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)
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13088	Posted - 2016.07.13 03:30:00 - [151] - 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. I think that DUST requiring Heavy Anti-vehicle options to kill the most basic vehicles set the bar of expectation the wrong way. It's literally the only game ever in FPS where riddling a jeep with bullets was not a viable option. Not necessarily a GREAT option, but still viable. Just because the Devs wanted it to be different didn't make that design decision a good one. It eliminated the need to be intelligent when operating light vehicles. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
DUST Fiend 18454	Posted - 2016.07.13 03:39:00 - [152] - Quote Dude, LAVS explode to EVERYTHING already, they're fragile as ****. I'm saying people SHOULD be able to hurt them with their AR, a little. I also suggest sidearm AV and personal deployable turrets on top of that. If you couldn't throw ONE damn AV grenade to clear the LAV out in the open, then....man...I don't even know.. Plus this topic really is for people who can't aim, since decent players often shot drivers out of their seat, followed quickly after by the occupants, and then they got a free ride. Really, why are we balancing the game for bads now? Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1479	Posted - 2016.07.13 04:03:00 - [153] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I think that DUST requiring Heavy Anti-vehicle options to kill the most basic vehicles set the bar of expectation the wrong way. Swarm launcher, plasma cannon, grenades, remote explosives and proximity mines are all not heavy AV, all of which easily downed an LAV, not to mention being very effective against other vehicles. Breakin Stuff wrote: It's literally the only game ever in FPS where riddling a jeep with bullets was not a viable option. Not necessarily a GREAT option, but still viable. It literally isn't, many FPS have vehicles that are completely immortal to weapons fire, most of which allow you to shoot out the driver/gunner... Some even force you to disable the vehicle as the only way to get them out. Being able to shoot out the driver with any weapon in the game was a viable option, it seems like a bad design decision to allow bullets aimed at the license plate to deal enough damage to disable the whole vehicle, even if it wasn't a super high tech, futuristic vehicle. Breakin Stuff wrote: It eliminated the need to be intelligent when operating light vehicles. The balance was fine with LAVs. Clever infantry would not allow themselves to get run over, they would set traps and/or aim at the driver/gunner. The only time one or the other had an advantage was when one side was more stupid than the other, aka infantry standing in the middle of the road, or an LAV driver that constantly crashes into a wall depleting their shields. Once again I'll repeat, LAV's (not just the driver) took damage from all weapons... Meanwhile everyone agreed constant armour reps were wrong and needed removing/replacing.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13088	Posted - 2016.07.13 06:38:00 - [154] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Living up to your name Quit cherry-picking things and then taking the quote out of context to prove your point. Your arguments have been absolutely one-sided, and you're bluntly not doing anything but coming up with arguments that have little to nothing to do with my comments. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13088	Posted - 2016.07.13 06:40:00 - [155] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Really, why are we balancing the game for bads now? Why do you want to balance the game like literally everything needs to be high-difficulty? Game needs content for all skill levels, not just the "Skilled elite." You balance the game for average and above average players, then let the people sink or shine in that environment. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Thaddeus Reynolds Dead Man's Game Preatoriani 757	Posted - 2016.07.13 07:13:00 - [156] - Quote I don't necessarily think that we would need to make HAVs require main gunners (or the ADS...but I hope that compromise knock-off catch-up variation dies in a fire and we get a proper air-borne strafer), in fact, baring a major increase in player count, I see that as a fairly major detriment to overall game-play (not leastways because one person is assuming the risk...) Problems with HAV balance had little to do with the fact that one player was operating a Heavy Vehicle, but more to do with the overall implementation of the Heavy Vehicles. The detriment I see to your team is that instead of being down 1 rifleman/objective taker for what should be a pretty dedicated AV/Siege Platform...you instead are now down 2 riflemen/objective takers, a full 1/8th of a 16 man team, which is no small numer. Ok...said my peace on that As for LAVs...breaking stuff is right, requiring full-on dedicated AV to take out a very light vehicle didn't need to be a thing. Mind you saying that LAVs should take damage from small arms fire does not preclude the possibility of the LAV fitting more "HP" or getting something resembling a good assortment of modules and fitting choices for them. Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. #PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1479	Posted - 2016.07.13 09:20:00 - [157] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: Living up to your name Quit cherry-picking things and then taking the quote out of context to prove your point. Your arguments have been absolutely one-sided, and you're bluntly not doing anything but coming up with arguments that have little to nothing to do with my comments. They were separate paragraphs... Not exactly cherry picking. Perhaps you might re-read my comments, because this is twice now you've lacked understanding. Your first one revolving heavily around jump mods, due to what can only have been a lack of reading comprehension.
DUST Fiend 18455	Posted - 2016.07.13 10:32:00 - [158] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Really, why are we balancing the game for bads now? Why do you want to balance the game like literally everything needs to be high-difficulty? Game needs content for all skill levels, not just the "Skilled elite." You balance the game for average and above average players, then let the people sink or shine in that environment. It's a god damn LAV.... Seriously, right ******* now, how many of you felt you had to be "skilled elite" do down one? It's a light vehicle that's ALREADY easy to kill, I'm offering suggestions to let every single player regardless of fit to do some damage to it, give more AV options through sidearm AV and additional grenade slots for some, webifier grenades, and personal deployable turrets, yet somehow the LAV is still just too damn strong. You can fart at a god damn LAV and kill it as is, what more do you want? Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7810	Posted - 2016.07.13 12:22:00 - [159] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Yeah, something like an LAV should be vulnerable to small arms. I'm not saying the damage needs to be 1:1 with suits - which would make it nearly impossible to survive - but the native resistance needs to be as low as possible while still allowing the vehicle some measure of survivability. Honestly though, why would vehicle powered shields not be able to take most if not all of the bite away from small arms fire? If there is sidearm AV and personal deployable turrets, why would you need to be able to insta pop a jeep with your AR? Why can't you use an HMG that already tears them apart, or a single AV grenade, or a free LAV, or an RE, or a turret, or just don't stand out in the open? Why can't people aim at the exposed occupants? Why exactly does a high tech vehicle have to explode to periodic pistol fire? 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.) 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. If they explode too quickly to light arms fire, then give them more health. We don't want LAV's to be one shotted by a Swarm Launcher anyway. Maybe light weapon effectiveness against armor should be: 40% against Light Armor. 25% against Medium Armor. 5% against Heavy Armor Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7810	Posted - 2016.07.13 13:13:00 - [160] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: 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. - The MCC should be the Mobile Command Center that the attacking force stages from in Planetary Conquest. - The Defensive force in Planetary Conquest will have a Command Center in the district. - When fighting over an uncontested district, or if Command Center infrastructure has not been built in a district, both sides will stage our of an MCC. - The MCC vs MCC and MCC vs Command Center can both be used for public match and Faction Warfare modes as well. In Planetary Conquest I would like to see the MCC pilot skill added and the ability for one person to control the MCC in a logistical and strategic role. But setting that up would be a fair amount of work over and above all the work of setting up vehicles, so I would expect MCC piloting to come in a later expansion (after vehicles.) The MCC in its DUST like configuration would have a roll though, as soon as planet surface maps are added. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.

Nomed Deeps The Exemplars 510	Posted - 2016.07.13 13:15:00 - [161] - Quote 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. I cannot be bought, but I can be leased.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7810	Posted - 2016.07.13 13:59:00 - [162] - 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. You correlating infantry weapons being able to do damage to LAV's to " EVERY weapon deals distinct damage to vehicles" is either deliberately or accidentally obtuse. In real life you can stop a jeep, or even a MAC truck with an AK47, but you can't stop a Tank with an AK47. It makes sense that Medium and Heavy armor would be more resistant to small arms fire than Light armor. It does not mean that someone should be able to solo a LAV with an Assault Rifle without having to reload a few times. And if you can't get your LAV out of there while that guy unloads 3 magazines, then you are either stuck, or otherwise impaired. We are also not talking about light weapons having any significant effect against Tanks. Dropships are Medium Armored, so light weapons would have some effect, but much less than against a LAV. Fighters would be Light Armor like a LAV, but would not stay still long enough for light weapon fire to be a problem. (In the Vietnam War a farmer shot a low flying Fighter Jet down with a hunting riffle. A lucky shot, but still.) Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7810	Posted - 2016.07.13 14:13:00 - [163] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: it seems like a bad design decision to allow bullets aimed at the license plate to deal enough damage to disable the whole vehicle, even if it wasn't a super high tech, futuristic vehicle. I would be fine with the % damage by light weapons only being higher for a vehicle's weak spots. Say light weapons apply 10% damage to LAV's in general, but 50% damage against LAV's when hitting the engine. (LAV's took higher damage in DUST when you hit the engine, so the mechanic for that spot being more vulnerable is already there.) It makes sense. Shooting anywhere but the engine or the tires is going to put holes in a LAV but it is not going to stop it. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7810	Posted - 2016.07.13 14:35:00 - [164] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: The balance was fine with LAVs. Clever infantry would not allow themselves to get run over, they would set traps and/or aim at the driver/gunner. The only time one or the other had an advantage was when one side was more stupid than the other, aka infantry standing in the middle of the road, or an LAV driver that constantly crashes into a wall depleting their shields. Once again I'll repeat, LAV's (not just the driver) took damage from all weapons... Meanwhile everyone agreed constant armour reps were wrong and needed removing/replacing. The balance of LAV's was not bad, but Breakin Stuff's point is that the way that was achieved negatively effected the balance of other vehicles. He is suggesting the LAV should be about where it was, but the mechanics used to get it to that balance should be adjusted to fit into the bigger picture better. To your second point here, when they lowered LAV health in DUST to the point where they could be taken out by combined small arms fire, their health was so low that they could be one shotted by a Swarm Launcher, which made them death traps and no one wanted to use them (which is why they were given more health again). By adjusting resistances to small arms fire we can make LAV's killable by concentrated small arms fire, without making them more vulnerable to AV. Adding the hidden Structure health like Clones have also means that LAV's taken out by small arms fire will not automatically blow up, so a disabled LAV would not mean everyone in it dies. That keeps them from being death traps. While at the same time, AV would do enough damage to take out the structure too, so dedicated AV players can get those multi clone kills. Just to be clear, when I say Light Weapons, or Small Arms, I am excluding AV weapons. For the purpose of the vehicle discussion, AV weapons are a distinct category regardless of their size. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7810	Posted - 2016.07.13 14:48:00 - [165] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: It's a god damn LAV.... Seriously, right ******* now, how many of you felt you had to be "skilled elite" to down one? It's a light vehicle that's ALREADY easy to kill, I'm offering suggestions to let every single player regardless of fit to do some damage to it, give more AV options through sidearm AV and additional grenade slots for some, webifier grenades, and personal deployable turrets, yet somehow the LAV is still just too damn strong. You can fart at a god damn LAV and kill it as is, what more do you want? Perhaps those specialized AV options would be useful for dealing with Tanks? Adding new AV options to deal with LAV's is like cutting two of your chair legs shorter because your floor is not level. It seems a little odd to require specialized AV weapons to take out a jeep. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1480	Posted - 2016.07.13 14:51:00 - [166] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: it seems like a bad design decision to allow bullets aimed at the license plate to deal enough damage to disable the whole vehicle, even if it wasn't a super high tech, futuristic vehicle. I would be fine with the % damage by light weapons only being higher for a vehicle's weak spots. Say light weapons apply 10% damage to LAV's in general, but 50% damage against LAV's when hitting the engine. (LAV's took higher damage in DUST when you hit the engine, so the mechanic for that spot being more vulnerable is already there.) It makes sense. Shooting anywhere but the engine or the tires is going to put holes in a LAV but it is not going to stop it. I'd suggest 0 damage to anything that isn't considered a weakpoint, take into account the size of vehicles compared to dropsuits, it would take a full on moron to miss a target that size... And stupidity should yield no reward (in my opinion.) People unable to aim their light weapons can always pick up AV. I also wouldn't jump to conclusions on exact numbers, since hopefully constant reps will never be reintroduced and all weapon damages will likely be different... Suffice to say heavily reduced would be fine. If tanks took damage from light weapons, but only to the weakpoint at the back of the vehicle and heavily reduced, it could add a nice bit of strategy to positioning the tank and therefore also to disabling it. However I would also suggest smaller weakpoints, there's no point in using an LAV if 3 people wildly spraying it render it useless, meanwhile 3 people focusing fire on one point would be a cause for concern. Although I'm not sure how infantry would take this idea, since the majority don't think shooting the driver out was a valid way to disable Dust LAVs. Take into account the Gal dropships had weakpoints half the size of the vehicle, perhaps just the exhaust gaps in the bottom of the 2 engines would suffice as weakpoints. Fox Gaden wrote: In Planetary Conquest I would like to see the MCC pilot skill added and the ability for one person to control the MCC in a logistical and strategic role. But setting that up would be a fair amount of work over and above all the work of setting up vehicles, so I would expect MCC piloting to come in a later expansion (after vehicles.) The MCC in its DUST like configuration would have a roll though, as soon as planet surface maps are added. I don't see the MCC as being something that needs a pilot, more just something the squad leader can order to move around at a set height, allowing to push closer to some objectives when disabling anti-MCC weaponry in the area.
Scheneighnay McBob Penumbra or something 7887	Posted - 2016.07.13 15:02:00 - [167] - 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
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1481	Posted - 2016.07.13 15:03:00 - [168] - Quote 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.
Thaddeus Reynolds Dead Man's Game Preatoriani 757	Posted - 2016.07.13 17:16:00 - [169] - Quote 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. Well...other than the Mattari Combat Rifle, the weapons used in DUST are also future weapons with their own unique problems...the Scrambler Rifle fire an electrolaser that generates enough heat to damage someone in a suit that could survive re-entry, the Plasma Rifle (Assault Rifle) burns exposed flesh near it, and the Rail Rifle is a High Velocity Railgun capable of piercing heavy armor... It's a fictional universe wherein the small arms we are using could have a reasonable expectation of being able to threaten light vehicles. the argument you're using cuts both ways. Breakin Stuff's Escelation of Force reasoning makes sense from a gameplay perspective...especially if the LAV is made so that it isn't trivial to take out even with AV weaponry Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. #PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1481	Posted - 2016.07.13 17:43:00 - [170] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff's Escelation of Force reasoning makes sense from a gameplay perspective...especially if the LAV is made so that it isn't trivial to take out even with AV weaponry I highly doubt he wants to buff its defence against AV, since mixed with a low damage from rifles, that would in itself push people to need to shoot the gunner and driver if standing in the open, which was already the most viable tactic anyway. Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: the argument you're using cuts both ways. True, although it does stand to reason that a dropsuit would need to be somewhat flexible, unlike a vehicle, which could cause some additional weakness in its design.

Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7810	Posted - 2016.07.13 18:02:00 - [171] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: I'd suggest 0 damage to anything that isn't considered a weakpoint, take into account the size of vehicles compared to dropsuits, it would take a full on moron to miss a target that size... And stupidity should yield no reward (in my opinion.) People unable to aim their light weapons can always pick up AV. I also wouldn't jump to conclusions on exact numbers, since hopefully constant reps will never be reintroduced and all weapon damages will likely be different... Suffice to say heavily reduced would be fine. If tanks took damage from light weapons, but only to the weakpoint at the back of the vehicle and heavily reduced, it could add a nice bit of strategy to positioning the tank and therefore also to disabling it. However I would also suggest smaller weakpoints, there's no point in using an LAV if 3 people wildly spraying it render it useless, meanwhile 3 people focusing fire on one point would be a cause for concern. Although I'm not sure how infantry would take this idea, since the majority don't think shooting the driver out was a valid way to disable Dust LAVs. Take into account the Gal dropships had weakpoints half the size of the vehicle, perhaps just the exhaust gaps in the bottom of the 2 engines would suffice as weakpoints. First, I would not want to deprive Snipers of that one in a million Tank kill by reducing light weapon damage to 0% for the rest of the vehicle. 2% or 3% is functionally close to zero. A light weapon round would at least scuff the pain and leave a bit of a dent. Maybe sever that last piece of mettle that is holding the left drive unit to the rest of the heavily damaged tank. Secondly, I thin the size of the weak points on the LAV and Tank are fine. On the LAV, if you can aim it will be a lot faster to kill the driver. While we are arguing that you should be able to take out a LAV by shooting it in the engine, we are also saying it should take a while, as in a lot longer than it would take to kill the driver. Therefore it is reasonable for the weak spot on the LAV to be bigger than the driver's head. On a Tank, the resists will be higher against light weapons, even in the weak spot, so you are not going to take out a Tank solely with light weapons unless you have all 16 team members firing at it. And the weak spot needs to be big enough to be able to hit it with a Rail turret from 300m away, because that is part of Tank vs Tack strategic game play. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7810	Posted - 2016.07.13 18:17:00 - [172] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: In Planetary Conquest I would like to see the MCC pilot skill added and the ability for one person to control the MCC in a logistical and strategic role. But setting that up would be a fair amount of work over and above all the work of setting up vehicles, so I would expect MCC piloting to come in a later expansion (after vehicles.) The MCC in its DUST like configuration would have a roll though, as soon as planet surface maps are added. I don't see the MCC as being something that needs a pilot, more just something the squad leader can order to move around at a set height, allowing to push closer to some objectives when disabling anti-MCC weaponry in the area. I can't say you are wrong... A lot of people would like a more tactical role. Someone who can monitor the whole battle from a map interface, to coordinate troop movements, and to drop orbital strikes when and where they are needed most. They envision this person being able to take part in the battle in other strategic ways as well, such as calling in infrastructure such as CRU's, Turrets, Supply Depots, etc. Maybe being able to call in some drones and direct their movements. The thought being that this person would be in the command center. And if it is a Mobile Command Center, then why not make this position the pilot? However, now that I think about it, and think about there being Command Center bunkers as well, maybe this role should be called Field Commander or Combat Operator. Part of this comes out of people constantly getting shot while looking at their map interface, or missing the perfect Orbital Strike because they could not find a safe place to open their interface. Part of it comes from old geezers like me who are better at tactics than twitch muscle aiming. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7810	Posted - 2016.07.13 18:25:00 - [173] - Quote 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. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Scheneighnay McBob Penumbra or something 7888	Posted - 2016.07.13 21:52:00 - [174] - 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
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13089	Posted - 2016.07.13 21:59:00 - [175] - Quote 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. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 15918	Posted - 2016.07.13 22:00:00 - [176] - Quote Plus maybe do away with the outdated mechanic of switching between positions instantly. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
Scheneighnay McBob Penumbra or something 7888	Posted - 2016.07.13 22:06:00 - [177] - 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
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 13591	Posted - 2016.07.13 22:30:00 - [178] - 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. Umm... there are snipers in Project Nova. It's called the Minmatar Precision Rifle and it's got an adjustable scope. I just don't see any redlines. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Scheneighnay McBob Penumbra or something 7888	Posted - 2016.07.13 22:59:00 - [179] - 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
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13089	Posted - 2016.07.14 01:17:00 - [180] - Quote 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. 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.