09 18:09:00 - [93] - Quote This is why I am glad Nova will be on the PC so that we can finally have access to our own test server and try things out without breaking the game on the live server. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.09 18:42:00 - [94] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: This is why I am glad Nova will be on the PC so that we can finally have access to our own test server and try things out without breaking the game on the live server. Here's hoping. God this stuff needs testing. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1476	Posted - 2016.07.09 18:50:00 - [95] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I have picked pilots out of driver seats with forge guns. Just because it was possible does not mean it was balanced. And troop transport derpships were the best balanced. Forge guns aren't light weapons, I'm talking jumping over an LAV and pumping a shotgun in their face, this was pre-pogo514. Literally everything could stop an LAV if used with an ounce of sense. All your ideas seem to revolve around "I should just be able to shoot it" no strategy, no thinking. The disadvantage of vehicles is that they can't go everywhere that a dropsuit can, you use them to block the movement of infantry between certain open spaces... If any old dropsuit can just pew-pew any vehicle without thinking, then there's no point in using the vehicle because the dropsuit can do more. Transport dropships zig-zagged between unusable and easily exploitable, they had the same rep/harder exploits that tanks had... You could just squish people without a worry, unless half the enemy team had AV... For a while I'd just park one on annoying uplinks and leave it hardened while I got out and pew pew-ed... Free kills while AV fails to blow it up. Also, vehicles did actually take damage from sustained weapons fire... It was just negated by certain bastardized rep mods.
DUST Fiend 18440	Posted - 2016.07.09 18:55:00 - [96] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: What you suggest makes every single vehicle, no matter how sh*tty into a strategic asset rather than a disposable taxtical asset. Because they dictate how EVERYONE must be outfitted on the field. I guess I'm curious why players having to vary their fits based on the situation is bad. Why is it too hard to call down your own turret if you lack the AV fit or just don't want to be primary AV? Why can't you focus fire if a vehicle is moving around too freely? If a vehicle is meant to be destroyed by any player wielding anything then should it also take the additional time to deploy? Why is it so wrong for the game to have to vary your groups composition? Why is ok for an entire team lacking AV to faceroll over vehicles? I absolutely think vehicles should require teamwork to use, hence my suggestions, so why is it that you seem to want to roll back that idea of teamwork for everyone and instead just turn into a solo feel good fest where no one has to adapt to the battle and just rolls whatever they please? I remember when this was called the thinking mans shooter and ever since it's just been dialed back and dialed back and dialed back and now it's going to shiny halo graphics with double kills, double jumps, and simple TDM galore. I don't know, I guess the tiny part of me that wants CCP to actually grow a pair, hire more devs, put more resources into their game and actually come out with something unique is just having trouble dieing. I'm sure in due time it too will die. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8286	Posted - 2016.07.09 19:08:00 - [97] - 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
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.09 19:18:00 - [98] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I have picked pilots out of driver seats with forge guns. Just because it was possible does not mean it was balanced. And troop transport derpships were the best balanced. Forge guns aren't light weapons, I'm talking jumping over an LAV and pumping a shotgun in their face, this was pre-pogo514. Literally everything could stop an LAV if used with an ounce of sense. All your ideas seem to revolve around "I should just be able to shoot it" no strategy, no thinking. The disadvantage of vehicles is that they can't go everywhere that a dropsuit can, you use them to block the movement of infantry between certain open spaces... If any old dropsuit can just pew-pew any vehicle without thinking, then there's no point in using the vehicle because the dropsuit can do more. Transport dropships zig-zagged between unusable and easily exploitable, they had the same rep/harder exploits that tanks had... You could just squish people without a worry, unless half the enemy team had AV... For a while I'd just park one on annoying uplinks and leave it hardened while I got out and pew pew-ed... Free kills while AV fails to blow it up. Also, vehicles did actually take damage from sustained weapons fire... It was just negated by certain bastardized rep mods. Again, basing a balance argument on an implementation late in the game is pointless, and the jump mods had their own exploitation issue. Let me be clear: balance modifications should not be predicated upon implements that were, themselves, not amazingly balanced. Jump mods may have begat some interesting tactics, but making a vehicle into a special mechanic bossfight to win is not fun. DUST was a combined-arms tactical sci-fi warfare simulator. It was set up for warfare stylings. Jump mods did not make the LAVs balanced, suddenly. It did not correct the inherent design flaws. And bluntly in a first person shooter, "aim and fire" should almost always be a valid solution. Driving a buggy down a road should never upgrade a player from "player X" to "boss fight, special mechanics required." Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.09 19:20:00 - [99] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: That's incorrect. We came up with many ideas that would were agreed on by both sides, like lock-on warnings and countermeasure modules. The reason nothing ever came out of those discussions is because the solutions we found that made both sides happy were apparently beyond the developers to implement, so we could never go beyond futile attempts to try and create a TTK for Swarm Launchers against aircraft. Even then, that ultimately meant nothing more than constant bickering over locking distance/time for the swarms, splash damage, hardener bonuses, knockback, rocket turn radius, rocket speed, etc. as players were basing their suggestions on what CCP CAN DO with Dust's legacy code. And it surely didn't help that Dropship pilots were trying to survive in an environment where there was constant lag and frame rate drops which caused many pilots to lose control and crash. Then there was the invisible walls. Now that I think of it, this means the terrain has to be focused on extensively to ensure **** like invisible walls and vehicles falling through the ground while looking at the overview map will not come back to haunt us anymore. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.09 19:27:00 - [100] - Quote New game, new platform, new possibilities. A lot of the limitations on the PS3 are no longer valid, so we're all shooting in the dark, because infantry combat changes drastically without the slideshow. How will dropship pilots change with good frames? Suddenly vehicles are more fluid. Because of the platform change alone, everything we know about vehicle gameplay is wrong. I'll admit, even my Comments are pure speculation driven by what DUST was. Good hit detection, framerate and intuitive play at a core level will likely change literally everything. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.

Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.09 19:38:00 - [101] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: New game, new platform, new possibilities. A lot of the limitations on the PS3 are no longer valid, so we're all shooting in the dark, because infantry combat changes drastically without the slideshow. How will dropship pilots change with good frames? Suddenly vehicles are more fluid. Because of the platform change alone, everything we know about vehicle gameplay is wrong. I'll admit, even my Comments are pure speculation driven by what DUST was. Good hit detection, framerate and intuitive play at a core level will likely change literally everything. I agree. Just rebuilding the code from scratch on a new engine on a stronger platform alone will vastly improve the quality of life of dropship pilots especially when reacting quickly to sudden changes in the environment becomes very critical. This will also have an impact on AV players who were originally use to the Dust 514 environment. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1476	Posted - 2016.07.09 19:42:00 - [102] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I have picked pilots out of driver seats with forge guns. Just because it was possible does not mean it was balanced. And troop transport derpships were the best balanced. Forge guns aren't light weapons, I'm talking jumping over an LAV and pumping a shotgun in their face, this was pre-pogo514. Literally everything could stop an LAV if used with an ounce of sense. All your ideas seem to revolve around "I should just be able to shoot it" no strategy, no thinking. The disadvantage of vehicles is that they can't go everywhere that a dropsuit can, you use them to block the movement of infantry between certain open spaces... If any old dropsuit can just pew-pew any vehicle without thinking, then there's no point in using the vehicle because the dropsuit can do more. Transport dropships zig-zagged between unusable and easily exploitable, they had the same rep/harder exploits that tanks had... You could just squish people without a worry, unless half the enemy team had AV... For a while I'd just park one on annoying uplinks and leave it hardened while I got out and pew pew-ed... Free kills while AV fails to blow it up. Also, vehicles did actually take damage from sustained weapons fire... It was just negated by certain bastardized rep mods. Again, basing a balance argument on an implementation late in the game is pointless, and the jump mods had their own exploitation issue. Let me be clear: balance modifications should not be predicated upon implements that were, themselves, not amazingly balanced. Jump mods may have begat some interesting tactics, but making a vehicle into a special mechanic bossfight to win is not fun. DUST was a combined-arms tactical sci-fi warfare simulator. It was set up for warfare stylings. Jump mods did not make the LAVs balanced, suddenly. It did not correct the inherent design flaws. And bluntly in a first person shooter, "aim and fire" should almost always be a valid solution. Driving a buggy down a road should never upgrade a player from "player X" to "boss fight, special mechanics required." Feel free to re-read understanding that "pre" means before.
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.09 19:46:00 - [103] - Quote As for dropship pilots on Nova, makes me wonder how the handling of aerial vehicles will be since now joysticks are an available control to the masses on PC. I have a joystick as well due to my addiction to X-Plane 10 and the Boeing 767-300ER Flight Factor add-on. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
DUST Fiend 18440	Posted - 2016.07.09 20:08:00 - [104] - Quote 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. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.09 20:27:00 - [105] - Quote 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. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
DUST Fiend 18440	Posted - 2016.07.09 20:40:00 - [106] - Quote 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. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.09 20:45:00 - [107] - Quote Now comes the next question for vehicles especially dropships. Harrier Jump Jet stability or Quadcopter stability? Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
emm kay Direct Action Resources 427	Posted - 2016.07.09 21:33:00 - [108] - Quote Capacitors: YES. though they need to be simpler than in eve, real tim cap management + combat its going to be mental burnout. Keys: agreed. though they should be lost upon death (outside the vehicle, ofc) mods: vamp/neut: no, this is too dynamic. makes combat too obfuscated webs: Yes, though there should be seperate webs for infantry and vehicles. suggestion: flares? ADS Changes: Ew. no. unless the gun becomes a full-swivel dual-shot. :) HAV changes: so... which one controlls the mods? who makes the sandwhiches? LAV: I don't think the driver needs a gun :). AV: no neuts, webs are great! Deployable turrets are nice. I suggest a gun that also slows turret turning speed, range, and or reload. Also, we need frisbeeREs again. There is a reason you never see me in battle. it's because I see you first.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8286	Posted - 2016.07.09 23:49:00 - [109] - 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
DUST Fiend 18440	Posted - 2016.07.10 00:47:00 - [110] - Quote BREAKING THINGS I think you're right about Light Vehicles taking 30 to even 50% damage from light arms fire. HOWEVER. Oh yea. Mhm. Feel it. It feels good baby. Light Vehicles are now single operator vehicles such as FUCKIN SPEEDERS and MTACs mmm yea suck in that sweet sweet dream juice. Mm. Then, make LAVs a Medium Vehicle that's basically the same thing just a little bit bigger so you can have the back turret or two transpo seats. Medium vehicles take 10-25% light arms damage Heavy vehicles take 2-7% light arms damage, because if we're going down this rabbit hole then a large amount of concentrated light arms should theoretically punch through their defenses in time. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.10 01:32:00 - [111] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: BREAKING THINGS I think you're right about Light Vehicles taking 30 to even 50% damage from light arms fire. HOWEVER. Oh yea. Mhm. Feel it. It feels good baby. Light Vehicles are now single operator vehicles such as FUCKIN SPEEDERS and MTACs mmm yea suck in that sweet sweet dream juice. Mm. Then, make LAVs a Medium Vehicle that's basically the same thing just a little bit bigger so you can have the back turret or two transpo seats. Medium vehicles take 10-25% light arms damage Heavy vehicles take 2-7% light arms damage, because if we're going down this rabbit hole then a large amount of concentrated light arms should theoretically punch through their defenses in time. LAVs would, in my universe take 70-50% damage based on fit. MAVs (troop transports) would take about 20%. MTACs would fall here. Dropships too because they're mostly empty space. Weakpoints would take 100% from hand weapons, not the weakpoint bonus. Heavy vehicles would require anti-materiel weapons or heavy weapons. Period. 0% damage from rifles and sidearms. Bear in mind i would scale this up or down based upon vehicle role. I consider weak points viable targets for weapons scaled to hit them. Rifles doing damage to LAVs I'm cool with. But they shouldn't get a damage bonus that takes them over their normal damage as they are infantry scale weapons. Your python, with a rocket launcher? Weakspot? Yup. LAV, you be buggered. If CCP does the scaling of damage to vehicle type well? Balance becomes easier. LAVs get to be faster and shoot harder, and infantry grunts don't get to **** and moan about invulnerable vehicles. 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. The kind of balance where speed matters, falloff matters, and how you drive it is as (if not more) important as how many shield extenders and plates you slap on it. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8286	Posted - 2016.07.10 02:21:00 - [112] - 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
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 15917	Posted - 2016.07.10 02:37:00 - [113] - Quote One thing I haven't seen addressed (though maybe I missed it) is the risk/reward of vehicles. I am wondering if it is possible to reduce some of the problems if many of the vehicles can be disabled in some fashion, instead of merely blowing up every time. As if there was a continuum. Costs of repair can vary depending on damage, with utter destruction taking much more effort. While I disliked where vehicles were at the end of Dust, one point pilots did have was the price. If we are to really talk balance, and make vehicles more balanced, then they need to come at a price point that is more in line with that kind of balance. If varying degrees of damage and incantation were not feasible, then I would prefer the majority of vehicle investment be to time and skill in getting the really fun ones (HAVs, Assault Helicopters etc) would take much more time and effort, while their price points are still low enough that 2 or 3 lost vehicles won't break the bank. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.10 03:20:00 - [114] - Quote Price point has always been a sticking point with me. In DUST, half the point has always been "Disposable heroes." A vehicle that requires 10 full matches of regular play to replace is never "disposable." Keeping vehicles ungodly expensive is, IMHO missing the point of the immortal warriors who die and come back, die and come back in a vicious cycle of destruction. The vehicles need to feel powerful in their own right, but destructible the right way, and priced according to the game philosophy of "Immortal who has shed the fear of death and loss." Making vehicles cost half a million ISK a pop to fit and field always missed that core point of the game to me. Because half a million ISK is never "Disposable" when you get 120,000-210,000 ISK per match, and you still have to replace the dropsuit you lost in that glorious fire? You can't make a game where "Live, die, learn, repeat" is the entire premise of the game then make something so valuable that you fear destruction. it undermines the point of the core premise of the game in every imaginable way. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Dreis ShadowWeaver RIP DUST 514 9358	Posted - 2016.07.10 08:31:00 - [115] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Dreis ShadowWeaver wrote: I think the capacitor idea is excellent, but not being able to shoot whilst piloting would be very boring. +1 to native Mobile CRUs too Yeah, some vehicles should have those built in. Being able to fit them leads to stuff that doesn't make sense like LAVs that have unlimited spawns into the passenger seat, and fits being limited by having to use a slot for them. Also keep in mind that some people are fine with driving without shooting, same as some are fine with shooting while someone else drives. For people who don't like either, they can use Light vehicles. 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. We did it for Nigel ( ; ~;)7
Dreis ShadowWeaver RIP DUST 514 9358	Posted - 2016.07.10 08:36:00 - [116] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Price point has always been a sticking point with me. In DUST, half the point has always been "Disposable heroes." A vehicle that requires 10 full matches of regular play to replace is never "disposable." Keeping vehicles ungodly expensive is, IMHO missing the point of the immortal warriors who die and come back, die and come back in a vicious cycle of destruction. The vehicles need to feel powerful in their own right, but destructible the right way, and priced according to the game philosophy of "Immortal who has shed the fear of death and loss." Making vehicles cost half a million ISK a pop to fit and field always missed that core point of the game to me. Because half a million ISK is never "Disposable" when you get 120,000-210,000 ISK per match, and you still have to replace the dropsuit you lost in that glorious fire? You can't make a game where "Live, die, learn, repeat" is the entire premise of the game then make something so valuable that you fear destruction. it undermines the point of the core premise of the game in every imaginable way. By that logic, we should get rid of all ISK so we can reinforce that 'live, die, learn, repeat' thing. Personally, ISK was my favourite part of the game. I loved how for immortal mercenaries, money was the only thing that mattered. I like the idea of desperately wanting to protect something because it costs a load of money and it'll take you a long time to replace. It's like saying Titans are against the philosophy of EVE. We did it for Nigel ( ; ~;)7
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13079	Posted - 2016.07.10 09:25:00 - [117] - Quote Dreis ShadowWeaver wrote: By that logic, we should get rid of all ISK so we can reinforce that 'live, die, learn, repeat' thing. Personally, ISK was my favourite part of the game. I loved how for immortal mercenaries, money was the only thing that mattered. I like the idea of desperately wanting to protect something because it costs a load of money and it'll take you a long time to replace. It's like saying Titans are against the philosophy of EVE. That's as far as I can go in my speculative stuff without actually delving into things I don't remember if I have been cleared to say under NDA. I apologize, but I can't carry this speculative angle any further at this time. Price point in DUST has been my sticking point for a reason. For Nova, there are things. I unfortunately cannot go into the ideas of how resources may or may not play out at this time, so I will not. I can talk about DUST, and what I perceived to be it's issues on pricing, but not for Nova. Partly, again, because of NDA, but also because anything I may or may not know can change without notice and be the cause of me shtting up the forums with expectations that may not be valid five minutes from now. I will say yes, ISK mattered, SHOULD matter, and hopefully will in the future. In DUST, the ISK factor was disproportionate to the scale of the game compared to EVE, and risk/reward curve was skewed a little too hard to Risk without much incentive reward overall. PC could have been the reward, Faction warfare could have been a reward area. Unfortunately both were plagued by their own quirks, problems and foibles, so it was either inaccessible or undesirable to most players to become involved. For example, when Goonfeet held districts, sure, we profited, we held the districts, and we did well. But the framerate issues from the get-go hurt, coordination and dropped match glitches, no-shows and the need to show up every day like it was a nine-to-five job every day for the three districts we held stopped being fun. It wasn't a game anymore, it was a chore, and not a particularly useful or interesting chore. So we put up a token defense and let the districts flip, as our way of removing ourselves from the game mode we found less than entertaining. Sure, the ISK was there, but the gameplay by and large was not fun. I had a blast on the few FC runs I did, getting everyone moving and defending (or assaulting) districts. But SSDD (Same Sht, Different Day) means the fun wore thin entirely too fast. DUST had a remarkable knack for providing ISK sinks, but did not inherently have many means of profiting without deliberately utilizing Basic and militia suits, whether BPO or 3k ISK fits that you could lose by the dozen and still profit. Even at the advanced level (with an appropriate fit) you could only afford to lose a small handful of mid-grade suits before you dropped into the red. With vehicles, the problem was exacerbated to the extreme. I always figured if vehicles were made cheaper, they could be more destructible, and instead of the risk-averse pussyfooting most pilots utilized, we might have seen a more aggressive, balls-to-the-wall aggressive playstyle that the game should have encouraged from the get-go. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8286	Posted - 2016.07.10 14:13:00 - [118] - 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
Scheneighnay McBob Penumbra or something 7884	Posted - 2016.07.10 15:35:00 - [119] - Quote ARMA requires 2 people for for most vehicles to be useful, for the record. Current state of the forums
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13080	Posted - 2016.07.10 15:38:00 - [120] - Quote 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 Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.



Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.