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.

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

I get that this is a pointless crusade, but I'm bored and feel like rambling about my personal love when it comes to DUST: DA WHIRLY GIGS

I get that current realities dictate the slow and steady approach, but if nothing else I would like to try to keep discussion going in favor of vehicles. Some want a more casual shooter experience that sees this layer of combat removed entirely, though I feel it ultimately brings nothing but good to the game and franchise if handled more seriously. Obviously we've been at this for a long time, but we were dealing with outdated assets and essentially (to my knowledge) foreign legacy code. Unless you're building Nova with the direct intent to port to PS4, then there is theoretically more leeway for player count and map size, but that's all theoretical.

Anyways.

All Vehicles: Capacitors

To be perfectly honest it's been so long since I've played EVE that I likely don't have a full grasp on how they work anymore. What I imagine is that active modules all use a certain amount of capacitor per second, and the vehicles capacitor dictates how much pool it has, how fast it regens, etc etc. This could apply to things like primary turrets being fired as well, not just modules.

Vehicle Lock: Lock any vehicle you call to squad only option and lock pilot position from all option

New Modules: Energy Vamps, Neutralizers, and Webifiers. Similar to their EVE counterparts, used to attack the capacitor of enemy vehicles and to slow them down / stop them entirely.

Assault Dropships: Automatically comes with a free MCRU and 6 passenger seats (counting 2 turrets. If a turret isn't fit, that space becomes a passenger space). Pilot no long has control of front gun. New second co pilot seat added. This gives direct control of the front gun to the co pilot, who can also cycle to either side gun at will. If another player is using a side gun, the co pilot will be given priority and that persons screen will revert to that of a passenger for the duration.

Heavy Assault Vehicles: Separate the main gun from the hull. The pilot can switch to it at will but the vehicle will come to a stop while aiming unless another is present to pilot.

Light Assault Vehicles: If a back turret isn't fit, the bed becomes a passenger slot. All passengers can fire light weapons and sidearms from within the vehicle. LAVs also have about 25% more armor / shields.

Infantry AV Options: Deployable turret installations. Energy neutralizers and webifiers, as well as webifier grenades / remote explosives. Sidearm AV options such as a single shot swarm launcher or 3 clip gun that shoots rounds that damage slightly but disrupt all capacitor regen for X seconds while slowing the vehicle cumulatively for each shot.

I get that this is a pointless crusade, but I'm bored and feel like rambling about my personal love when it comes to DUST: DA WHIRLY GIGS

I get that current realities dictate the slow and steady approach, but if nothing else I would like to try to keep discussion going in favor of vehicles. Some want a more casual shooter experience that sees this layer of combat removed entirely, though I feel it ultimately brings nothing but good to the game and franchise if handled more seriously. Obviously we've been at this for a long time, but we were dealing with outdated assets and essentially (to my knowledge) foreign legacy code. Unless you're building Nova with the direct intent to port to PS4, then there is theoretically more leeway for player count and map size, but that's all theoretical.

Anyways.

All Vehicles: Capacitors

To be perfectly honest it's been so long since I've played EVE that I likely don't have a full grasp on how they work anymore. What I imagine is that active modules all use a certain amount of capacitor per second, and the vehicles capacitor dictates how much pool it has, how fast it regens, etc etc. This could apply to things like primary turrets being fired as well, not just modules.

Vehicle Lock: Lock any vehicle you call to squad only option and lock pilot position from all option

New Modules: Energy Vamps, Neutralizers, and Webifiers. Similar to their EVE counterparts, used to attack the capacitor of enemy vehicles and to slow them down / stop them entirely.

Assault Dropships: Automatically comes with a free MCRU and 6 passenger seats (counting 2 turrets. If a turret isn't fit, that space becomes a passenger space). Pilot no long has control of front gun. New second co pilot seat added. This gives direct control of the front gun to the co pilot, who can also cycle to either side gun at will. If another player is using a side gun, the co pilot will be given priority and that persons screen will revert to that of a passenger for the duration.

Heavy Assault Vehicles: Separate the main gun from the hull. The pilot can switch to it at will but the vehicle will come to a stop while aiming unless another is present to pilot.

Light Assault Vehicles: If a back turret isn't fit, the bed becomes a passenger slot. All passengers can fire light weapons and sidearms from within the vehicle. LAVs also have about 25% more armor / shields.

Infantry AV Options: Deployable turret installations. Energy neutralizers and webifiers, as well as webifier grenades / remote explosives. Sidearm AV options such as a single shot swarm launcher or 3 clip gun that shoots rounds that damage slightly but disrupt all capacitor regen for X seconds while slowing the vehicle cumulatively for each shot.

ADS battles better than EVE

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

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.

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.

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

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 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.

- 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.)

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).

FOX GADEN

I don't mean to be ignoring your feedback, it's just you always post such good **** and I want to give it the proper energy to respond to but the past few days I just haven't had it in me. Some days I'm really into this topic and others it bums me out since at best its years away, but still. Same goes to anyone else I've "ignored", I read everything and I'm glad to see some of you still posting good **** like always o7

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.

Vehicle destruction I don't think should be an automatic explosion. Once it hits zero HP or whatever they're calling it, the thing should grind to a halt and start to burn, becoming a wreck until the reactor/gas tank/whatever goes critical, which shouldn't necessarily happen on a five-second timer automatically. You can get out of a disabled vehicle, bail out, whatever. The exception should be catastrophic damage. If you're about dead anyway, and someone lunks a forge/rail/bigass salmon through your tank that does damage over a threshold point should cause a catastrophic kill. If you put another shot into a wreck, you can cause it to explode while the crew is trying to escape, or the fatty is trying to un-squeeze himself from the seat. Dropships and theorized fighter craft can explode when they hit the ground, on impact.

People claimed the ADS was fair despite getting a beefy kdr a lot of the time, probably had something to do with the level of intelligence of your average blueberry... A lot of us ADS pilots used AV as well and were very capable of blowing each other to pieces.
Take note, even after the changes to buggy swarms, we still managed to get beefy kdr's in matches where people were too stupid to shoot back from a safe place... A nice bit of hypocrisy where pilots were being told to have to run away and hide to pick our moments and use more skill, while AV was given a nice pat on the back for standing still out in the open.

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!

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?

Light Vehicles have light shields as well as light armor. Which is to say, heavier than you can fit on a Dropsuit, even a Heavy Dropsuit, but much lighter than on the heavy vehicles.

Also, I am fairly sure no one said "insta pop" when saying that small arms should be able to do damage to LAV's.

We are not saying that small arms should be an efficient way to kill LAV's. We are saying that if a solder finds cover that prevents him from being run over, he should be able to do enough damage to a LAV to make it go away, or disable it if it stays too long. Or that four or five solders firing at a LAV charging at them should be able to disable it, at least on its second pass.

The idea is to make the infantry feel like they can defend themselves against LAV's, while insuring that the LAV drivers don't feel like they are driving death traps. (Reference structure HP, and disabling in my earlier post.)

I'd like for vehicles to be included in the new game. Being a Calmando made me feel like a bad ass taking down infantry and vehicles in one suit.

2) PlanetarybConquest kind of looses its luster if we don't have open maps with ADS support. Good pilots made a match or could break you. This was sometimes way more important to gameplay than great Assault and scouts due to the need to establish Overwatch on a point and setting good uplinks.

3) Tanks offered a way to force enemies to redirect their resources to AV instead of just shooting people to take a point.

Bottom line, if we don't get vehicles in the new game all we will have to do to take a district is field the best Mercs from the corp or pay the best to fight for you. The game will crash and burn faster than Dust did.

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.

Well I was going off of 30-40% base damage on small arms, which considering their range and accuracy, would melt a typical LAV before it could even leave the one infantrymans range. Nevermind the fact that every last player on the field now has efficient AV 100% of the time, so even if it only moderately damaged it, passing even a single infantryman at any point almost guarantees your death.

That's my gripe, and why I suggest something closer to 10-20% small arms damage instead. Still allows non AV to support AV / defend themselves, but doesn't turn the entire map into one giant AV nest.

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.