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)
DUST Fiend 18426	Posted - 2016.07.07 12:33:00 - [1] - Quote 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 Obviously we've been at this for a long time, but we were dealing with outdated assets and essentially (to my knowledge) foreign legacy code.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. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
FraggerMike G.R.A.V.E 398	Posted - 2016.07.07 13:27:00 - [2] - Quote You've got some great ideas forming up there, greatly increases the Eve factor of gameplay. However, a few thoughts come to mind: ADS -- don't think those who fly them well will like the idea of not being able to shoot - makes them more of a Chauffeur. HAV -- kinda the same as the ADS idea. I probably wouldn't even want to drive one if I couldn't run and gun at same time. LAV -- Passengers able to fire their own weapons - shouldn't be limited to light/side arms. If you can carry a weapon, including heavy weapons, and sit in a LAV at the same time, then you should be able fire those as well. Imagine if you will -- mobile Swarms and Forge Guns :D CEO of G.R.A.V.E
Ripley Riley Incorruptibles 14072	Posted - 2016.07.07 13:29:00 - [3] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Similar to their EVE counterparts I'm going to say this, and it might make someone a bit pissy but Imma say it anyway: I am concerned about how Rattati would interpret "Do [insert thing], you know, like they have in EVE". CCP Rattati doesn't like EVE and admits to having only played it for a few minutes. Not a perfect example, but humor me: We asked for some verticality and he gave us moonjumping myofibs. If you can't lay out specific numbers for Rattati I'm afraid whatever gets implemented will be a far cry from what you are asking for, is all I'm saying. DUST Fiend wrote: 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. I approve of this so hard. My advice to you, playa.
DUST Fiend 18428	Posted - 2016.07.07 14:13:00 - [4] - Quote FraggerMike wrote: ADS -- don't think those who fly them well will like the idea of not being able to shoot - makes them more of a Chauffeur. HAV -- kinda the same as the ADS idea. I probably wouldn't even want to drive one if I couldn't run and gun at same time. :D As a basically full time ADS pilot I would personally enjoy a more support oriented role, but that's just me. Really though this is kind of the point. People who want to be racking up kills by themselves should be running infantry. Vehicles should require coordination to operate since they should also require coordination to destroy. Having less slayers and more support players in vehicle roles will probably never be a bad thing. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
byte modal 881	Posted - 2016.07.07 14:21:00 - [5] - Quote My only honest experience with HAVs was getting blown up as soon as I entered them, so my perspective isn't biased as much as it is probably just ignorance. With that said, I have always been fascinated by the idea of crew-run vehicles. Teamwork is teamwork is teamwork, and I always found it weird that a LAV had a driver and an independent gunner. Clearly the concept was there, so why it never translated to HAV was odd to me. I love the idea of cooperative modes where a gunnery can provide visual intel to the driver, and the driver can position the vehicle to aid in range targeting. Or whatever. What could be cooler than a DUST (er, NOVA) equivalent of Maverick and Goose? To the post, I love the idea of recycling modules from EVE such as capacitor, and some sort of capacitor neutralizers and webifiers (though I imagine the name and concept would be different). Not sure about the co-pilot bumping whoever is sitting on a side gun just because. That seems arbitrary and possibly very confusing from the perspective of the passenger. Leave the gun seat as last to be filled, but if it does get filled then that's that. IMHO. I also love the idea of firing from a LAV as a passenger---with a limited field of view, of course. If I'm passenger-side, I'm not going to be shooting behind us. Same for whoever is sitting in the bed, relative to their perspective. @Ripley: I did not know that. That does concern me too. I would never expect a 1:1 of NOVA:EvE, but being a sister game in the same universe I would assume some core philosophies would be (need to be?) transcribed. Of course I assumed that also with DUST and we still got active SP gains, so meh. Fingers crossed. As Fiend noted, all we can really do is post pointless crusades as we get bored and hope for the best. kitten bacon taco (nom)
FraggerMike G.R.A.V.E 399	Posted - 2016.07.07 14:21:00 - [6] - Quote ^^ I get your point in that, and it does make sense, given the real-world factor in both types of vehicles, but do you really think there would be a sufficient amount of players who would prefer only a support role? CEO of G.R.A.V.E
byte modal 881	Posted - 2016.07.07 14:22:00 - [7] - Quote ^ doncha just hate combo-breaker posts? kitten bacon taco (nom)
FraggerMike G.R.A.V.E 399	Posted - 2016.07.07 14:23:00 - [8] - Quote byte modal wrote: ^ doncha hate combobreaker posts? YES CEO of G.R.A.V.E
DUST Fiend 18429	Posted - 2016.07.07 14:27:00 - [9] - Quote FraggerMike wrote: ^^ I get your point in that, and it does make sense, given the real-world factor in both types of vehicles, but do you really think there would be a sufficient amount of players who would prefer only a support role? I counter that with what would be wrong with all those players just running infantry roles instead? If a match has players who want to run support roles, or perhaps game types that specifically call for vehicles (think destroying fortifications to move forward, or large maps that require transportation), then vehicles will appear. If no one wants to do it / they aren't needed, then it will just be more frantic ground combat. So long as the WP was better and there were more fitting options, juggling capacitor and re-positioning for my gunners would be plenty for me, personally. Also, slayer focused players would be natural fits for main turret operators. I just feel like vehicles shouldn't be throw away power ups, but if that's the case, they 100% need to not be solo machines. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
byte modal 881	Posted - 2016.07.07 14:28:00 - [10] - Quote FraggerMike wrote: ^^ I get your point in that, and it does make sense, given the real-world factor in both types of vehicles, but do you really think there would be a sufficient amount of players who would prefer only a support role? I would rather specialize in supporting a pilot or be a supported pilot, TBH. I'm no measure of the community, but considering it will kill two birds with one stone I'm game even more so. Those birds being: 1) the conceptual practicality of separating the roles, and 2) the constant forum back-and-forth between vehicle and AV roles where it requires teamwork on the infantry side to efficiently remove a solo pilot of various vehicles. Balance. Or at least an honest step in that direction. That's another topic for another post, but the point stands. kitten bacon taco (nom)

byte modal 885	Posted - 2016.07.07 14:34:00 - [11] - Quote Yeah, good point. If additional modules are being added, then that's even more reasons to specialize in strictly piloting a vehicle rather than both. Driving and handling mods in real time is probably enough. Same for a gunner specialist. I would imagine there should be mods for that role as well? Driver becomes a better driver. Gunner becomes a better gunner. AV won't complain nearly as much (maybe!) having to use teamwork to kill them. For me, that increases the hunt/satisfaction of a kill even more from both vehicle and AV perspectives. That's just me of course. kitten bacon taco (nom)
FraggerMike G.R.A.V.E 400	Posted - 2016.07.07 14:35:00 - [12] - Quote Interesting points of view. Like this. Keep this one alive, maybe it'll draw enough attention to warrant a DEV thought? And perhaps more input on both sides of this coin. CEO of G.R.A.V.E
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8275	Posted - 2016.07.07 16:02:00 - [13] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: FraggerMike wrote: ADS -- don't think those who fly them well will like the idea of not being able to shoot - makes them more of a Chauffeur. HAV -- kinda the same as the ADS idea. I probably wouldn't even want to drive one if I couldn't run and gun at same time. :D As a basically full time ADS pilot I would personally enjoy a more support oriented role, but that's just me. Really though this is kind of the point. People who want to be racking up kills by themselves should be running infantry. Vehicles should require coordination to operate since they should also require coordination to destroy. Having less slayers and more support players in vehicle roles will probably never be a bad thing. See, what I would love is to actually emulate Battlefield in one regard: 1. A Little Bird style light transport VTOL that holds 4 passengers and has a fixed front gun. That way you have to aim the aircraft body to aim the gun, and you engage targets by doing passes over them. 2. A dedicated Gunship with a separate pilot and gunner seat. The gunner gets a fully mobile turret under the nose, and the pilot could have some unguided rockets locked to the aircraft body like the gun on the "Little Bird" style VTOL. I never really liked how Dust tried to combine both of those into one aircraft that honestly failed at both. As far as your idea on manning vehicles, that's part of why I'd like to see them re-designed towards being assets expensive enough that Corporations do the buying rather than individuals, so that individuals don't have to bear the brunt of the cost while also having to only use 50% of their purchase's potential unless they find someone else to use it with them. Players join Corporations to have fun with like-minded others, so finding a "buddy" in your Corporation to run vehicles with would seem like a natural extension. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7791	Posted - 2016.07.07 16:04:00 - [14] - Quote Overall I really like your ideas DUST Fiend. (ADS) However I think FraggerMike has a point about ADS. I think ADS should have a fixed weapons controlled by the pilot, as in, the pilot aims by steering the dropship. This would mean that strafing runs would really be strafing runs, as the pilot would not be able to hover and shoot at someone below them. They would have to dip the nose, which would require forward movement to avoid crashing. Dropships, particularly ADS, need level indicators added to the first person perspective view. You need instruments to tell you how far you are tilted forward/back and left/right. At the very least, set a bottle of whisky on the dash board so I can look at the water line (whisky line?) to tell when the dropship is level. An indication of net force would be useful too, as in an arrow telling you at what angle up or down and in which direction relative to your dropship's orientation you are going to go with the current combination of thrust vectors and gravity. One instrumentation idea would be to have a 3D semitransparent representation of your dropship inside a spire projected onto the corner of your HUD. The spear would have a ring at the equator representing level, and another ring that indicates the angle of your dropship. You make the rings line up and you are level. Then add an arrow through the centre of the spire that indicates the direction of net force (the direction your dropship is moving due to thrust, gravity, and other forces) and have the length of the arrow indicate the net speed. This would make flying in 1st person view much easier. (Tanks) I support the idea of separating the Tank Driver and the Primary Gunner. Let the Driver have a small nose turret attached to his exterior camera. Include an overlay for the driver similar to the overlay on a carGÇÖs backup camera with lines that indicate the direction the tank is facing and indicates the width of space the tank will take up, so it is easier to orient the vehicle when not facing straight ahead. Solo tank drivers will have to change seats to fire the big gun, which makes the tank immobile when firing. This is a balance factor which allows the tanks to be made harder to kill, since they either require 2 operators, or with 1 operator canGÇÖt have full offensive and defensive capabilities at the same time. This will allow the tanks to be made truly powerful while maintaining AV balance. (MAVs) I propose two types of MAVGÇÖs. Assault MAVGÇÖs (Light solo tanks), and Troop transport MAVGÇÖs. (Assault MAV) For those solo tanking fans, I propose a MAV with 1 seat, and a medium forward facing turret. Probably 6 wheeled rather than tracked, the Assault MAV would have less acceleration than a LAV, but maybe 50% more armor, and be able to spin in place like a tank. It would be faster and more maneuverable than a tank (HAV) but would not have near as much armour, and only have a medium turret. I am thinking along the line of 8 to 10 shots from a medium turret to kill a HAV, and 2 to 3 shots from a large turret to kill an Assault MAV, so a small pack of Assault MAVGÇÖs could take down tanks, or a MAV with AV support, while at the same time a squad with just anti infantry weapons could still take out a MAV if given enough time. (Troop MAV) The Troop MAV would be able to hold a full squad, and have two turrets (one forward, one aft) which are controlled by the person sitting in that position. It would have less acceleration than a LAV, but have more armor. Faster, with less armor than a HAV. Enclosed, except possibly the turret seats. Not gun for the Buss driver. (LAV) About what DUST had, except with DUST FiendGÇÖs suggestion that passengers by able to fire their weapons from the vehicle. CanGÇÖt fire through the windshield or other parts of the vehicle though so field of fire is somewhat restricted, and the vehicle is open as DUST LAVGÇÖs where to you can be shot too. With the bouncing around of the vehicle effecting your aim, I donGÇÖt see being able to fire from a vehicle as being too OP. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7792	Posted - 2016.07.07 16:20:00 - [15] - Quote Ripley Riley wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Similar to their EVE counterparts I'm going to say this, and it might make someone a bit pissy but Imma say it anyway: I am concerned about how Rattati would interpret "Do [insert thing], you know, like they have in EVE". CCP Rattati doesn't like EVE and admits to having only played it for a few minutes. Maybe we should phrase it as "The capacitor mechanic they use in EVE Online would work well as a balance mechanism for vehicles in an FPS game as well. It is an enjoyable mechanic to manage, and it introduces effective ways to provide game balance, making V/AV balance easier to achieve." This might go over better than the "But EVE does it this way" approach that some have taken with Rattati in the past. Basically, having modules, turrets, propulsion, and shields all use power, from a capacitor that is recharging at a constant rate, and has a finite capacity (power reservoir) allows the Developer to tune power consumption rates to prevent the operator from being able to do too much at the same time, or at least not for an extended time, to prevent the vehicle from being too powerful. It also allows for weapons that attack the power reserve rather than doing damage, to provide more variety to the tactical game play. Doe that about summarize it? It might also be worth pointing out to Rattati that EVE Online is a game of vehicle combat. This point of view both validates his assertion that what works in EVE does not necessarily work in a FPS game, while at the same time supports the case for using EVE mechanics in vehicles. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8276	Posted - 2016.07.07 16:31:00 - [16] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Ripley Riley wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Similar to their EVE counterparts I'm going to say this, and it might make someone a bit pissy but Imma say it anyway: I am concerned about how Rattati would interpret "Do [insert thing], you know, like they have in EVE". CCP Rattati doesn't like EVE and admits to having only played it for a few minutes. Maybe we should phrase it as "The capacitor mechanic they use in EVE Online would work well as a balance mechanism for vehicles in an FPS game as well. It is an enjoyable mechanic to manage, and it introduces effective ways to provide game balance, making V/AV balance easier to achieve." This might go over better than the "But EVE does it this way" approach that some have taken with Rattati in the past. Basically, having modules, turrets, propulsion, and shields all use power, from a capacitor that is recharging at a constant rate, and has a finite capacity (power reservoir) allows the Developer to tune power consumption rates to prevent the operator from being able to do too much at the same time, or at least not for an extended time, to prevent the vehicle from being too powerful. It also allows for weapons that attack the power reserve rather than doing damage, to provide more variety to the tactical game play. Doe that about summarize it? It might also be worth pointing out to Rattati that EVE Online is a game of vehicle combat. This point of view both validates his assertion that what works in EVE does not necessarily work in a FPS game, while at the same time supports the case for using EVE mechanics in vehicles. Yeah, we aren't trying to propose copying EVE, but the issue with trying to present this concept is that EVE Online is basically the only game we can use for an analogy. I mean, Armored Core basically uses capacitors as well, but that's...well, actually.... Armored Core isn't a bad example. In that game even your weapons draw from the capacitor as well as all your other hardware like defensive systems and jump-jets. Obviously we don't want to be trying to limit being able to use weapons by having to balance capacitor draw, but that game also illustrates how a capacitor based system could work. In fact, I just remembered something! In the earlier Armored Core games your energy bar would recharge normally until you got down into the red zone at the bottom of the bar. At that point your energy would recharge much slower, and if you emptied it completely you would have to wait through a cooldown before it would start to recharge at all. A mechanic like that applied to vehicles combined with infantry having a weapon like a Neutralizer Grenade could allow infantry to temporarily disable all modules on a vehicle in order to then use AV weapons to kill it before the energy recharge kicks back in. This would emphasize working together with infantry such that they can defend you from anyone who tries to run close and throw Neut Grenades at you. It would also mean that getting caught up in the moment and not paying attention to your energy level can be very deadly, which promotes learning how to manage your energy under fire and increases the value of skilled pilots. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1475	Posted - 2016.07.07 17:13:00 - [17] - Quote FraggerMike wrote: ADS -- don't think those who fly them well will like the idea of not being able to shoot - makes them more of a Chauffeur. I think you'll find most ads pilots just really liked flying them, if anything having to point that silly turret at things made flying less fun, because it limited how you could fly (although I think we all found some nice ways to keep it interesting.) But yeah, I used to enjoy flying teams around in my ships, back when useful people actually got in. A lot of the time with tanks I'd fit small blasters and just point the front and at enemies to let them farm up(possibly because I'm lazy) but I was fine with just ferrying people around, especially when they were good with the turrets. One other request, is that I'd like to be able to name my vehicles and keep a list of each ones stats, lol.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7793	Posted - 2016.07.07 17:24:00 - [18] - Quote I should also comment that with a fixed nose cannon (rather than a movable turret) combined with a good level indicator could make ADS dogfights in 1st person view a thing. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13071	Posted - 2016.07.07 18:38:00 - [19] - Quote ADS was a lazy, poor design. Replace with This right here and make it a proper VSTOL vehicle. ADS can burn in hell. Keep the normal dropship for transport, but give combat pilots something that doesn't look and maneuver like a brick-shaped metal turd that achieves the "assault" nickname by adding a gun. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Joel II X Bacon with a bottle of Quafe 10374	Posted - 2016.07.07 20:04:00 - [20] - Quote I think they should just take away the Assault DS. It always seemed silly to me, since it seemed like it was a placeholder for an actual Assault Heli or something. Dropships should stay dropships to deliver infantry, and ADS should have its own branch for Heli style flight, or jet style flight. *Scouts United* Gk.0s & Quafes all day.

Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8276	Posted - 2016.07.07 20:48:00 - [21] - Quote Joel II X wrote: I think they should just take away the Assault DS. It always seemed silly to me, since it seemed like it was a placeholder for an actual Assault Heli or something. Dropships should stay dropships to deliver infantry, and ADS should have its own branch for Heli style flight, or jet style flight. Agreed. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Slayer Deathbringer Planetary Response Organisation FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 110	Posted - 2016.07.07 22:02:00 - [22] - Quote Maybe there should be the normal SHAV and an assault HAV with a extra large crew controlled turret and a pilot controlled medum turret in the front and as an addition have a gunship with a pilot controlled large turret a extra large top and bottom turret, two large side turrets and a medum back turret "It's not my fault that you lost a 1 mill isk suit to a 1k isk forge gun"
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8276	Posted - 2016.07.07 22:27:00 - [23] - Quote Slayer Deathbringer wrote: Maybe there should be the normal SHAV and an assault HAV with a extra large crew controlled turret and a pilot controlled medum turret in the front and as an addition have a gunship with a pilot controlled large turret a extra large top and bottom turret, two large side turrets and a medum back turret Ideally I'd like to move away from single-player-juggernaut style vehicles as a whole as the first stage in redesign. As soon as you get over Light vehicle hulls, any offensive capability should rely on teamwork. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
byte modal 886	Posted - 2016.07.07 23:01:00 - [24] - Quote Slayer Deathbringer wrote: Maybe there should be the normal SHAV and an assault HAV with a extra large crew controlled turret and a pilot controlled medum turret in the front and as an addition have a gunship with a pilot controlled large turret a extra large top and bottom turret, two large side turrets and a medum back turret Yes. And the new swarms should have laser painting target systems with a skill that adds +1 additional target per level upgrade for a maximum of five targets painted simultaneously. Then when I dumb-fire my cartridge (five missile capacity btw, because of a maxed swarm proficiency skill of course), all swarms are fired at once straight up into the air. Each missile will then home-in on one of the five painted targets and track absolutely until impact. Damage will be for 9,000Hp (each). This will take care of redline HAV too because target painting has the same scope and display render as a sniper rifle. Missiles will self-destruct if target is not acquired with 20,000 meters or 3 minutes. Whichever comes first. If that doesn't work, then there should be a Defender-style smart bomb grenade that immediately clears the board of all red air and ground-based vehicles. At the cost of one clone and loadout. With a 2-minute cooldown. You know. For balance. kitten bacon taco (nom)
Slayer Deathbringer Planetary Response Organisation FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 110	Posted - 2016.07.07 23:02:00 - [25] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Slayer Deathbringer wrote: Maybe there should be the normal SHAV and an assault HAV with a extra large crew controlled turret and a pilot controlled medum turret in the front and as an addition have a gunship with a pilot controlled large turret a extra large top and bottom turret, two large side turrets and a medum back turret Ideally I'd like to move away from single-player-juggernaut style vehicles as a whole as the first stage in redesign. As soon as you get over Light vehicle hulls, any offensive capability should rely on teamwork. I will amend that from the standpoint of offensive vehicles that are single-player by design, like jets. As far as I'm concerned, as a tradeoff to their offensive potential, they shouldn't even have resistance to small-arms. Their HP should be VERY low such that your only means of survival is staying mobile and using countermeasures to try and protect yourself from lock-on weapons. Maybe if the SHAV was really good at killing medum and light suits but had a hard time killing heavy suits and otherwise were like the DUST HAVs in that it makes the enemy have to bring AV out but be easy to kill with concentrated AV fire and also have the multiplayer AHAVs as a better alternative in that role by taking more players to kill than the SHAV but still enough AV or 2+ SVAVs can kill one "It's not my fault that you lost a 1 mill isk suit to a 1k isk forge gun"
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13588	Posted - 2016.07.07 23:03:00 - [26] - Quote I like your idea except for the last one. Energy Vamps and Neutralizers should only be limited to vehicles as modules since those logically take up a lot of power and processing to do what they do. If you look at Eve Online you will often see ships that are fitted with Energy Vamps and Neuts be also fitted with Capacitor Booster to compensate for the massive drain that the Vamps and Neuts have on the ship that is using them. Engineering/lore wise, it makes sense to make Vamps and Neuts in Project Nova restricted to vehicles as modules. The effect of these Cap-hindering modules should primarily affect the turrets. Vehicles should have the ability to drive away even under these conditions because the engineering of the vehicles (thinking lore here) includes one such redundancy where the powerplant of the vehicle being targeted doesn't need capacitor as it is the part of the vehicle that provides Capacitor in the first place. If the onboard computers sense a sudden increase in the demand for more power that exceeds its type design it will assume that the Capacitor is being energy drained and thus the system will automatically cut power to the Capacitor and use that power instead to drive the wheels so that the vehicle can get to safety. The Capacitor will be drained eventually but at least the pilot can get away to safety so that the onboard computer can switch back to recharging the Cap. But once the Cap is drained, all primary and secondary weapons will be rendered useless unless that weapon happens to be projectile-based such an Autocannon or Missile Turret. Rail, Blaster and laser turrets depend heavily on Capacitor and thus become non-functioning once Cap is completely drained. Obviously you don't need Cap for a weapon the only fires crude gun-powder ammunition or self-guided missiles that only need a tiny spark to light the propellants. This would give other vehicles stronger logistics roles if Energy Transfer modules are implemented. What do you think? Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Slayer Deathbringer Planetary Response Organisation FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 110	Posted - 2016.07.07 23:08:00 - [27] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: I like your idea except for the last one. Energy Vamps and Neutralizers should only be limited to vehicles as modules since those logically take up a lot of power and processing to do what they do. If you look at Eve Online you will often see ships that are fitted with Energy Vamps and Neuts be also fitted with Capacitor Booster to compensate for the massive drain that the Vamps and Neuts have on the ship that is using them. Engineering/lore wise, it makes sense to make Vamps and Neuts in Project Nova restricted to vehicles as modules. The effect of these Cap-hindering modules should primarily affect the turrets. Vehicles should have the ability to drive away even under these conditions because the engineering of the vehicles (thinking lore here) includes one such redundancy where the powerplant of the vehicle being targeted doesn't need capacitor as it is the part of the vehicle that provides Capacitor in the first place. If the onboard computers sense a sudden increase in the demand for more power that exceeds its type design it will assume that the Capacitor is being energy drained and thus the system will automatically cut power to the Capacitor and use that power instead to drive the wheels so that the vehicle can get to safety. The Capacitor will be drained eventually but at least the pilot can get away to safety so that the onboard computer can switch back to recharging the Cap. But once the Cap is drained, all primary and secondary weapons will be rendered useless unless that weapon happens to be projectile-based such an Autocannon or Missile Turret. Rail, Blaster and laser turrets depend heavily on Capacitor and thus become non-functioning once Cap is completely drained. Obviously you don't need Cap for a weapon the only fires crude gun-powder ammunition or self-guided missiles that only need a tiny spark to light the propellants. This would give other vehicles stronger logistics roles if Energy Transfer modules are implemented. What do you think? I think that if that is the case than blasters, missiles, rails, and lasers should hit significantly harder than other turrets "It's not my fault that you lost a 1 mill isk suit to a 1k isk forge gun"
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8277	Posted - 2016.07.07 23:20:00 - [28] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: I like your idea except for the last one. Energy Vamps and Neutralizers should only be limited to vehicles as modules since those logically take up a lot of power and processing to do what they do. If you look at Eve Online you will often see ships that are fitted with Energy Vamps and Neuts be also fitted with Capacitor Booster to compensate for the massive drain that the Vamps and Neuts have on the ship that is using them. Engineering/lore wise, it makes sense to make Vamps and Neuts in Project Nova restricted to vehicles as modules. The effect of these Cap-hindering modules should primarily affect the turrets. Vehicles should have the ability to drive away even under these conditions because the engineering of the vehicles (thinking lore here) includes one such redundancy where the powerplant of the vehicle being targeted doesn't need capacitor as it is the part of the vehicle that provides Capacitor in the first place. If the onboard computers sense a sudden increase in the demand for more power that exceeds its type design it will assume that the Capacitor is being energy drained and thus the system will automatically cut power to the Capacitor and use that power instead to drive the wheels so that the vehicle can get to safety. The Capacitor will be drained eventually but at least the pilot can get away to safety so that the onboard computer can switch back to recharging the Cap. But once the Cap is drained, all primary and secondary weapons will be rendered useless unless that weapon happens to be projectile-based such an Autocannon or Missile Turret. Rail, Blaster and laser turrets depend heavily on Capacitor and thus become non-functioning once Cap is completely drained. Obviously you don't need Cap for a weapon the only fires crude gun-powder ammunition or self-guided missiles that only need a tiny spark to light the propellants. This would give other vehicles stronger logistics roles if Energy Transfer modules are implemented. What do you think? However, consider Void Bombs in EVE Online. Those are one-time-use AoE weapons that neutralize capacitor in a wide area. A Void Grenade could have a very large model and a shorter throw distance than the other grenades, meaning you have to get closer to get it to affect a vehicle. We could take that even further and make it a single-use high-fitting piece of equipment that you need to sneak up next to the vehicle and then deploy near it to get the effects. I agree on vehicles being mobile even without energy, but I disagree on turrets requiring energy to function. I think that's taking the complexity a little bit too far and will serve to be more frustrating than intriguing. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Slayer Deathbringer Planetary Response Organisation FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 110	Posted - 2016.07.07 23:39:00 - [29] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: I like your idea except for the last one. Energy Vamps and Neutralizers should only be limited to vehicles as modules since those logically take up a lot of power and processing to do what they do. If you look at Eve Online you will often see ships that are fitted with Energy Vamps and Neuts be also fitted with Capacitor Booster to compensate for the massive drain that the Vamps and Neuts have on the ship that is using them. Engineering/lore wise, it makes sense to make Vamps and Neuts in Project Nova restricted to vehicles as modules. The effect of these Cap-hindering modules should primarily affect the turrets. Vehicles should have the ability to drive away even under these conditions because the engineering of the vehicles (thinking lore here) includes one such redundancy where the powerplant of the vehicle being targeted doesn't need capacitor as it is the part of the vehicle that provides Capacitor in the first place. If the onboard computers sense a sudden increase in the demand for more power that exceeds its type design it will assume that the Capacitor is being energy drained and thus the system will automatically cut power to the Capacitor and use that power instead to drive the wheels so that the vehicle can get to safety. The Capacitor will be drained eventually but at least the pilot can get away to safety so that the onboard computer can switch back to recharging the Cap. But once the Cap is drained, all primary and secondary weapons will be rendered useless unless that weapon happens to be projectile-based such an Autocannon or Missile Turret. Rail, Blaster and laser turrets depend heavily on Capacitor and thus become non-functioning once Cap is completely drained. Obviously you don't need Cap for a weapon the only fires crude gun-powder ammunition or self-guided missiles that only need a tiny spark to light the propellants. This would give other vehicles stronger logistics roles if Energy Transfer modules are implemented. What do you think? However, consider Void Bombs in EVE Online. Those are one-time-use AoE weapons that neutralize capacitor in a wide area. A Void Grenade could have a very large model and a shorter throw distance than the other grenades, meaning you have to get closer to get it to affect a vehicle. We could take that even further and make it a single-use high-fitting piece of equipment that you need to sneak up next to the vehicle and then deploy near it to get the effects. I agree on vehicles being mobile even without energy, but I disagree on turrets requiring energy to function. I think that's taking the complexity a little bit too far and will serve to be more frustrating than intriguing. Well that is better "It's not my fault that you lost a 1 mill isk suit to a 1k isk forge gun"
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13588	Posted - 2016.07.07 23:44:00 - [30] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: I like your idea except for the last one. Energy Vamps and Neutralizers should only be limited to vehicles as modules since those logically take up a lot of power and processing to do what they do. If you look at Eve Online you will often see ships that are fitted with Energy Vamps and Neuts be also fitted with Capacitor Booster to compensate for the massive drain that the Vamps and Neuts have on the ship that is using them. Engineering/lore wise, it makes sense to make Vamps and Neuts in Project Nova restricted to vehicles as modules. The effect of these Cap-hindering modules should primarily affect the turrets. Vehicles should have the ability to drive away even under these conditions because the engineering of the vehicles (thinking lore here) includes one such redundancy where the powerplant of the vehicle being targeted doesn't need capacitor as it is the part of the vehicle that provides Capacitor in the first place. If the onboard computers sense a sudden increase in the demand for more power that exceeds its type design it will assume that the Capacitor is being energy drained and thus the system will automatically cut power to the Capacitor and use that power instead to drive the wheels so that the vehicle can get to safety. The Capacitor will be drained eventually but at least the pilot can get away to safety so that the onboard computer can switch back to recharging the Cap. But once the Cap is drained, all primary and secondary weapons will be rendered useless unless that weapon happens to be projectile-based such an Autocannon or Missile Turret. Rail, Blaster and laser turrets depend heavily on Capacitor and thus become non-functioning once Cap is completely drained. Obviously you don't need Cap for a weapon the only fires crude gun-powder ammunition or self-guided missiles that only need a tiny spark to light the propellants. This would give other vehicles stronger logistics roles if Energy Transfer modules are implemented. What do you think? However, consider Void Bombs in EVE Online. Those are one-time-use AoE weapons that neutralize capacitor in a wide area. A Void Grenade could have a very large model and a shorter throw distance than the other grenades, meaning you have to get closer to get it to affect a vehicle. We could take that even further and make it a single-use high-fitting piece of equipment that you need to sneak up next to the vehicle and then deploy near it to get the effects. I agree on vehicles being mobile even without energy, but I disagree on turrets requiring energy to function. I think that's taking the complexity a little bit too far and will serve to be more frustrating than intriguing. Assuming we let turrets operate even without capacitor, would you be willing to compromise and agree to making the tracking speed of the turrets get affected and possibly damage output? After all, those motors that turn the turrets do take up power. And in an emergency situation, the powerplant would want to focus as much power as possible to the wheels so that the pilot can safely drive away. EDIT: Keep in mind that the turrets would likely still be fully effective even while the cap is being vamped or neuted so long as there is some capacitor remaining. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy

Dreis ShadowWeaver RIP DUST 514 9354	Posted - 2016.07.07 23:59:00 - [31] - Quote 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 We did it for Nigel ( ; ~;)7
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8277	Posted - 2016.07.08 00:17:00 - [32] - Quote 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. 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. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Slayer Deathbringer Planetary Response Organisation FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 110	Posted - 2016.07.08 00:30:00 - [33] - 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. 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. That's why I think that for single person vehicles they should be able to kill lower size tier suits easily but equal or higher size tier suits would be a challenge "It's not my fault that you lost a 1 mill isk suit to a 1k isk forge gun"
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13588	Posted - 2016.07.08 01:57:00 - [34] - Quote Let's not forget one very important thing here. For us to even get a chance to see vehicles in Project Nova in the future (and by future I mean distant) we have to ask ourselves some very important questions. Do these vehicle types (LAVs, HAV & ADS) have any purpose being in Project Nova? If so, what is their purpose and when should it be needed? As I have proposed a while ago on DiscordApp, I suggested the following roles be assigned for the following reasons: LAVs What is its purpose? Long distance travel at very high speeds. In other words, strictly as a transport. Sure there can be a turret but the turret should only serve as a defensive tool to ward off attackers, not be the attack platform itself. When is it needed? Very large open maps where the terrain is so vast that even the fastest scout will find it a hindrance to just rely on running on foot. That scout will likely just call in an LAV anyways because what kind of scout would want to waste half an hour running from point A to point B when an LAV can do the same in 5 minutes? ADS What is its purpose? Long distance travel at moderate speeds. Mainly as a transport like the LAV but has slightly better guns since it can be used as an assault platform. When is it needed? Very large maps where mountains are plenty and can render LAVs vulnerable to an ambush. ADS can also serve as scouting platforms to get a set of eyes over that one ridge you are not sure of. This can be a perfect platform for delivering scouts as well. Notice how I only mentioned ADS because I feel that all dropships should be the same in terms of role. No more regular dropships that are completely redundant to assault types. Either make all dropships be ADS with MCRU built in (as the OP recommended) or don't include them at all. HAVs What is their purpose? Siege Platforms. When is it needed? When your opponent is bunkered in and you really want to break through their defenses where your ADS fails. Another situation where one is needed is when your opponent has set up some kind of structure that hinders your progress and your ADS, AV infantry and even the most powerful forge gun can't break through its defenses except for a HAV that is in siege mode. When in siege mode, it dishes out enough fire power to make a dent on an MCC but it is completely immobile for a set amount of time until the cycle completes. This is similar to dreadnoughts in Eve that are forced to stay stationary in the same way. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 15914	Posted - 2016.07.08 02:22:00 - [35] - Quote Yay for a productive vehicle thread!!! Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
Slayer Deathbringer Planetary Response Organisation FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 110	Posted - 2016.07.08 02:45:00 - [36] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Let's not forget one very important thing here. For us to even get a chance to see vehicles in Project Nova in the future (and by future I mean distant) we have to ask ourselves some very important questions. Do these vehicle types (LAVs, HAV & ADS) have any purpose being in Project Nova? If so, what is their purpose and when should it be needed? As I have proposed a while ago on DiscordApp, I suggested the following roles be assigned for the following reasons: LAVs What is its purpose? Long distance travel at very high speeds. In other words, strictly as a transport. Sure there can be a turret but the turret should only serve as a defensive tool to ward off attackers, not be the attack platform itself. When is it needed? Very large open maps where the terrain is so vast that even the fastest scout will find it a hindrance to just rely on running on foot. That scout will likely just call in an LAV anyways because what kind of scout would want to waste half an hour running from point A to point B when an LAV can do the same in 5 minutes? ADS What is its purpose? Long distance travel at moderate speeds. Mainly as a transport like the LAV but has slightly better guns since it can be used as an assault platform. When is it needed? Very large maps where mountains are plenty and can render LAVs vulnerable to an ambush. ADS can also serve as scouting platforms to get a set of eyes over that one ridge you are not sure of. This can be a perfect platform for delivering scouts as well. Notice how I only mentioned ADS because I feel that all dropships should be the same in terms of role. No more regular dropships that are completely redundant to assault types. Either make all dropships be ADS with MCRU built in (as the OP recommended) or don't include them at all. HAVs What is their purpose? Siege Platforms. When is it needed? When your opponent is bunkered in and you really want to break through their defenses where your ADS fails. Another situation where one is needed is when your opponent has set up some kind of structure that hinders your progress and your ADS, AV infantry and even the most powerful forge gun can't break through its defenses except for a HAV that is in siege mode. When in siege mode, it dishes out enough fire power to make a dent on an MCC but it is completely immobile for a set amount of time until the cycle completes. This is similar to dreadnoughts in Eve that are forced to stay stationary in the same way. So HAVs will either be slow or immobile why "It's not my fault that you lost a 1 mill isk suit to a 1k isk forge gun"
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13588	Posted - 2016.07.08 03:09:00 - [37] - Quote Slayer Deathbringer wrote: So HAVs will either be slow or immobile why I never mentioned they would be slow. At least outside of siege mode. The speed I left that out so you guy can debate it. EDIT: Lore wise I would say that the HAV going into siege mode is devoting much of its power to the primary weapon as the onboard computer recalculates based on the new configuration. I would probably wager that during this phase the HAV has buffs against EWAR attacks during its cycle. Energy vamps and neuts might not work against it since the powerplant would likely dish out more cap boosting than what the vamps and neuts can take away. Of course that is assuming capacitors are ever implemented into the game. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Slayer Deathbringer Planetary Response Organisation FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 110	Posted - 2016.07.08 05:37:00 - [38] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Slayer Deathbringer wrote: So HAVs will either be slow or immobile why I never mentioned they would be slow. At least outside of siege mode. The speed I left that out so you guy can debate it. EDIT: Lore wise I would say that the HAV going into siege mode is devoting much of its power to the primary weapon as the onboard computer recalculates based on the new configuration. I would probably wager that during this phase the HAV has buffs against EWAR attacks during its cycle. Energy vamps and neuts might not work against it since the powerplant would likely dish out more cap boosting than what the vamps and neuts can take away. Of course that is assuming capacitors are ever implemented into the game. PS: We're talking about siege mode here where if any vehicle gets in the way of the line of fire they are ONE-HIT KILLED. Remember when I mentioned about them putting a dent on a MCC? That sounds nice but for the speed I would say that it should be similar for SHAVs as it was in DUST and maybe 25-50% slower for AHAVs "It's not my fault that you lost a 1 mill isk suit to a 1k isk forge gun"
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7794	Posted - 2016.07.08 11:59:00 - [39] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: ADS was a lazy, poor design. Replace with This right here and make it a proper VSTOL vehicle. ADS can burn in hell. Keep the normal dropship for transport, but give combat pilots something that doesn't look and maneuver like a brick-shaped metal turd that achieves the "assault" nickname by adding a gun. I am not apposed to that. That thing looks a lot more fun to fly than a Assault Dropship. Less armor, more speed and maneuverability. Smaller target. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8279	Posted - 2016.07.08 11:59:00 - [40] - Quote Slayer Deathbringer 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. 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. That's why I think that for single person vehicles they should be able to kill lower size tier suits easily but equal or higher size tier suits would be a challenge I think we need to draw a line of ALL suits based on vehicle class, and have it be based on turrets specifically. A small turret on an HAV should be just as effective against infantry as a small turret on an LAV. However, a Large Turret should be virtually incapable of being a major threat to infantry. Consider today where most tank shells are either solid penetrators or shaped-charges with very little splash radius because they're designed for piercing the armor of other tanks. This is one area where emulating reality actually assists with game balance rather than detracting from it. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector

Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7795	Posted - 2016.07.08 12:12:00 - [41] - Quote I should point out that the reason capacitor control, with turning modules on and off to regulate power usage, works well in EVE is because the computer is aiming the turrets for you. If the driver and gunner positions in a tank are separated, then the driver can concentrate more on micro managing power systems, which would make the capacitor mechanic work very well. It would be fun and require skill from the driver, while the turret orator gets to shoot stuff and watch for heat buildup and ammo usage. The crewed vehicles could get a lot more module slots than the solo vehicles. Solo vehicles would rely on speed and maneuverability to avoid damage, while crewed vehicles would be slower and tougher and rely on use of active modules to survive. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8280	Posted - 2016.07.08 12:20:00 - [42] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: I should point out that the reason capacitor control, with turning modules on and off to regulate power usage, works well in EVE is because the computer is aiming the turrets for you. If the driver and gunner positions in a tank are separated, then the driver can concentrate more on micro managing power systems, which would make the capacitor mechanic work very well. It would be fun and require skill from the driver, while the turret orator gets to shoot stuff and watch for heat buildup and ammo usage. The crewed vehicles could get a lot more module slots than the solo vehicles. Solo vehicles would rely on speed and maneuverability to avoid damage, while crewed vehicles would be slower and tougher and rely on use of active modules to survive. Exactly, Fox! The driver will be managing power flow into the modules to allow the vehicle to be survivable via effort rather than just cycling long cooldowns or relying on passive armor reps. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7795	Posted - 2016.07.08 12:29:00 - [43] - Quote Slayer Deathbringer wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: I like your idea except for the last one. Energy Vamps and Neutralizers should only be limited to vehicles as modules since those logically take up a lot of power and processing to do what they do. If you look at Eve Online you will often see ships that are fitted with Energy Vamps and Neuts be also fitted with Capacitor Booster to compensate for the massive drain that the Vamps and Neuts have on the ship that is using them. Engineering/lore wise, it makes sense to make Vamps and Neuts in Project Nova restricted to vehicles as modules. The effect of these Cap-hindering modules should primarily affect the turrets. Vehicles should have the ability to drive away even under these conditions because the engineering of the vehicles (thinking lore here) includes one such redundancy where the powerplant of the vehicle being targeted doesn't need capacitor as it is the part of the vehicle that provides Capacitor in the first place. If the onboard computers sense a sudden increase in the demand for more power that exceeds its type design it will assume that the Capacitor is being energy drained and thus the system will automatically cut power to the Capacitor and use that power instead to drive the wheels so that the vehicle can get to safety. The Capacitor will be drained eventually but at least the pilot can get away to safety so that the onboard computer can switch back to recharging the Cap. But once the Cap is drained, all primary and secondary weapons will be rendered useless unless that weapon happens to be projectile-based such an Autocannon or Missile Turret. Rail, Blaster and laser turrets depend heavily on Capacitor and thus become non-functioning once Cap is completely drained. Obviously you don't need Cap for a weapon the only fires crude gun-powder ammunition or self-guided missiles that only need a tiny spark to light the propellants. This would give other vehicles stronger logistics roles if Energy Transfer modules are implemented. What do you think? I think that if that is the case than blasters, missiles, rails, and lasers should hit significantly harder than other turrets Based on your earlier posts I don't think you have a very sophisticated understanding of balance. There is more to the equation than just damage. It would make more sense to balance a situational strength with another situation strength. Damage is a factor in every battle. Energy Neutralizers will be used far less often, unless they become FOTM. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7795	Posted - 2016.07.08 12:42:00 - [44] - 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. 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. As I mentioned in an earlier post, for solo tanking fans I suggest a MAV that is tougher than a LAV, but still can be taken out by concentrated fire from 3 or 4 infantry weapons if given time, particularly if it gets stuck. I am thinking less module slots, and a lot less armor than a HAV, but more acceleration and maneuverability. The operator would rely on their driving rather than module management, to survive. Also, I am thinking a medium turret. Large turrets should only be in crewed vehicles. But the medium turret should be able to do enough damage that Assault MAV's can gang up to kill a HAV the same way infantry can team up to kill an Assault MAV. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8281	Posted - 2016.07.08 12:51:00 - [45] - Quote Fox Gaden 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. 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. As I mentioned in an earlier post, for solo tanking fans I suggest a MAV that is tougher than a LAV, but still can be taken out by concentrated fire from 3 or 4 infantry weapons if given time, particularly if it gets stuck. I am thinking less module slots, and a lot less armor than a HAV, but more acceleration and maneuverability. The operator would rely on their driving rather than module management, to survive. Also, I am thinking a medium turret. Large turrets should only be in crewed vehicles. But the medium turret should be able to do enough damage that Assault MAV's can gang up to kill a HAV the same way infantry can team up to kill an Assault MAV. What if we built such a vehicle around different mechanics, though? What if that MAV was a hover-vehicle and has no independent turret, kind of like the Nekomata hover tank in Battlefield 2142? In that way it could have slow strafing capability and "driftier" mechanics. Hover vehicles have been talked about a LOT in New Eden lore, but we've never seen them in-game. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7795	Posted - 2016.07.08 13:10:00 - [46] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Let's not forget one very important thing here. For us to even get a chance to see vehicles in Project Nova in the future (and by future I mean distant) we have to ask ourselves some very important questions. Do these vehicle types (LAVs, HAV & ADS) have any purpose being in Project Nova? If so, what is their purpose and when should it be needed? As I have proposed a while ago on DiscordApp, I suggested the following roles be assigned for the following reasons: LAVs What is its purpose? Long distance travel at very high speeds. In other words, strictly as a transport. Sure there can be a turret but the turret should only serve as a defensive tool to ward off attackers, not be the attack platform itself. When is it needed? Very large open maps where the terrain is so vast that even the fastest scout will find it a hindrance to just rely on running on foot. That scout will likely just call in an LAV anyways because what kind of scout would want to waste half an hour running from point A to point B when an LAV can do the same in 5 minutes? ADS What is its purpose? Long distance travel at moderate speeds. Mainly as a transport like the LAV but has slightly better guns since it can be used as an assault platform. When is it needed? Very large maps where mountains are plenty and can render LAVs vulnerable to an ambush. ADS can also serve as scouting platforms to get a set of eyes over that one ridge you are not sure of. This can be a perfect platform for delivering scouts as well. Notice how I only mentioned ADS because I feel that all dropships should be the same in terms of role. No more regular dropships that are completely redundant to assault types. Either make all dropships be ADS with MCRU built in (as the OP recommended) or don't include them at all. HAVs What is their purpose? Siege Platforms. When is it needed? When your opponent is bunkered in and you really want to break through their defenses where your ADS fails. Another situation where one is needed is when your opponent has set up some kind of structure that hinders your progress and your ADS, AV infantry and even the most powerful forge gun can't break through its defenses except for a HAV that is in siege mode. When in siege mode, it dishes out enough fire power to make a dent on an MCC but it is completely immobile for a set amount of time until the cycle completes. This is similar to dreadnoughts in Eve that are forced to stay stationary in the same way. Agree that vehicles need a purpose that is well defined before they are added. Agree on LAV's. I think LAV's were well implemented in DUST, generally. I would still like to be able to shoot infantry weapons from the passenger seat, since the passenger is in the open and can take external damage. Disagree somewhat on ADS. Implement Dropships as they were in DUST, for squad transport. Replace ADS with 1 man fighters, which maneuver like dropships, but are more responsive and much faster while also being a lot more squishy. They should have fixed weapons aimed by pointing the fighter at the enemy, rather than a turret that can be shot downward while hovering. Give them 4 AV missiles, that they have to return to base to reload. Purpose would be to harass infantry with strafing runs (less devastating than hovering ADS with amiable turret) and harassing Dropships and LAV's with turrets, or taking on Tanks, Ground Turrets, or other infrastructure with missiles. But the most important is for the Tank to have a purpose. - Destructible gates that Tanks can take out, or Dropships can fly over. - Taking out Shields or Shield Generators that protect District infrastructure. - Taking out Anti Personnel defense turrets. - Taking out large Drones. Any other ideas? Of course Remote Explosives, and various hand held AV weapons can be used if tanks are not available, but the point is that there should be things that need doing that are easier to do with a tank. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7795	Posted - 2016.07.08 13:19:00 - [47] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: I think we need to draw a line of ALL suits based on vehicle class, and have it be based on turrets specifically. A small turret on an HAV should be just as effective against infantry as a small turret on an LAV. However, a Large Turret should be virtually incapable of being a major threat to infantry. Consider today where most tank shells are either solid penetrators or shaped-charges with very little splash radius because they're designed for piercing the armor of other tanks. This is one area where emulating reality actually assists with game balance rather than detracting from it. I agree, although if that solid shell actually hits an infantry directly it should be an instant kill. But with no splash, and slow turret tracking, so it is hard to get a direct hit on such a small moving target. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8281	Posted - 2016.07.08 14:16:00 - [48] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: I think we need to draw a line of ALL suits based on vehicle class, and have it be based on turrets specifically. A small turret on an HAV should be just as effective against infantry as a small turret on an LAV. However, a Large Turret should be virtually incapable of being a major threat to infantry. Consider today where most tank shells are either solid penetrators or shaped-charges with very little splash radius because they're designed for piercing the armor of other tanks. This is one area where emulating reality actually assists with game balance rather than detracting from it. I agree, although if that solid shell actually hits an infantry directly it should be an instant kill. But with no splash, and slow turret tracking, so it is hard to get a direct hit on such a small moving target. Right again. Designing Larger turrets in that way rewards practice and precision with kills, rather than essential trolling infantry by shooting the ground near them repeatedly to kill them while they can't do anything to stop you. That's also part of why I prefer the idea of Turrets being empty sets of hardpoints on a vehicle and Vehicle Weapons being their own distinct entity. Ideally an HAV turret would have a Large and Small weapon hardpoint, so the gunner can engage infantry with the Small turret which would provide higher rate of fire or higher splash damage to make it better for engaging infantry at the cost of damage per shot. The Small Weapon would still be in the HAV turret though, and thus restricted to that turret's rotation speed. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 1949	Posted - 2016.07.08 14:29:00 - [49] - Quote Whats this? Talking about vehicles in a game thats more then likely not to have any kind of vehicles? Just silly. Rudimentary Mercs of scrubs and incompetence. You touch my mind, fumbling in Ignorance, incapable of understanding.
Scheneighnay McBob Penumbra or something 7883	Posted - 2016.07.08 14:37:00 - [50] - Quote ADS shouldn't even be in Nova. It was a halfassed attempt at replacing fighters. Current state of the forums

Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8281	Posted - 2016.07.08 16:23:00 - [51] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: ADS shouldn't even be in Nova. It was a halfassed attempt at replacing fighters. It bears repeating. It was a hack-job that just made the game balance even worse. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Slayer Deathbringer Planetary Response Organisation FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 110	Posted - 2016.07.08 17:59:00 - [52] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: I think we need to draw a line of ALL suits based on vehicle class, and have it be based on turrets specifically. A small turret on an HAV should be just as effective against infantry as a small turret on an LAV. However, a Large Turret should be virtually incapable of being a major threat to infantry. Consider today where most tank shells are either solid penetrators or shaped-charges with very little splash radius because they're designed for piercing the armor of other tanks. This is one area where emulating reality actually assists with game balance rather than detracting from it. I agree, although if that solid shell actually hits an infantry directly it should be an instant kill. But with no splash, and slow turret tracking, so it is hard to get a direct hit on such a small moving target. Right again. Designing Larger turrets in that way rewards practice and precision with kills, rather than essential trolling infantry by shooting the ground near them repeatedly to kill them while they can't do anything to stop you. That's also part of why I prefer the idea of Turrets being empty sets of hardpoints on a vehicle and Vehicle Weapons being their own distinct entity. Ideally an HAV turret would have a Large and Small weapon hardpoint, so the gunner can engage infantry with the Small turret which would provide higher rate of fire or higher splash damage to make it better for engaging infantry at the cost of damage per shot. The Small Weapon would still be in the HAV turret though, and thus restricted to that turret's rotation speed. 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 "It's not my fault that you lost a 1 mill isk suit to a 1k isk forge gun"
byte modal 889	Posted - 2016.07.08 19:05:00 - [53] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Snipped because posting said I exceeded character count though I am within the limit. grrr. ^ I think Fox's post linked above pretty much sums up the overall idea best. And I agree that finding a purpose for the HAV is vital before it can really exist. I think doing so will probably make the HAV unrecognizable to DUST vehicle vets, but that may not be a bad thing. I also think that such a change would demand a cascade of other changes to our assumptions of purpose and gameplay relative to what we have all learned within DUST. --- TL/DR: The point is that taking these steps may require a considerable shift on how we as players should perceive roles and how development of these dynamics should be viewed, or at least explored before getting too bogged down in details. For example: HAV roles are (just for the sake of argument!) now siege, structural damage, and AV. This will greatly affect mobility and combat capability of HAVs as compared to what we have grown accustomed to in DUST becoming slower, heavier, and less efficient against infantry while having more armor, control (modules, fitted hard ports, and crew-enabled features), and higher damage against structures and other vehicles. For that to exist, you are right in that there must be purpose other than rolling a tank for the sake of tank. So now the battlefield must be populated with somewhat progressive encounters that would require HAV support (or some other suitable approach that invites the need for HAV support other than infantry squishing). Maybe not require HAVs, but using them would at least increase efficiency of progression to make short work of what infantry could do, just considerably slower (structure infiltration, anti-infantry turrets, AV, whatever). I don't imagine all play fields need this, but to give a reasonable return on investment by the pilot and crew to play these new specialized roles, then we should consider other HAV opportunities for level designs that may not have such structures, or just not as many. With that in mind, HAV vs. HAV could fill that role on such battlefields. I am suggesting that HAV damage will be greatly reduced against infantry (tracking, accuracy, damage spread, etc.), while being quite efficient against other vehicles. Let them play their meta vs other vehicle crews and/or AV groups as needed for balance for the games when support as listed earlier is not needed. Don't get me wrong! I am not suggesting that HAVs submit and roll over to solo infantry AV. On the contrary, due to increase armor capabilities (especially in siege mode), it should require a competent team of infantry to just wear down a HAV during siege. Also a minor assumed detail here may benefit the HAV: if in siege mode, then it is reasonable to assume in this example at least that the tank is attempting to penetrate some fortification or access point. Would primary opposing forces then be *behind* that fortification and less likely to overwhelm a sieged HAV? In such a case, the fortified enemy may strategically send a dedicated AV team "over the wall" via transport dropship; or whatever other hypothetical encounter may come to exist. All of this is only meant to demonstrate how a shift in our understanding of roles could lead to very dynamic countermeasures depending on the field---if we are willing to allow it. I believe if certain aspects are introduced correctly, then concepts will begin to reinforce each other. If HAVs require a separation of specialized roles (pilot and turret OP, to keep it simple), then that mode reinforces teamwork. Requiring a small squad of AV (ever how many for balance purposes) to counter that HAV reinforces the same strategy. With this dynamic at play, I truly believe the idea of support will be well-seeded in this gameplay philosophy. Bringing in infantry reinforcements to counter infantry AV would only be one more logical step in support of the sieged HAV. Cooperative play becomes more fundamental due to strategic requirements of shared roles and responsibilities. DUST HAVs never really needed support. Or at least never needed it when I was on foot. ;P~ This could change that. Perhaps I'm biased? It's still just an example of one way to look at this. Personally, I would feel good requiring a team of AV to take down a HAV knowing that there is a crew inside. After all, that's team vs. team. Add to that the slower movement or even stationary siege mode with considerably more armor and a specialized ammo type for structural and armor-piercing AV damage (I assume this would mean less efficiency against infantry as a result?), and I think I would be quite happy playing a long engagement of attrition. If ammo capacity is a variable, then that only adds to the logistical requirements to hold out for as long as possible given that the enemy (both sides) only has a finite supply of rounds. I am not at all saying buff this or nerf that. I'm only presenting a simple example of how some of these ideas being tossed about might require a rework of other seemingly unrelated dynamics. I do think that such shifts could only improve the game using DUST as a point of reference so that whatever may come of vehicle use in NOVA (if anything) won't fall victim to past faults in development and balance. That, or I'm just bored and want to type on and on for no good reason. <3 kitten bacon taco (nom)
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13589	Posted - 2016.07.08 22:06:00 - [54] - Quote Let's not forget that vehicles are not likely to be included in Project Nova on release. It will take a long time for vehicles to be implemented as that would require maps that are probably going to be built from scratch. For now, we are going to be stuck indoors. But it doesn't hurt to talk about it now to help CCP get an idea of what to aim for in the future. Honestly I would prefer that CCP build outdoor maps from scratch like they are doing with Project Nova as a whole because then that will mean no glitches from Dust 514 carrying over to Project Nova. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Slayer Deathbringer Planetary Response Organisation FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 110	Posted - 2016.07.08 22:11:00 - [55] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Let's not forget that vehicles are not likely to be included in Project Nova on release. It will take a long time for vehicles to be implemented as that would require maps that are probably going to be built from scratch. For now, we are going to be stuck indoors. But it doesn't hurt to talk about it now to help CCP get an idea of what to aim for in the future. Honestly I would prefer that CCP build outdoor maps from scratch like they are doing with Project Nova as a whole because then that will mean no glitches from Dust 514 carrying over to Project Nova. Well of course we just want them implemented right "It's not my fault that you lost a 1 mill isk suit to a 1k isk forge gun"
DUST Fiend 18438	Posted - 2016.07.08 22:27:00 - [56] - Quote Slayer Deathbringer wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: Let's not forget that vehicles are not likely to be included in Project Nova on release. It will take a long time for vehicles to be implemented as that would require maps that are probably going to be built from scratch. For now, we are going to be stuck indoors. But it doesn't hurt to talk about it now to help CCP get an idea of what to aim for in the future. Honestly I would prefer that CCP build outdoor maps from scratch like they are doing with Project Nova as a whole because then that will mean no glitches from Dust 514 carrying over to Project Nova. Well of course we just want them implemented right I just want to talk about them because it's the only thing worth talking about for me. It gives me the willful illusion that I actually have something relevant left to discuss when it comes to this IP. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8282	Posted - 2016.07.08 23:21:00 - [57] - Quote Slayer Deathbringer wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: I think we need to draw a line of ALL suits based on vehicle class, and have it be based on turrets specifically. A small turret on an HAV should be just as effective against infantry as a small turret on an LAV. However, a Large Turret should be virtually incapable of being a major threat to infantry. Consider today where most tank shells are either solid penetrators or shaped-charges with very little splash radius because they're designed for piercing the armor of other tanks. This is one area where emulating reality actually assists with game balance rather than detracting from it. I agree, although if that solid shell actually hits an infantry directly it should be an instant kill. But with no splash, and slow turret tracking, so it is hard to get a direct hit on such a small moving target. Right again. Designing Larger turrets in that way rewards practice and precision with kills, rather than essential trolling infantry by shooting the ground near them repeatedly to kill them while they can't do anything to stop you. That's also part of why I prefer the idea of Turrets being empty sets of hardpoints on a vehicle and Vehicle Weapons being their own distinct entity. Ideally an HAV turret would have a Large and Small weapon hardpoint, so the gunner can engage infantry with the Small turret which would provide higher rate of fire or higher splash damage to make it better for engaging infantry at the cost of damage per shot. The Small Weapon would still be in the HAV turret though, and thus restricted to that turret's rotation speed. 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 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. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13073	Posted - 2016.07.08 23:27:00 - [58] - Quote Bear in mind a vehicle alowed by siege mode would become more vulnerable to weakpoint assault, which was why I am always against EVE "Dreadnaught" style immobile siege modes. I would honestly like to see tanks used more like titanfall titans, with allowances for the difference in vehicle stylings of course. But powerful offense, and well-hardened against casual attack, but vulnerable to actual weapons intended to kill them, the suits tasked for that, as well as each other. But I also would like to see them differ from the DUST model of vehicles. DUST handled vehicles terribly overall, and bluntly there wasn't anything rattatis team could have done to make them "good" and I feel they were limited to making them as not-rage-inducing as possible. Same for AV. Both felt like they were stapled on. Now, I am going to say I would rather if we get vehicles in the future, we get them because the devs can devote their full attention and time to balancing them for the game, making sure the controls work, the weapons and defenses are appropriate, the costs appropriate and that they will interact with the infantry as a primary support platform as much as a good scout or sentinel. I would rather not have them than to have them "like in DUST," which was terrible to begin with. I am willing to deal with no vehicles on release if it means when they release, they are done right, not a giant bag of ass, not fun to drive, not fun to fight, and the cause of incessant, b*tching and arguing. I do not want vehicles as they were in DUST. Period. I do not want AV as it was in DUST. Period. Both were bad. They could be fun. But they were bad. So very simply, we're getting a new game. The infantry play is familiar, but it will be new. If and when vehicles are introduced I do not want DUST vehicles even if they look familiar, and I do not want EVE vehicles. I want Nova vehicles. And I want them to be as simplistic or complex as they need to be in order for them to be balanced, fun and part of NOVA. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13589	Posted - 2016.07.09 01:36:00 - [59] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Bear in mind a vehicle alowed by siege mode would become more vulnerable to weakpoint assault, which was why I am always against EVE "Dreadnaught" style immobile siege modes. I would honestly like to see tanks used more like titanfall titans, with allowances for the difference in vehicle stylings of course. But powerful offense, and well-hardened against casual attack, but vulnerable to actual weapons intended to kill them, the suits tasked for that, as well as each other. But I also would like to see them differ from the DUST model of vehicles. DUST handled vehicles terribly overall, and bluntly there wasn't anything rattatis team could have done to make them "good" and I feel they were limited to making them as not-rage-inducing as possible. Same for AV. Both felt like they were stapled on. Now, I am going to say I would rather if we get vehicles in the future, we get them because the devs can devote their full attention and time to balancing them for the game, making sure the controls work, the weapons and defenses are appropriate, the costs appropriate and that they will interact with the infantry as a primary support platform as much as a good scout or sentinel. I would rather not have them than to have them "like in DUST," which was terrible to begin with. I am willing to deal with no vehicles on release if it means when they release, they are done right, not a giant bag of ass, not fun to drive, not fun to fight, and the cause of incessant, b*tching and arguing. I do not want vehicles as they were in DUST. Period. I do not want AV as it was in DUST. Period. Both were bad. They could be fun. But they were bad. So very simply, we're getting a new game. The infantry play is familiar, but it will be new. If and when vehicles are introduced I do not want DUST vehicles even if they look familiar, and I do not want EVE vehicles. I want Nova vehicles. And I want them to be as simplistic or complex as they need to be in order for them to be balanced, fun and part of NOVA. I will admit that is a very powerful point. In the 3 years that I have been playing Dust 514 the one thing that has always remained consistent with vehicles is how they were always out of balance in every way possible. I have seen tanks that dominated maps that were practically killing every infantry on the field and were moving too fast for the AV infantry to counter effectively. And that was before CCP tried doing balance passes and even then the vehicles were still out of balance in many ways. If you want an example just ask any of the dedicated tank pilots and AV infantry who can quickly point out specific flaws with how vehicles in Dust 514 were implemented. Dropships vs AV Swarm balance was even worse. Overall, we do need a new approach when it comes to vehicles and balance. My "Eve Dreadnought" idea was something to be used as an example but I'm positive someone out there has a better idea for balance. The only reason dreadnoughts work well with siege mode is because of how Eve Online was built. It is possible that my dreadnought idea might not work the same way nor have the same effectiveness in Nova. This is why CCP will have to do extensive playtesting (cough-test-server-cough) to see if such an idea would work or not. And that's another thing. Test Servers If we want to see properly balanced vehicles in the future for Nova, CCP will definitely need to give us access to the test servers so we can try them out and give our critical feedback before it hits the live server. CCP can only internally playtest so much before they have to test a new feature on a larger scale. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Slayer Deathbringer Planetary Response Organisation FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 110	Posted - 2016.07.09 02:24:00 - [60] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Slayer Deathbringer wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: I think we need to draw a line of ALL suits based on vehicle class, and have it be based on turrets specifically. A small turret on an HAV should be just as effective against infantry as a small turret on an LAV. However, a Large Turret should be virtually incapable of being a major threat to infantry. Consider today where most tank shells are either solid penetrators or shaped-charges with very little splash radius because they're designed for piercing the armor of other tanks. This is one area where emulating reality actually assists with game balance rather than detracting from it. I agree, although if that solid shell actually hits an infantry directly it should be an instant kill. But with no splash, and slow turret tracking, so it is hard to get a direct hit on such a small moving target. Right again. Designing Larger turrets in that way rewards practice and precision with kills, rather than essential trolling infantry by shooting the ground near them repeatedly to kill them while they can't do anything to stop you. That's also part of why I prefer the idea of Turrets being empty sets of hardpoints on a vehicle and Vehicle Weapons being their own distinct entity. Ideally an HAV turret would have a Large and Small weapon hardpoint, so the gunner can engage infantry with the Small turret which would provide higher rate of fire or higher splash damage to make it better for engaging infantry at the cost of damage per shot. The Small Weapon would still be in the HAV turret though, and thus restricted to that turret's rotation speed. 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 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. I think that there could be a shotgun type turret that can kill infantry and vehicles well but is short range also what about AOE artillery weapons that are like moraters with high direct damage and a decent AOE but limited sight (maybe you can see the area that you are firing at) "It's not my fault that you lost a 1 mill isk suit to a 1k isk forge gun"

Scheneighnay McBob Penumbra or something 7884	Posted - 2016.07.09 03:11:00 - [61] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: LAVs What is its purpose? Long distance travel at very high speeds. In other words, strictly as a transport. Sure there can be a turret but the turret should only serve as a defensive tool to ward off attackers, not be the attack platform itself. When is it needed? Very large open maps where the terrain is so vast that even the fastest scout will find it a hindrance to just rely on running on foot. That scout will likely just call in an LAV anyways because what kind of scout would want to waste half an hour running from point A to point B when an LAV can do the same in 5 minutes? It seems we have very different ideas about the purpose of scouts. To me, the whole point of running a scout it being low-profile. Both electronically, and visually. I would be willing to go half an hour on foot in a scout suit going from point A to point B if that meant getting there undetected, as opposed to tearing through in an LAV. The speed scouts have is simply to aid in their stealth, not to bypass a vehicle. If you want speed in combat, throw some kincats on an assault. Of course when the situation permits, dropship insertion can cut a good chunk of that time out if total stealth isn't the goal. Speaking of which, I remember an idea a dev talked about before beta- a special infiltration type of dropship that can disguise itself as a friendly. Might be good to revisit that idea. Current state of the forums
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13074	Posted - 2016.07.09 03:20:00 - [62] - Quote I think I can safely say that If/When the developers move to vehicles, they will not play like DUST vehicles. Nor should they. One of the stupidest things ever envisioned was making jeeps immune to small arms fire. Vehicles were poorly, poorly done across the board. Some of the balance conventions were absolutely out there on the far side of Flemdar as far as logic goes, tanks did not act like tanks, LAVs did not act like LAVs, and bluntly there was no balance, parity or overarching plan. Then there was the whole "Balance with price tag" thing. It never works. EVE proved it never works. We proved it never works. Scorch the earth and rebuild them from zero. Nothing keeps unless it is deemed to fit in the new game. Unless it adds gameplay value, is fun to play, and is fun to fight, then it has no place in a game. If vehicles are added, and only the vehicle players are having fun when they hit the deck, then they are not built fairly. If they hit the deck, and the vehicle players are miserable because people can instapop them and they don't matter at all, then they are not built fairly. DUST was never built fairly in the AV/V interaction. Ever. A few of us are nostalgic for the beta days of chrome, because either you drove tanks, or you were like me and were good at showing tank drivers that "skill does matter" and killing the bastards solo anyway. the few of us who were nostalgic do not change the fact that even chrome was hella unbalanced, deeply in favor of the tank drivers. Maybe one AV gunner in 50-100 was able to tackle a Marauder and win. It was not unusual for me to rack up 60-80 kills on my tank alt, Blapathon Tanker in beta between madrugar losses. When the ADS were introduced, for over a year they racked up an AVERAGE K/D rating of 50/1. And people defended this, saying that was completely fair. The trend has continued on the pendulum back and forth for the entirety of the game, and bluntly there's no value in keeping the old DUST conventions for vehicles. They didn't work, the controls were sluggish, the hit detection was a joke, and the measures needed to keep vehicles from casually farming infantry like a god-possessed combine harvester in a wheat field made them less fun to use, because it always felt like they were completely off. We just got used to them. I'm of the opinion that the only things from DUST the devs should keep of the vehicles, period, are the models. I feel that everything else should be changed to fit the new game, rather than being shoehorned in "because tanks are cool" That's how we got the vehicles we had, and they were hella unbalanced, and usually not fun to play on the field with or in, at all. I say let the devs rebuild them entirely. It would be incredibly hard to make them worse, overall. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
DUST Fiend 18438	Posted - 2016.07.09 03:29:00 - [63] - Quote I think it's a given that they would be reworked and rebalanced.... There's only so much you can change about vehicles though. A jeep is still a jeep. A tank is still a tank. A dropship is still a dropship. They could change how modules work, or add capacitor, or make them freebee garbage, whatever. I don't think anyone is arguing that they shouldn't approach them differently, some of us are simply arguing that maybe this game deserves a stronger commitment from CCP and maybe just maybe combined arms is worth investing into, instead of tacking onto the end of the long Maybe train Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
Scheneighnay McBob Penumbra or something 7884	Posted - 2016.07.09 03:31:00 - [64] - Quote I've also said this before, will say this again, and will say this many more times even after vehicles are added to nova: It's a huge mistake to try balancing infantry separate from vehicles. They will always be inseparable; whenever there are vehicles, infantry balance will be affected by them. Take for example, the sentinel. Without LAVs and dropships to cart their fat asses around the map, they won't be able to maneuver easily, and won't be able to find vantage points. They also won't have to worry about much if they're slowly hobbling across open areas. They'll be balanced around that. Now, after they're balanced, throw in vehicles. They'll now be able to reach where they could never reach before, move faster than they ever could (and be able to react as quickly as an assault can), and any of them that try hobbling across open areas with get run over, blown apart by an HAV, or both. Their combat niche will be completely changed by vehicles, making any balance beforehand pointless. Current state of the forums
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13074	Posted - 2016.07.09 03:41:00 - [65] - Quote DUST Fiend, I would bluntly rather wait for vehicles than have them shoehorned in without as much thought and development time as the infantry side. As far as commitment, CCP is committed to making this game, and making it as good as they can I can actually tell you that right now. I cannot promise you that they're going to work up the features you want on an acceptable timetable as defined by you. Rattati said vehicles would not be available at release? I'd take him at his word, because there is nothing you, or I can say that will change the timetable. Unless he and his team get all of the development they need for nova release done, debugged and ready really early, then get a wild hair up their collective arses to do vehicles, I'm pretty certain you can take him at his word. We can spitball what would be cool all we want, but there is nothing you, or I, or any member of the CPM past or present can do to make them change their development timeline. They decided that they are doing the infantry game first. When that is done, then other things will likely to be worked on. The more constructive commentary on the topic? The more likely we are to see it upped in priority. The more griping and grumping about CCP devs on the forums about the vehicle topic? The more "personal outrage" we show that "OMG WAI U NOT DO WHAT I WANT NOW CCP?" The less likely they're going to want to make it a priority. It's human nature, but as far as interactions with the vehicle community about vehicles, combined with the imbalances in their interaction with AV infantry? Our community has been nothing short of toxic, so don't expect your normal tacks of conversation to get any traction. Cynical commentary is one thing, it's expected. But we as a group abuse the privilege. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13074	Posted - 2016.07.09 03:52:00 - [66] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: 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. Yeah, even without dropships and LAVs, I don't know too many sentinels who actually had a problem getting into a position to p*ss off literally everyone. They're another thing on my list of things that were "Poorly thought out from the outset," and I would hope that they get rebuilt as something more easily functional even if we do retain the ability for them to trundle around in jeeps. I am of the opinion that the speed/HP/Ewar slider triangle wasn't a good balance point to begin with, and the dropsuits really only ever felt faster or slower inside the helmet while pretty much varying only in whether they could literally dodge bullets like Neo in the matrix, or just sponge up the bullets like the Terminator. I'm hoping that the dropsuit roles are built as actual ROLES in the game, so that some dropsuits may benefit from a jeep. But some dropsuits should never need one except as a minor convenience or as a group support attack vehicle. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
DUST Fiend 18438	Posted - 2016.07.09 04:20:00 - [67] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: CCP is committed to making this game, and making it as good as they can I can actually tell you that right now. Hilmar can tell us it's Greenlit, until then it's CCP TM Vapourware :/ Also you sit here telling me about griping and unconstructive threads, in my "constructive" thread that immediately admits that it's a fruitless venture. Do you even read bro. 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 13075	Posted - 2016.07.09 04:48:00 - [68] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: CCP is committed to making this game, and making it as good as they can I can actually tell you that right now. Hilmar can tell us it's Greenlit, until then it's CCP TM Vapourware :/ Also you sit here telling me about griping and unconstructive threads, in my constructive thread that immediately admits that it's a fruitless venture. Do you even read bro. I wasn't addressing this thread, sorry if I was unclear on that one. People have been remarkably sane and cooperative with each other in this one, so yes, I can read. When I say "we as a community" I don't exclude myself from the statement. That was a generalized statement that applies to the forums at large, not "this thread." And yeah, sure, it's nova-vaporware until it's released, fine. I'll give you that much. But back to your regularly scheduled vehicular philosophy thread. I have no interest in seeing this one end. I've actually been taking notes, just in case I ever hear "We are going to start on vehicles..." I may disagree on a lot of the design philosophies people want to see, but that doesn't mean I don't want to see them, or see them presented. If CCP does start developing vehicles, there's a lot of excellent input here that can be presented and polished. I'd be happy if other threads that crop up on the topic stay close to where this one is. The only thing I want to see for vehicles in nova is honestly that vehicles feel as organic as infantry, part of the landscape, part of the dynamic. If one of the ideas presented I disagree with now will accomplish that, then I goddamn well want that one, that's for sure. Don't let my love for the soapbox stop the discussion, please. And screw AV/V interaction, that can get hammered out later. A few things from my perspective: FAVs, LAVs and MAVs: Fast Attack Vehicle is closer to the jeep type things we have in DUST. I think they're a shoe in for a light, disposable transport with a big gun, but not very tanky. They shouldn't be immune to small arms fire. they should have resistance, but they should be vulnerable to regular infantry attack. Light Armored Vehicles I think should be closer to what you guys think of as MAVs, things like AMTRAKs, and Bradley Fighting Vehicles fit better, but with the dropships I feel the ground troop transport is largely redundant. So I would say make LAVs a fast, enclosed, lightly armored vehicle that might be able to weather a heavy shot without instantly exploding. It should also have nasty attack options. Think twin-linked heavy infantry weapons like twin assault forge guns and you have an idea how I'd like to see LAVs armed. Think of them like Shermans against the Tiger tanks. You use them in wolfpacks to keep the enemy from simply overwhelming them with heavy firepower. Medium Armored Vehicles I see as being largely redundant as I said. Unless we wind up with game modes eventually that have 32 vs 32 MAVs won't be particularly useful or desirable. But as far as troop transports, they're not a bad idea. They just lose most of their utility when there's only 16 players on a team. a dropship can likely do it faster, cheaper and more easily evacuated when it's engines get knocked out. 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. thoughts? Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
DUST Fiend 18438	Posted - 2016.07.09 04:50:00 - [69] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: thoughts? I'd like to address a few posts including yours but I'm far too tired. Will try to pick this back up tomorrow. 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 13075	Posted - 2016.07.09 04:52:00 - [70] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: thoughts? I'd like to address a few posts including yours but I'm far too tired. Will try to pick this back up tomorrow. Cool Rest well. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.

Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1476	Posted - 2016.07.09 05:30:00 - [71] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: One of the stupidest things ever envisioned was making jeeps immune to small arms fire. When the ADS were introduced, for over a year they racked up an AVERAGE K/D rating of 50/1. And people defended this, saying that was completely fair. LAV's were quite literally the best balanced vehicle in the game... Even when they were stupidly overpowered you could still easily counter them, because the driver was never safe, especially when trying to drive into you. 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. I'd like to suggest that there should always be some way to kill the pilot of a vehicle, allow infantry to drop a grenade down the turret of a tank if they manage to get close enough, put a windscreen on the dropships and let that be its weakness to small weapons fire... And the LAV, well the LAV was fine, if a little buggy on small bumps in the road. Also, infantry shouldn't run faster than anything, with the exception of (up to) medium suits against tanks... Scouts rushing the objective was a poor design choice, which made the start of each game quite boring.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13075	Posted - 2016.07.09 08:11:00 - [72] - Quote 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." Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8286	Posted - 2016.07.09 13:51:00 - [73] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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! 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. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
DUST Fiend 18439	Posted - 2016.07.09 14:38:00 - [74] - Quote 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? 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 15:11:00 - [75] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: LAVs What is its purpose? Long distance travel at very high speeds. In other words, strictly as a transport. Sure there can be a turret but the turret should only serve as a defensive tool to ward off attackers, not be the attack platform itself. When is it needed? Very large open maps where the terrain is so vast that even the fastest scout will find it a hindrance to just rely on running on foot. That scout will likely just call in an LAV anyways because what kind of scout would want to waste half an hour running from point A to point B when an LAV can do the same in 5 minutes? It seems we have very different ideas about the purpose of scouts. To me, the whole point of running a scout it being low-profile. Both electronically, and visually. I would be willing to go half an hour on foot in a scout suit going from point A to point B if that meant getting there undetected, as opposed to tearing through in an LAV. The speed scouts have is simply to aid in their stealth, not to bypass a vehicle. If you want speed in combat, throw some kincats on an assault. Of course when the situation permits, dropship insertion can cut a good chunk of that time out if total stealth isn't the goal. Speaking of which, I remember an idea a dev talked about before beta- a special infiltration type of dropship that can disguise itself as a friendly. Might be good to revisit that idea. If the scout wants to take the long way from point A to point B by going on foot then that's fine by me. No harm no foul. However, if time ever becomes a factor (which sometimes it can be) then the LAV can help that scout get as close as he/she can comfortable be to the destination without getting detected, ditch/recall the vehicle and start going the rest of the way on foot. The mountains and hills can mask their approach but at the same time they can be dangerous as they can hide an ambush as well. This is where dropships can help the scout in evading a potential ambush. If attacked, the scout can eject and fall down to some place where they can't reach him in time. Again, this is assuming very large maps are ever introduced. And they have to be vast. Like 5km^2 large at least. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.09 15:15:00 - [76] - Quote That brings me to my next point. How big do you feel the ground map needs to be in order for vehicles to be of actual use? For me that's 5km^2 but that was based on the original terrain size in Dust 514. However only a fraction of that terrain was ever used in Dust because of the redline. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8286	Posted - 2016.07.09 15:32:00 - [77] - Quote 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? Well they already have a pretty high hit-point pool. Say for instance you take an automatic 50% off of small-arms damage. That means you'd need a big group emptying their magazines into you to really be a threat, and by the time they're halfway through a mag you could be behind cover letting your shield-regen kick in, or using your energy to run a few rep/boost cycles before going back into the fray. Maken Tosch wrote: That brings me to my next point. How big do you feel the ground map needs to be in order for vehicles to be of actual use? For me that's 5km^2 but that was based on the original terrain size in Dust 514. However only a fraction of that terrain was ever used in Dust because of the redline. Considering Planetside 2 manages 100 square kilometers while doing ballistic calculations for all weapons, I'm fairly confident that a future Project Nova still using hit-scan could work with terrain that large. The thing is, I see Territorial Warfare as BIG, something that might take a year or more to actually complete and put into the game. If they can make this game successful with 32-player lobby matches in a variety of EVE Online ships for maps, they can acquire more funding over time to develop TW as far as possible before releasing it. I would go so far as to say that if they can't at least match both map-size and player count of a continent in Planetside 2, they'll have a hard time getting customers to take them seriously. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Unholy HateGore highland marines 166	Posted - 2016.07.09 15:39:00 - [78] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: 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. Vehicles should stay. Without them it would be just like any other shooter. I hate the small map COD type games. I love Dust for what it was and could have been.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1476	Posted - 2016.07.09 16:31:00 - [79] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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." In your opinion what was the best balanced vehicle then? Also, I stopped many LAV's using light weapons, just had to adjust the aim... Hence my belief that they were the best balanced vehicle in the game. Only people who couldn't aim needed AV for LAV's... Not to mention mines and explosives left on the floor = easy LAV kill.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.09 16:57:00 - [80] - Quote 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. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13078	Posted - 2016.07.09 17:11:00 - [81] - Quote 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? The same question could be askdd of dropsuits. Why should they die to periodic pistol fire when they have high powered shields? Sentinels had as much shield HP as a methana. Same argument could be applied there. And the answer is "scaling." If all vehicles have the same damage scale then you can't balance them by role. You have to balance them by the same HP/speed slider we got with dropsuits. I mean let's use the Bolt Pistol as an example. It's the DUST equivalent of the .50 AE Desert Eagle. .50 cal pistols would crack an engine block and disable a Jeep easy. Nailing a helicopter is more iffy, and doing more than scuffing the paint on a tank is laughable. Scaling keeps things more dynamic. If you don't need to bust out the forges, or even swarms then HAVs might have a chance to reach targets without automatically coming under Forge Gun fire. If a Forge Gun is less useful for killing dropships than say a light weapon machinegun then you get a situation where you can scale vehicles to purpose. But if all vehicles are the same scale what you get is me and one other guy with forge guns chilling in a central location with lots of cover waiting for your ADS so we can pump slug after slug into your ship to deny you the airspace because even if there's no tanks on the map, we still need the forge guns to get anywhere with enemy jeeps on the field. And we'll not mention all of the swarmandos. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
DUST Fiend 18440	Posted - 2016.07.09 17:18:00 - [82] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: The same question could be askdd of dropsuits. Why should they die to periodic pistol fire when they have high powered shields? Sentinels had as much shield HP as a methana. Same argument could be applied there. And the answer is "scaling." If all vehicles have the same damage scale then you can't balance them by role. You have to balance them by the same HP/speed slider we got with dropsuits. I mean let's use the Bolt Pistol as an example. It's the DUST equivalent of the .50 AE Desert Eagle. .50 cal pistols would crack an engine block and disable a Jeep easy. Nailing a helicopter is more iffy, and doing more than scuffing the paint on a tank is laughable. Scaling keeps things more dynamic. If you don't need to bust out the forges, or even swarms then HAVs might have a chance to reach targets without automatically coming under Forge Gun fire. If a Forge Gun is less useful for killing dropships than say a light weapon machinegun then you get a situation where you can scale vehicles to purpose. But if all vehicles are the same scale what you get is me and one other guy with forge guns chilling in a central location with lots of cover waiting for your ADS so we can pump slug after slug into your ship to deny you the airspace because even if there's no tanks on the map, we still need the forge guns to get anywhere with enemy jeeps on the field. And we'll not mention all of the swarmandos. Well as for dropsuits I think it's mostly that a dropsuit has flesh directly underneath it, where vehicles just have more layers of armor beneath them. As for needing AV to hurt vehicles, again what if we had AV sidearms and personal deployable turret installations? Then basically only people who refuse to deploy AV wouldn't have AV, in which case that's their own damn fault. I mean maybe LAVs can take 10-20% damage from small arms (possibly dropships too), but anything more than that and vehicles would just evaporate the second they try to move past a few enemies. 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 17:42:00 - [83] - Quote I was thinking more a 30-40% reduction from small arms damage with specific weapons being exception. That way if you lone wolf charge a vehicle into a squad? Yeah you're getting pasted. You deserve to get pasted for being stupid. But if you drop your fighter (I hate ADS because they were dumb) on a squad of enemies or a vehicle already engaged and strafe the bejeezus out of them? Sure you'll take a bit of fire, but you're likely to hit them and be gone before more than a handful realize what the hell just happened. And you have enough resistance that one or two chuckleheads with combat rifles aren't very likely to down your bird. Sure, it's possible. But it shouldn't be particularly likely. And while your bird is a huge threat, if they feel they have a chance of hitting you with small arms, they won't be pushing to stick a sentinel on a high spot just to deny you half the map. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.09 17:44:00 - [84] - Quote Unholy HateGore wrote: Vehicles should stay. Without them it would be just like any other shooter. I hate the small map COD type games. I love Dust for what it was and could have been. I agree as well but we have to face the harsh reality. CCP has already made it clear that vehicles are not likely to be available upon release because the first-person-shooter aspect of the game (the very core of it) NEEDS to be stable and enjoyable for everyone first. The lack of stable FPS in Dust was the biggest thing that killed Dust 514 from the start and as a result because the bane of our existence (especially for dropship pilots) for the 3 years that followed. What I am saying here is that I would rather just play a very stable game that is strictly a FPS game without vehicles for 3 years if it means the vehicles will be well-balanced and have an absolute purpose like they were suppose to later on down the line when they get added as an update. I'm not sure if you feel the same way, but I do and that is because of my experience Dust 514. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
DUST Fiend 18440	Posted - 2016.07.09 17:46:00 - [85] - Quote But literally every single player on the map then has AV. Without boosting vehicle HP a ton, how do vehicles not simply explode when moving past basically anywhere on the map? Automatic weapons can maintain damage at range very easily with virtually no way for the pilot to tell where it's coming from. Maps would have to be massive with small player counts for this not to immediately imbalance every engagment against vehicles. Also don't forget that on top of almost 100% of players on the map now possessing AV, there are ALSO actual AV weapons and other vehicles on the field. I guess I'm more in favor of everyone using teamwork to take out various threats as oppossed to simply taking the thought out of things and giving everyone AV all the time. Maken Tosch wrote: CCP has already made it clear that vehicles are not likely to be available upon release because the first-person-shooter aspect of the game (the very core of it) NEEDS to be stable and enjoyable for everyone first Let's not be coy. CCP isn't taking this approach because it's what they have to do. It's because they refuse to invest in the DUST / NOVA team / project any further, keeping it a small side project that will slowly pluck away. Ultimately the reality is the same, but the reasoning is certainly different. 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 17:49:00 - [86] - Quote Oh, and who said anything about a rifle being able to take advantage of a weakspot? If it's a weapon tagged to do full damage to that type of vehicle? Sure, weakspot. If it's some chucklef**k with a scrambler pistol? No weakspot for you. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
DUST Fiend 18440	Posted - 2016.07.09 17:51:00 - [87] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Oh, and who said anything about a rifle being able to take advantage of a weakspot? If it's a weapon tagged to do full damage to that type of vehicle? Sure, weakspot. If it's some chucklef**k with a scrambler pistol? No weakspot for you. Regardless though, automatic weapons can lay down constant damage from range with very little way for a pilot to counter ot tell where they're being shot from. Unlike AV they can't simply run away from it because now literally every single player on the map comes equipped with viable AV without even equipping actual AV or manning a turret. 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 17:54:00 - [88] - Quote Also, I'm only talking about LIGHT vehicles with 30-40% resistance. Mediums should be hogher, to account for more armor, reinforced structure, or in the case of dropships, most of tthe vehicle being empty space with a few hard points. HEAVY vehicles like tanks should require anti-tank weaponry. Period. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.09 17:57:00 - [89] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: CCP has already made it clear that vehicles are not likely to be available upon release because the first-person-shooter aspect of the game (the very core of it) NEEDS to be stable and enjoyable for everyone first Let's not be coy. CCP isn't taking this approach because it's what they have to do. It's because they refuse to invest in the DUST / NOVA team / project any further, keeping it a small side project that they will slowly pluck away at. Ultimately the reality is the same, but the reasoning is certainly different. I would not speculate that far. All we know so far is what CCP said which it is not likely to implement vehicles on release and they already said they want to focus on the core of the game first which is what everyone in the community was asking for 3 years ago to be frank with you. 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. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
DUST Fiend 18440	Posted - 2016.07.09 17:58:00 - [90] - Quote 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. 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 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.

Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1478	Posted - 2016.07.10 16:51:00 - [121] - 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. Managing money could have been great, but it needed balancing. All that time people were able to make money doing next to nothing ruined the games they were in for their team, then ruined the balance of isk risk/reward in future matches where someone had billions to waste against people spamming free gear. If only they were going for an Eve connection again, we could see Eve players creating contracts and managing what an objective was worth, so that you actually have to take part in something to get any money... Removing the whole "money for nothing" part of the game, while rewarding those who take risks. Extend this ability to charge for things to Nova players, so you can put bounties on peoples heads and charge for the use of your equipment, which would mean no more money for people throwing uplinks everywhere, because no one is going to pay you to spawn on a poorly placed uplink, when they can pay another guy who's risked his arse putting one behind enemy lines, which will allow you to make your money back easily as you shoot half the enemy team in the back. I'd personally hate to see isk risk gone completely, because in games that don't have any risk to death (other than "oh nose my kdr") You get more people running in without thinking, which without punishment for failure creates a very boring circle of events.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8286	Posted - 2016.07.10 17:19:00 - [122] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: ARMA requires 2 people for for most vehicles to be useful, for the record. Arma requires two people to work the keyboard and mouse in order to get the correct implement you need out and operating in anything resembling a timely fashion when playing a lone infantryman Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
IMMORTAL WAR HERO NECROM0NGERS 539	Posted - 2016.07.10 17:38:00 - [123] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: 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. :) Object of war is not2 die 4ur country murder bastard 4 his
IMMORTAL WAR HERO NECROM0NGERS 539	Posted - 2016.07.10 17:45:00 - [124] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: 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 Object of war is not2 die 4ur country murder bastard 4 his
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13080	Posted - 2016.07.10 17:48:00 - [125] - Quote IMMORTAL WAR HERO wrote: ADS battles better than EVE I cannot find fault with this statement. Carry on. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7799	Posted - 2016.07.11 12:44:00 - [126] - Quote Slayer Deathbringer wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: I think we need to draw a line of ALL suits based on vehicle class, and have it be based on turrets specifically. A small turret on an HAV should be just as effective against infantry as a small turret on an LAV. However, a Large Turret should be virtually incapable of being a major threat to infantry. Consider today where most tank shells are either solid penetrators or shaped-charges with very little splash radius because they're designed for piercing the armor of other tanks. This is one area where emulating reality actually assists with game balance rather than detracting from it. I agree, although if that solid shell actually hits an infantry directly it should be an instant kill. But with no splash, and slow turret tracking, so it is hard to get a direct hit on such a small moving target. Right again. Designing Larger turrets in that way rewards practice and precision with kills, rather than essential trolling infantry by shooting the ground near them repeatedly to kill them while they can't do anything to stop you. That's also part of why I prefer the idea of Turrets being empty sets of hardpoints on a vehicle and Vehicle Weapons being their own distinct entity. Ideally an HAV turret would have a Large and Small weapon hardpoint, so the gunner can engage infantry with the Small turret which would provide higher rate of fire or higher splash damage to make it better for engaging infantry at the cost of damage per shot. The Small Weapon would still be in the HAV turret though, and thus restricted to that turret's rotation speed. 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 Correct. I was talking about Rail Turrets, Artillery, and Heavy Pulse Lasers. I did not mention Blasters or Auto cannons because I did not want to muddy the water. But yes, Large turret types that are better against infantry should be weaker against vehicles, making anti infantry tanks susceptible to anti vehicle tanks. That would be the balance trade-off. There would be range trad-offs as well. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7799	Posted - 2016.07.11 13:04:00 - [127] - Quote byte modal wrote: I don't imagine all play fields need this, but to give a reasonable return on investment by the pilot and crew to play these new specialized roles, then we should consider other HAV opportunities for level designs that may not have such structures, or just not as many. With that in mind, HAV vs. HAV could fill that role on such battlefields. I am suggesting that HAV damage will be greatly reduced against infantry (tracking, accuracy, damage spread, etc.), while being quite efficient against other vehicles. Let them play their meta vs other vehicle crews and/or AV groups as needed for balance for the games when support as listed earlier is not needed. There are a couple things in this paragraph I wanted to elaborate on. - As long as a vehicle oriented player can always chose to queue for a game mode that has vehicles, I don't see a problem with there being game modes where there are not vehicles. (Combat on ships or in stations for instance.) That also works with CCP's plans to develop the non-vehicle modes first, and get infantry combat sorted. Then they can introduce vehicles and the game modes that give them a purpose at the same time. - I 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. - I can see there being planet based modes (skirmishes etc.) that don't have as much of a need for tanks, but it still would not hurt to include some destructible gates that would make Tanks beneficial. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7799	Posted - 2016.07.11 13:58:00 - [128] - Quote Attention CCP lurkers: Since vehicles are not being developed at this stage and are not planned to be part of the initial build, that means that this discussion is all theoretical in nature. Therefor I see no reason you can not participate in this theoretical discussion about how vehicles might best be implemented into a New Eden themed FPS game. Maybe we can reach some consensus, and solve some problems, before you even get to the drawing board. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7799	Posted - 2016.07.11 14:16:00 - [129] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Slayer Deathbringer wrote: 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 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. 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). Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Scheneighnay McBob Penumbra or something 7884	Posted - 2016.07.11 14:28:00 - [130] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: ARMA requires 2 people for for most vehicles to be useful, for the record. Arma requires two people to work the keyboard and mouse in order to get the correct implement you need out and operating in anything resembling a timely fashion when playing a lone infantryman Sounds like someone needs to git gud Current state of the forums

byte modal 892	Posted - 2016.07.11 14:52:00 - [131] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: byte modal wrote: I don't imagine all play fields need this, but to give a reasonable return on investment by the pilot and crew to play these new specialized roles, then we should consider other HAV opportunities for level designs that may not have such structures, or just not as many. With that in mind, HAV vs. HAV could fill that role on such battlefields. I am suggesting that HAV damage will be greatly reduced against infantry (tracking, accuracy, damage spread, etc.), while being quite efficient against other vehicles. Let them play their meta vs other vehicle crews and/or AV groups as needed for balance for the games when support as listed earlier is not needed. There are a couple things in this paragraph I wanted to elaborate on. - As long as a vehicle oriented player can always chose to queue for a game mode that has vehicles, I don't see a problem with there being game modes where there are not vehicles. (Combat on ships or in stations for instance.) That also works with CCP's plans to develop the non-vehicle modes first, and get infantry combat sorted. Then they can introduce vehicles and the game modes that give them a purpose at the same time. I think that is fair. Please understand that through all that I typed, I hoped that it would read as a very open-ended example of one of many ways to look at these issues. I only narrowed the sample to make the point, though I did not mean for my example to be the definition of that point. If there are games that do not require (or worst case, allow?) vehicles, then by all means make it so. I think the discussion in that specific train of thought should then focus on how to fluidly handle segregation. For example: "I want to play HAV, but all the fun objectives only exist in non-HAV level designs!" But I take your meaning and generally agree. Fox Gaden wrote: - I would change your phrasing to say HAV "Effectiveness" against infantry would be much lower than against vehicles. If infantry actually gets hit by a shell meant to take out a vehicle, then it is bound to do a lot of "Damage". The balance measures would be geared more to making it hard to hit infantry in the first place. Yes. Perhaps that was a poor word choice on my part. I wanted to be a little clearer in my intent so I followed that word with examples such as tracking, accuracy, damage spread, etc., to keep the idea around efficiency; but you are right. I will edit my post to replace the word. Nice subtle catch :) Fox Gaden wrote: - Since Tanks are a strong anti vehicle platform, giving purpose to any vehicle will give a purpose to Tanks. For instance, if the Salvage Grounds described for Legion were implemented, and infantry had limited carrying capacity, then they would need vehicles to hall all the salvage back for extraction. Then Tanks would be useful to disable or destroy the transport vehicles in order to steel people's salvage. #Metagame, #Pirates, #GiveVehiclesPurpose (Did I do the hash tags right? I don't Twitter.) Absolutely agree. Also, don't forget to apply the universal hashtag hand gesture when doing so! ugh. sorry. kitten bacon taco (nom)
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7802	Posted - 2016.07.11 15:05:00 - [132] - Quote Siege Mode I have not yet decided whether I like the Siege Mode idea or not, but I do have some thoughts on how it would work if it was implemented. - Entering Siege Mode would transfer power from the main drive engine to give additional power to the Large Turret and to the Shields. - A Rail or Laser Turret would do more damage if it had more power. - A Blaster Turret would have more range if it had more power. - Caldari and Minmatar tanks would gain much stronger shields. - Gallente and Amarr tanks could deploy armor panels over their engine heat exchangers and down over their tracks, which would make them less vulnerable while in Siege Mode. (Eliminate their soft spots.) The important part is that it would take time to switch out of Siege Mode. Power needs to be switched back, the engine warmed up, armor plates retracted into the hull. There would be a delay between deactivating Siege Mode and the tank becoming mobile. The damage bonus of Siege Mode would stop the moment the tank operator deactivates Siege Mode, as power is redirected back to warming up the engine, then there might even be 5 seconds of vulnerability at the end when it is not getting the defensive benefits of Siege Mode either, but can't yet move. (While shield power is being redirected and armor plates retracted.) So leaving Siege Mode would take maybe 15 seconds, with no damage bonus, and no defensive bonus for the last 5 seconds. (I believe in EVE Siege Mode lasts for a set time period, but I think that being able to drop out of Siege Mode at any time, but it requiring time to make the switch, would work better on the ground.) I see Siege Mode as making Tanks much tougher, but certainly not invulnerable. Maybe greatly increase HP, but without any increase to HP recovery, so you can ware them down over time. Solo tankers might like it, so they can essentially convert their tank into a stationary turret. If they can't drive and shoot at the same time, then Siege Mode gives the solo player a viable play style. I think the idea of Siege Mode is more geared to laying Siege to District defenses though. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8289	Posted - 2016.07.11 15:16:00 - [133] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Slayer Deathbringer wrote: 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 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. 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). Yeah, when I was talking to True he was initially against the idea of auto-cannons because those would be like a powered-up version of the Blaster Turrets we had in Dust, but then someone else pointed out they could be used for anti-air, which is a very good role for a weapon like that. Similar to Flak in Planetside 2, they could maybe set those up with rounds that detonate in proximity to vehicles, but not when fired at infantry since they use a proximity sensor that can only detect larger objects. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
DUST Fiend 18446	Posted - 2016.07.11 22:12:00 - [134] - Quote 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 Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7805	Posted - 2016.07.12 12:03:00 - [135] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: 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 Yeah, well I am so busy this week that I have not had a chance to read pages 5 and 6 in this thread yet. Technically I probably should not have spent that hour posting yesterday when I have so much work to do, but I am finding the discussion in this thread really interesting, and with the Dev's not talking right now, there aren't a lot of interesting discussions going on right now. I think the fact we know that vehicles are not being worked on yet actually opens things up and makes anything possible. With infantry mechanics I would like to know what they have set in stone at this point before I make suggestions, but with vehicles we are free to debate and try to come to a consensus, before they even get to the drawing board. Thanks for the shout out! Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7805	Posted - 2016.07.12 13:49:00 - [136] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: 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. I get the impression that the infantry only maps they are starting with will be smaller indoor maps (ships, stations) that would be similar balance wise to the indoor areas in the DUST maps, where vehicles could not reach anyway. Slow Sentinels should not have problems in smaller indoor maps. Now if they introduced large outdoor maps, without adding vehicles at the same time, then that would likely present balance problems. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7806	Posted - 2016.07.12 14:08:00 - [137] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. I actually started to post this same concept, but cancelled my post wanting to think on it a little more, and then I read this post which sums up what I was thinking. I was thinking of treating it like clones were treated in DUST. There is a hidden hit point pool between the vehicle becoming disabled and it blowing up. - Small arms fire is likely to disable a light vehicle rather than blowing it up, which means that light vehicles can be susceptible to small arms fire without becoming death traps. - AV weapons do enough damage that a dedicated AV player will likely achieve the desired explosion and rack up the full kill count. - Disabled vehicles might be reparable by an Logi or Engineer with the right tools (equipment). - Fighters would probably have a very small structure HP pool. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7806	Posted - 2016.07.12 14:18:00 - [138] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: When the ADS were introduced, for over a year they racked up an AVERAGE K/D rating of 50/1. And people defended this, saying that was completely fair. 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. I think we can all agree that the whole problem with ADS was due to me neglecting to write a guide on how to shoot them down! You can't expect a Blueberry to figure these things out for themselves. ... its a joke... you saw the winky face right? Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7806	Posted - 2016.07.12 14:57:00 - [139] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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! Very good points! I think your idea of a damage threshold for disabling vehicles before the damage threshold to make them explode would make it easier to balance LAV's to allow damage by small arms fire. In DUST when LAV's were made soft enough that you could take them out with infantry weapons, they became death traps and no one would use them. (That was a brief period in DUST history.) If small arms fire could bring a LAV to a stop, without instantly killing the occupants, then LAV's could be useful and vulnerable a the same time. I would say Fighters should be vulnerable to small arms fire as well, relying on being a relatively small fast moving target to avoid being shot down by infantry weapons. If a Fighter pilot decides to just hover there and spray a bunch of infantry rather than doing a strafing run, then the infantry should be able to shoot it down. In both cases I think it should take a fair amount of concentrated fire to take out a light vehicle with anti infantry weapons, but they should be effective enough that the operator can't risk sticking around for too long. The idea is to punish stupid, and to give infantry a sense that they can defend themselves so they don't feel victimized by the small fast vehicles. The heavily armored vehicles that can shrug off small arms fire, should be slower and less maneuverable, so they are easier for infantry to avoid. I don't like the fast tanks of DUST. Slow them down, and give the driver a skill based active defensive system such as active modules with power requirements that have to be balanced by the driver against a limited power source, such as the capacitor setup in EVE. (EVE is a vehicle combat game after all.) My point being that running away should not be the only answer for a heavily armed vehicle to deal with AV. I don't have a problem with a fast Tank if it is going fast because the driver has diverted all the power from its shields into its engines, so that it's shield HP is dropping at a steady rate as long as the speed increase applies. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
LOL KILLZ LulKlz 1014	Posted - 2016.07.12 15:00:00 - [140] - Quote 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. Dustkillz and chill

Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7808	Posted - 2016.07.12 15:09:00 - [141] - Quote 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.) Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13087	Posted - 2016.07.12 20:05:00 - [142] - Quote I was thinking more "squad of several people riddles vehicle with bullets." Sure one person could, but not without a protracted fight. You get a squad hosing? Yeah, fairly quick. But not to the point where vehicles go down at dropsuit kill speeds. There's no point in using them were that the case. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
DUST Fiend 18449	Posted - 2016.07.12 20:40:00 - [143] - Quote 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. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
Nomed Deeps The Exemplars 509	Posted - 2016.07.12 20:48:00 - [144] - Quote I would have liked if you could deploy within vehicle in either MCC or even red line base bay. Most games I started in vehicles (mostly DS) and that would have definitely cut down on vehicle wait time. In any case, pretty sure CCP is getting rid of vehicles to decrease lag as much as possible along with not having to hear from all the whiners that couldn't pilot even a LAV. Besides, CCP looks to be doing much smaller scale this time around (if Project Nova actually gets green light). I cannot be bought, but I can be leased.
Scheneighnay McBob Penumbra or something 7886	Posted - 2016.07.12 21:47:00 - [145] - Quote On the topic of MCCs: we really haven't said anything about those. Should they still exist? Should they stay an objective and nothing else? Really, it depends on what kind of FPS nova is going to be, but still. Like other vehicles, I believe MCCs should be corporation-owned assets that, while not necessary to field, would be extremely beneficial, and would decide how battles are fought. They would be susceptible to damage from heavy weaponry (forge gun and larger), and provide a variety of support roles. Obviously providing a heavy-use (150 clone capacity) spawn point would be an obvious one. Any orbital links, such as being able to call in a bombardment, would have to be forwarded by the MCC. It could also be fitted with active modules so that the MCC can provide its own forms of support: -AA weaponry by faction (lasers, missiles, autocannons, etc) -Ground bombardment weaponry by faction (rockets, plasma mortars, etc) -Ewar support, which could boost precision or range of nearby friendly scans, also the option of using jammers to lower enemy precision -Launching drones to scan small areas -Launching drones that act as nanohives They could also be crucial in corp battles- being able to hack a district's command node, or store looted materials. Lots of possibilities. Current state of the forums
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.12 22:00:00 - [146] - Quote LOL KILLZ wrote: 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. Just remember that vehicles are not likely to be introduced until well after Project Nova is launched. As we have all seen already from the raw footage taken by Fanfest attendees earlier this year and by the fact that CCP LogicLoop seems to be working on indoor maps, we now know that the main battlefield will be strictly inside either a ship or station in space for the time being. And you know what that also means. Large open maps where the fight is happening on the planet surface will not be around for a while either and we need those large open maps for vehicles to be completely effective unless CCP somehow manages to let us fight inside a Citadel where parts of these "cities in the heavens" have wide-open spaces for vehicles. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 13590	Posted - 2016.07.12 22:03:00 - [147] - 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. I say remove the MCCs until there is an absolute need for them later on down the line. So far they served as nothing more than fortified spawn points in Dust. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13087	Posted - 2016.07.12 22:25:00 - [148] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: 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. The point I have been trying to make is there needs to be grades of distinction here. Not every vehicle needs to be badass. Making light vehicles not require specific AV weapons to tackle allows scaling of medium and heavy vehicles make more sense. It's like dropships that took as much raw punishment as an HAV. That never should have been a thing. But because there's no scaling of damage, it had to happen. If I am an infantryman, I shouldn't be defaulting to a sentinel with a forge for literally everything. For a jeep? Throw an AV nade and riddle with bullets. For dropships/MAV/medium vehicles, again light anti-material weapons should be my go-to. I should be busting out heavy weapons and heavy rail guns when someone schleps a madrugar onto the field. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
DUST Fiend 18451	Posted - 2016.07.12 22:30:00 - [149] - Quote 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. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
Scheneighnay McBob Penumbra or something 7886	Posted - 2016.07.12 23:55:00 - [150] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: But what I'm saying is that if you have 16 plus players on the field, where EVERY weapon deals distinct damage to vehicles, PLUS AV, Turrets, and other Vehicles, you've basically just removed any reason to call in LAVs what so ever. They may as well all be free, pre fit, and laying around your spawn point, because you would actually have to try to NOT kill it when EVERYTHING is AV. I think having a well rounded team is important. If everyone just always has the answer to everything then team comp breaks down and it basically becomes a solo game where you never have to really pay attention to what your team runs. Just run your go to fit because it handles all situations, ezpz. This is also why I recommend making most vehicles require 2 to operate, so that way it requires coordination right out the gate in order to be a pilot. Not to mention that, like with Dust, infantry shouldn't have problems avoiding vehicles. If you need to worry about your entire squad getting run over by an LAV, you need to rethink your squad's decision to sit out in the open. Current state of the forums

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.

Scheneighnay McBob Penumbra or something 7888	Posted - 2016.07.14 02:06:00 - [181] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Back on the topic of reworking turrets: I don't think we should see large turrets primarily killing infantry unless said turret does it in a way that smaller weapons can't. If that small blaster on your HAV can kill someone easily, why do you need a massive blaster for it? For example, large missiles could be reworked into indirect fire weapons. Require them to lock onto a designator painted either by infantry or a small turret, then fire missiles to home in on the painted area. The missiles should have some delay before the homing kicks in. This allows the gunner to curve the missiles around objects that would otherwise get in the way, and allow for some skill on their part. Another idea of a bit crazier weapon would be some sort of minmatar locus ballista- launch a timed charge into an area that can roll/bounce around a bit before exploding. Definitely a lot of skill required and definitely a trickshot weapon, but it would be invaluable for firing into areas no other weapon can reach. Think of it as a giant, tank-mounted locus grenade. Honestly there isn't any reason tanks shouldn't have an AoE Cannon Blast. If things are set right, that should absolutely be an option. It's a give/take and balance thing, but a slow-firing, high-damage AoE blast isn't unreasonable for a tank. There's dozens of games that include that, and do it well. Great for clearing bunkers and such. It's dependent upon how the hulls are implemented. If they're done like DUST? yeah, no let's stick to the point-fire turrets. My honest opinion is that light turrets should be basically sentinel heavy weapons on a pintle mount. Forge guns, HMGs, etc. Heavier vehicles (not HAVs) might have twin-linked heavy weapons like twin-assault forges that alternate barrels, etc. Sh*t like that. I highly recommend we think less "DUST did it this way" and look at interesting ideas (I'm fond of W40k vehicles). Heavy turrets should be big, slow, and carry a rather large, noticeable punch, IMHO. I detest the amount of pussyfooting around that we've had to go through with the turrets. An M-1 Can theoretically do a bit over an 8 second rotation 360 degrees. That's about 40 Degrees per second, according to internet sources that I may or may not find dubious. Similarly a challenger has a 9 second rotation. That rotation rate isn't what I'd call great for tracking lemming infantry in close. works just fine for distant enemies with a coaxial machinegun though. All heavy turrets should have a coaxial. There's some real-world conventions that just work WELL. There are some that may not translate to the game well. But i like tanks that can punch hard. I actually felt better about gunnlogis when they had splash, oddly enough. There's a LOT of neat room to play for turrets. I just hope we don't repeat the Madrugar .50 caliber anti-infantry machinegun.... err, I mean Plasma cannon.... Seriously that thing fired more or less identically to an M2 .50 cal machinegun. Coaxial guns definitely need to be a thing. With real tanks, or at least the WWII era ones, the cannon was actually considered to be a secondary weapon- only used if you come across fortifications or an enemy tank. The machine guns saw more use. Current state of the forums
DUST Fiend 18459	Posted - 2016.07.14 05:49:00 - [182] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: 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. Well sidearm AV would be something like single shot swarm or some kind of DoT placing gun, so it could be useful in a pinch to help your AV guy put down a vehicle. Webifier anything helps against all vehicles, and being able to call in your own turrets like originally envisioned would also help against all vehicles. The 20% damage from small arms to light vehicles wouldn't carry over though, but perhaps 10% damage to medium and 4-5% to heavy would help just the slightest bit. I don't see how any of this is creating a solution just for LAVs Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7811	Posted - 2016.07.14 14:53:00 - [183] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Well as for dropsuits I think it's mostly that a dropsuit has flesh directly underneath it, where vehicles just have more layers of armor beneath them. Lets also not forget that from a purely gameplay point of view, it's a ** load easier to tag a vehicle or its weakspot than it is to hit a dropsuit or its weakspot. As for needing AV to hurt vehicles, again what if we had AV sidearms and personal deployable turret installations? Then basically only people who refuse to deploy AV wouldn't have AV, in which case that's their own damn fault. I mean maybe LAVs can take 10-20% damage from small arms (possibly dropships too), but anything more than that and vehicles would just evaporate the second they try to move past a few enemies. (I am finally getting around to reading pages 5 and 6.) The things of significance under the LAV"s armor would include wires, capacitors, cooling systems, lubrication lines (electric engines) or spark plugs, fuel lines, wires, cooling systems, etc (combustion engines). You damage enough of these components and the LAV is going to lose its ability to move on its own. DUST Fiend wrote:** maybe LAVs can take 10-20% damage from small arms (possibly dropships too), but anything more than that and vehicles would just evaporate the second they try to move past a few enemies. You seem to be assuming that LAV's would have very low health. If a LAV can survive being hit by a Swarm of missiles doing 100% damage, then it should be able to survive for a reasonable amount of time against a number or rifles doing 40% damage. If not, then the difference between AV damage and small arms damage is not great enough. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7811	Posted - 2016.07.14 15:33:00 - [184] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: But literally every single player on the map then has AV. Without boosting vehicle HP a ton, how do vehicles not simply explode when moving past basically anywhere on the map? Automatic weapons can maintain damage at range very easily with virtually no way for the pilot to tell where it's coming from. Maps would have to be massive with small player counts for this not to immediately imbalance every engagment against vehicles. Also don't forget that on top of almost 100% of players on the map now possessing AV, there are ALSO actual AV weapons and other vehicles on the field. I guess I'm more in favor of everyone using teamwork to take out various threats as oppossed to simply taking the thought out of things and giving everyone AV all the time. (Yeah, responding to another old Page 5 post, but you state your concerns clearly in this post, which makes it worth responding to.) You should not be thinking of all vehicles as the same. Here is my vision: LAV / Fighter (Light Armor): They should be susceptible to infantry weapon fire, but have the hit point pool to be able to face infantry weapon fire long enough to do a few strafing runs or drive-bys. Light weapons do 40% to weak spots, 15% damage to the rest of the vehicle. Fighters have smaller weak points than Dropships. These vehicles have the speed and agility to bug out when taking too much damage, go somewhere else to use active repair modules, and then come back. MAV / Dropship (Medium Armor): They should only be moderately susceptible to infantry weapon fire (25% against weak points/ 10% against the rest of the vehicle), and have a larger HP pool so they are also less susceptible to AV. Dropships delivering troops need to be able to stick around long enough for pick up or offload, so they need more survivability. The same would go for a troop transport MAV. An Assault MAV would have more acceleration, and less hit points than a troop transport. HAV (Heavy Armor): Infantry weapons would only do 10% damage to weak points / 3% damage to the rest. Heavy armor would be functionally impervious to small arms fire. A weapon is not an AV weapon unless it can do noticeable damage to a Tank. A non AV weapon could stop a lightly armored vehicle, and maybe have some impact on a medium armored vehicle, but have no significant effect on a heavily armored vehicle. An AV weapon is effective against any vehicle. And in case you are wondering why a LAV or a Fighter would not have more armor, it is because adding more weight would reduce their acceleration, and both rely on speed and maneuverability to survive. I also see Fighters as being faster and more nimble than the Assault Dropships we had in DUST. A Fighter should be able to out maneuver a missile if the pilot is skilled enough. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7811	Posted - 2016.07.14 15:43:00 - [185] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Oh, and who said anything about a rifle being able to take advantage of a weakspot? If it's a weapon tagged to do full damage to that type of vehicle? Sure, weakspot. If it's some chucklef**k with a scrambler pistol? No weakspot for you. The weak spot on a vehicle should be more susceptible to any weapon. Of course the term "more" in this case is relative to damage that weapon can inflict. A scrambler pistol should do "more" damage to the front grill of a LAV than it would do to the side of the cab, but whether "more" represents significant damage depends on the damage profile of the weapon vs that vehicle. "Weakspot" is a relative term. It might be more literal to say "Weaker spot". But that would be a clunky term. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7811	Posted - 2016.07.14 16:06:00 - [186] - 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. If every solder carries an actual AV weapon, then Tanks would need to be balanced against every solder having AV, at which point Tanks become either impossible to kill (OP) or death traps (UP). If infantry don't normally carry AV weapons, then the choice to switch to AV weapons to take on a Tank has the balancing effect of making them less effective against infantry. LAV's can be balanced on every solder being able to damage them because LAV's don't have a lot of offensive ability. Yes they can run over people standing in the open, but that can be countered by getting behind a post or wall... or just jumping to the side at the last moment. And anyone manning the turret is not protected, so you don't have to take out a LAV to take out the gunner. Since they are not strong offensively they can be given enough health that they are not easy to kill. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Ripley Riley Incorruptibles 14078	Posted - 2016.07.14 16:34:00 - [187] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: "Weakspot" is a relative term. It might be more literal to say "Weaker spot". Just popping in to say this. A weak spot doesn't have to be a "critical hit" location. It can simply mean small arms do damage when hitting [insert location]. My advice to you, playa.
Echo 1991 warravens Imperium Eden 1251	Posted - 2016.07.14 17:42:00 - [188] - Quote Ripley Riley wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: "Weakspot" is a relative term. It might be more literal to say "Weaker spot". Just popping in to say this. A weak spot doesn't have to be a "critical hit" location. It can simply mean small arms do damage when hitting [insert location]. Which would mean anything bigger should do more damage too. A forge gun is gonna be more destructive to that point than it would on area that isn't "weak". Change the Ion Pistol Fitting Skill Pls. #PortDust514 'Echo is a dirty hooker' - UnclS2
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7811	Posted - 2016.07.14 18:34:00 - [189] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: 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. Mobius Wyvern has a point. We did figure out how to balance Dropships and Swarm Launchers in a way that would be fun and engaging for both sides. It is just that the solutions we came up with were out of scope for the DUST on the PS3. But with NOVA on the PC, we have a chance to do aircraft and anti aircraft right. So lets talk about that a bit. - Missiles and their con trails rendering for pilots.. imagine that! - Attempted lock warning, Lock on warning, and Missile pursuit warning. (Better than not knowing until the first one hits.) - Missile proximity warning. The beep for the Missile pursuit warning beeps faster the closer it gets. - Counter Measures (flairs, flack, chafe). Chance of decoying a missile increasing with proximity so that timing on releasing the Counter Measures directly effects their effectiveness. The flack/flairs/chafe only hangs in the air for a few seconds before it falls away and become ineffective. - Fighters should be maneuverable enough to turn more sharply than a missile, so a good pilot should be able to out maneuver them. This is dependent on the pilot being able to spot the missile and getting their timing right. - Fighters should carry four large anti vehicle missiles with lock on mechanics. They need to reload at a supply Depot. The swarm launcher would still be the bane of the existence of inexperienced or incompetent pilots, but good pilots would be more concerned about Forge Guns. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8298	Posted - 2016.07.14 19:55:00 - [190] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: 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. Mobius Wyvern has a point. We did figure out how to balance Dropships and Swarm Launchers in a way that would be fun and engaging for both sides. It is just that the solutions we came up with were out of scope for the DUST on the PS3. But with NOVA on the PC, we have a chance to do aircraft and anti aircraft right. So lets talk about that a bit. Lock-on Missile Counters: - Missiles and their con trails rendering for pilots.. imagine that! - Attempted lock warning, Lock on warning, and Missile pursuit warning. (Better than not knowing until the first one hits.) - Missile proximity warning. The beep for the Missile pursuit warning beeps faster the closer it gets. - Counter Measures (flairs, flack, chafe). Chance of decoying a missile increasing with proximity so that timing on releasing the Counter Measures directly effects their effectiveness. The flack/flairs/chafe only hangs in the air for a few seconds before it falls away and become ineffective. - Fighters should be maneuverable enough to turn more sharply than a missile, so a good pilot should be able to out maneuver them. This is dependent on the pilot being able to spot the missile and getting their timing right. - Dropships should be tough enough to take a few hits. The swarm launcher would still be the bane of the existence of inexperienced or incompetent pilots, but good pilots would be more concerned about Forge Guns. Fighter Wing Hardpoints for Missiles: - 4 hard points to mount ordinance on the wings. Need to land at a supply depot or base facility to reload. - Locking missiles with the same lock on mechanics as a Swarm Launcher. A single Fighter missile would do damage equivalent to a Swarm of the smaller Swarm Launcher missiles. - Dumb fire missiles that do more damage than Locking missiles (one shot other Fighters, and do significant damage to tanks). Fixed Nose Turrets: Fighters should also have a medium turret (possibly a pair of medium turrets) mounted in a fixed position firing in the direction the fighter is pointed. (If paired turrets, the streams should not converge enough for both turrets to hit a target as amll as a solder.) Having the turret fixed is a balance measure to prevent fighter pilots from camping infantry on the ground. We know what happens when an aircraft points its nose at the ground for too long. Fighter Mobility: Fighters should use the same type of propulsion as Dropships, but being lighter, they should be much more responsive. They should also have stubby wings which provide lift when they are moving at high speed. Have a button to toggle to fix the fighter engines in a forward thrust configuration, or release them into Dropship mode. Have flaps and rudder engage when engines are in forward thrust configuration. Make the switch a manual toggle, so pilots are able to engage in stalling maneuvers, which an automatic switch based on flight speed would not allow. It would be a bit like a Harrier Jet, but with the maneuverability of a helicopter in hover mode. I would personally strongly oppose any kind of multi-person design because the issues with balance between firepower, hp, and mobility would be a nightmare to say the least. I would say we should in all cases have VTOL and Fixed-Wing aircraft as separate entities. Consider that in order to balance their potential firepower, Fighters have been proposed by many as having the lowest EHP of all vehicles, making them a large and vulnerable target relying entirely on speed and maneuverability to stay alive. A Dropship, however, is a heavier air vehicle built around hovering and having the highpoints to take some hits and stay airborne. A Fighter having to use its powerful weapons in passes because they are all fixed-mounts helps balance their firepower. A Fighter being able to select modes would mean they'd need hp to survive hovering at low speeds which would be extension unbalance their offensive capabilities or require them to be laughably weak offensively. HOWEVER, some of you may remember my thread on the idea of MTACs being modular "mechs" that basically perform as the Tech-III of Dust(now Nova) vehicles. They would be very expensive but also allow one player some serious offensive potential at the cost of having some drawbacks to balance them. What if - at some point in the future - we could have mode-switching aircraft that can perform a VTOL gunship AND Fighter role, and with bonuses that apply in each mode similar to Tactical Destroyers in EVE? Hover Mode could give bonuses to defensive modules, and Fighter mode could give bonuses to mobility modules. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13095	Posted - 2016.07.14 20:17:00 - [191] - Quote A VTOL fighter doesn't have to have slow lateral movement. It can be fast. Make 'em fast, light and violent. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13095	Posted - 2016.07.14 20:18:00 - [192] - Quote I also don't want fire & forget missiles ever again. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Ripley Riley Incorruptibles 14078	Posted - 2016.07.14 20:38:00 - [193] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I also don't want fire & forget missiles ever again. Awww Not even some kind of dumb fire rocket? I had hot, wet fantasies about Viziam EM rockets to take out shield tank vehicles. My advice to you, playa.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8298	Posted - 2016.07.14 21:01:00 - [194] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: A VTOL fighter doesn't have to have slow lateral movement. It can be fast. Make 'em fast, light and violent. For a jet, VTOL needs to be for landing only. We don't want some kind of multi-mode aircraft that can do everything and makes other aircraft obsolete. Even if it doesn't do that, balancing will be a nightmare. There's a reason why no one takes the "ESF"s in Planetside 2 seriously. Jets and helicopter-type vehicles need to be separated in order to have both be balanced and fun. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Joel II X Bacon with a bottle of Quafe 10385	Posted - 2016.07.14 21:09:00 - [195] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I also don't want fire & forget missiles ever again. In order for the missiles to hit their target, the AV should keep the lock-on on the vehicle as much as they can. Doing so increases the speed of the missiles, while losing lock-on would slow the missiles. If they get too slow, or change target, the missiles detonate early. The Launcher would have an X-Range for activating lock and releasing payload, while their lock could extend up to Y-Range so as to balance vehicle speed. *Scouts United* Gk.0s & Quafes all day.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8298	Posted - 2016.07.14 21:46:00 - [196] - Quote Joel II X wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I also don't want fire & forget missiles ever again. In order for the missiles to hit their target, the AV should keep the lock-on on the vehicle as much as they can. Doing so increases the speed of the missiles, while losing lock-on would slow the missiles. If they get too slow, or change target, the missiles detonate early. The Launcher would have an X-Range for activating lock and releasing payload, while their lock could extend up to Y-Range so as to balance vehicle speed. Fire-and-Forget is NOT a problem. Not at all. The only reason they presented a problem in Dust 514 was because they didn't obey the laws of physics and had virtually no limitations. Even after multiple nerfs they still flew super fast and turned nearly on a dime, and there were no countermeasures to spoof them. A properly designed Fire-and-Forget weapon would have restrictions in turning most importantly such that you can out-turn the missiles if you fly well. Countermeasures like flares and chaff should also be available to try and break their lock. Now, I do like the idea of a weapon that requires you to hold a lock and thus fires a missile that is harder to defeat. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1481	Posted - 2016.07.14 22:35:00 - [197] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: A properly designed Fire-and-Forget weapon would have restrictions in turning most importantly such that you can out-turn the missiles if you fly well. Countermeasures like flares and chaff should also be available to try and break their lock. It would have been good fun dodging missiles, if the only way to avoid them wasn't to crash into something at full speed and hope the physics engine glitched to let you bounce off it without taking damage... Still one of my happiest moments in Dust. Mobius Wyvern wrote: Now, I do like the idea of a weapon that requires you to hold a lock and thus fires a missile that is harder to defeat. That would be quite nice as the swarm-like turret people wanted for vehicles, force the pilot to keep the target in its sights while the missiles are flying towards the target... Menwhile having to dodge forge blasts because one hit would bounce your aim clean off sending the missiles off to visit a nearby wall.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13095	Posted - 2016.07.15 00:16:00 - [198] - Quote I would say if you lose lock, missiles go on terminal ballistic path. IE they fly straight and fast in whatever direction they were pointed. And traditional fixed-wing aircraft are problematic in the extreme on maps that aren't huge. I was thinking somewhere between Harrier and Cobra gunship for intent on flying vehicles. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 13592	Posted - 2016.07.15 01:01:00 - [199] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I would say if you lose lock, missiles go on terminal ballistic path. IE they fly straight and fast in whatever direction they were pointed. And traditional fixed-wing aircraft are problematic in the extreme on maps that aren't huge. I was thinking somewhere between Harrier and Cobra gunship for intent on flying vehicles. Auto-Target would be fun. Except they might also auto-target your friendly vehicles as well. Happened in Eve Online one time when someone brought in a Caldari ship to a PvP fight in low-sec but ended up wiping out his own roam fleet because he used Auto-Targeting missiles. Needless to say, his intended targets got away. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Dreis ShadowWeaver RIP DUST 514 9364	Posted - 2016.07.15 01:15:00 - [200] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I would say if you lose lock, missiles go on terminal ballistic path. IE they fly straight and fast in whatever direction they were pointed. And traditional fixed-wing aircraft are problematic in the extreme on maps that aren't huge. I was thinking somewhere between Harrier and Cobra gunship for intent on flying vehicles. Auto-Target would be fun. Except they might also auto-target your friendly vehicles as well. Happened in Eve Online one time when someone brought in a Caldari ship to a PvP fight in low-sec but ended up wiping out his own roam fleet because he used Auto-Targeting missiles. Needless to say, his intended targets got away. I'm sure CCP could make sure that doesn't happen. We did it for Nigel ( ; ~;)7

Scheneighnay McBob Penumbra or something 7889	Posted - 2016.07.15 01:22:00 - [201] - Quote As far as missiles not rendering, that was a PS3 issue above anything else. The missiles would be fired from beyond projectile/effect rendering distance, and then move in faster than the PS3's GPU could process them. Running the game on something other than a potato wouldn't have issues like that. Current state of the forums
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1482	Posted - 2016.07.15 08:36:00 - [202] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: As far as missiles not rendering, that was a PS3 issue above anything else. The missiles would be fired from beyond projectile/effect rendering distance, and then move in faster than the PS3's GPU could process them. Running the game on something other than a potato wouldn't have issues like that. It was a programming issue, the systems limitations should have been well known to everyone that needed to know. Not that a more powerful system wont help... But power alone doesn't make up for bad code... I can program something that will slow down the whole system while doing absolutely nothing of use, no matter how decent the hardware.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8302	Posted - 2016.07.15 08:49:00 - [203] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: As far as missiles not rendering, that was a PS3 issue above anything else. The missiles would be fired from beyond projectile/effect rendering distance, and then move in faster than the PS3's GPU could process them. Running the game on something other than a potato wouldn't have issues like that. It was a programming issue, the systems limitations should have been well known to everyone that needed to know. Not that a more powerful system wont help... But power alone doesn't make up for bad code... I can program something that will slow down the whole system while doing absolutely nothing of use, no matter how decent the hardware. Precisely. No matter how beefy your rig if you're running needlessly chunky software designed specifically to use every last resource, your beefy rig is going to run like a Pentium 1 from the 90s. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1482	Posted - 2016.07.15 08:51:00 - [204] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I would say if you lose lock, missiles go on terminal ballistic path. IE they fly straight and fast in whatever direction they were pointed. As long as they're designed not to fire forwards this would be fine, otherwise you'll get a lot of people not holding the lock for more than a millisecond, because it's already launching forwards. Not a huge problem for vehicles that move a lot on multiple axis like dropships, but ground vehicles and possibly infantry would be at risk of fire and forget gameplay. If however the missiles follow the lock, it would allow for interesting manoeuvring of the missiles, allowing the person launching to fire around multiple obstacles and friendly assets, or even just to juke a dropship into dodging one way and ending up in a whole world of trouble. Dreis ShadowWeaver wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: Auto-Target would be fun. Except they might also auto-target your friendly vehicles as well. Happened in Eve Online one time when someone brought in a Caldari ship to a PvP fight in low-sec but ended up wiping out his own roam fleet because he used Auto-Targeting missiles. Needless to say, his intended targets got away. I'm sure CCP could make sure that doesn't happen. Hopefully they keep the risk, misuse should have consequences... And it would be funny as hell.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8302	Posted - 2016.07.15 11:41:00 - [205] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I would say if you lose lock, missiles go on terminal ballistic path. IE they fly straight and fast in whatever direction they were pointed. As long as they're designed not to fire forwards this would be fine, otherwise you'll get a lot of people not holding the lock for more than a millisecond, because it's already launching forwards. Not a huge problem for vehicles that move a lot on multiple axis like dropships, but ground vehicles and possibly infantry would be at risk of fire and forget gameplay. If however the missiles follow the lock, it would allow for interesting manoeuvring of the missiles, allowing the person launching to fire around multiple obstacles and friendly assets, or even just to juke a dropship into dodging one way and ending up in a whole world of trouble. Dreis ShadowWeaver wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: Auto-Target would be fun. Except they might also auto-target your friendly vehicles as well. Happened in Eve Online one time when someone brought in a Caldari ship to a PvP fight in low-sec but ended up wiping out his own roam fleet because he used Auto-Targeting missiles. Needless to say, his intended targets got away. I'm sure CCP could make sure that doesn't happen. Hopefully they keep the risk, misuse should have consequences... And it would be funny as hell. I'm not sure if that would be a good idea for a game, but I do remember a hilarious instance of a YouTube recording of DCS World where the player fired a heatseeking missile without knowing his friend had hit his afterburners above and in front of him, which caused the missile to make a sharp turn up and detonate right behind him, which wiped him out in one shot. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7812	Posted - 2016.07.15 12:05:00 - [206] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I also don't want fire & forget missiles ever again. Why not? Is there a game with fighters that does not have fire and forget missiles? Can our experience with DUST really give us a fair impression of fire & forget missiles when DUST did not have Lock on warnings, or counter measures? Fire and forget missiles give pilots so many chances to challenge themselves and show off their skills if they were done right. Having the first missile hit being a pilot's first warning that they are being targeted is not the way to do fire & forget missiles! Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7812	Posted - 2016.07.15 12:12:00 - [207] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: A VTOL fighter doesn't have to have slow lateral movement. It can be fast. Make 'em fast, light and violent. For a jet, VTOL needs to be for landing only. We don't want some kind of multi-mode aircraft that can do everything and makes other aircraft obsolete. Even if it doesn't do that, balancing will be a nightmare. There's a reason why no one takes the "ESF"s in Planetside 2 seriously. Jets and helicopter-type vehicles need to be separated in order to have both be balanced and fun. Are there going to be other aircraft besides Fighters and Dropships? Fighters (Light Aircraft): light, fast, and nimble. No passengers. Dropships (Medium Aircraft): Bigger, slower, heavier, and tougher than Fighters and carry 6 passengers. There is not a whole lot of overlap there. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8303	Posted - 2016.07.15 13:50:00 - [208] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: A VTOL fighter doesn't have to have slow lateral movement. It can be fast. Make 'em fast, light and violent. For a jet, VTOL needs to be for landing only. We don't want some kind of multi-mode aircraft that can do everything and makes other aircraft obsolete. Even if it doesn't do that, balancing will be a nightmare. There's a reason why no one takes the "ESF"s in Planetside 2 seriously. Jets and helicopter-type vehicles need to be separated in order to have both be balanced and fun. Are there going to be other aircraft besides Fighters and Dropships? Fighters (Light Aircraft): light, fast, and nimble. No passengers. Dropships (Medium Aircraft): Bigger, slower, heavier, and tougher than Fighters and carry 6 passengers. There is not a whole lot of overlap there. And as Breakin Stuff mentioned in another post, exclusively fixed winged aircraft are problematic on small maps, and let's not forget that a huge map for infantry is still a small map for a Fighter. Allowing the Fighter to hover does not necessitate making it tanky. Being able to hover and be maneuverable at low speeds would allow them to take cover between buildings, or fly down a street in a complex. Then they only have to deal with local dangers, and if things get hot locally, they can head up, pick up speed, and head out. Either that, or just duck around a corner. Fixed wing mode is really more to give the full fighter experience in Fighter vs Fighter combat. But entirely fixed winged Fighters would have little use on maps sized for an infantry game. What I'm saying is we already had confirmed for us that Fighter weren't in Dust because the maps were too small. That and the design shown at FanFest 2012 both fairly clearly indicate that they were meant as Fixed-Wing only and not meant to function in any capacity as a pseudo-gunship. Also, similar to your example of not using Dust as an example of the only way that knock-on weapons can work, I don't think Dust should be used as any example of map size in Nova, especially considering that we were eventually supposed to get all 25 square kilometers in Dust maps before then moving bigger. I would be very surprised if CCP Ratatti's master plan is to bring back Territorial Warfare in small maps with 32 players maximum. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
byte modal 911	Posted - 2016.07.15 14:45:00 - [209] - Quote fight! fight! fight!!!!!! Forum fight in the hallway!! RUN!!! friday. bored@work. kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 911	Posted - 2016.07.15 14:46:00 - [210] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I would say if you lose lock, missiles go on terminal ballistic path. IE they fly straight and fast in whatever direction they were pointed. As long as they're designed not to fire forwards this would be fine, otherwise you'll get a lot of people not holding the lock for more than a millisecond, because it's already launching forwards. Not a huge problem for vehicles that move a lot on multiple axis like dropships, but ground vehicles and possibly infantry would be at risk of fire and forget gameplay. If however the missiles follow the lock, it would allow for interesting manoeuvring of the missiles, allowing the person launching to fire around multiple obstacles and friendly assets, or even just to juke a dropship into dodging one way and ending up in a whole world of trouble. Dreis ShadowWeaver wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: Auto-Target would be fun. Except they might also auto-target your friendly vehicles as well. Happened in Eve Online one time when someone brought in a Caldari ship to a PvP fight in low-sec but ended up wiping out his own roam fleet because he used Auto-Targeting missiles. Needless to say, his intended targets got away. I'm sure CCP could make sure that doesn't happen. Hopefully they keep the risk, misuse should have consequences... And it would be funny as hell. I'm not sure if that would be a good idea for a game, but I do remember a hilarious instance of a YouTube recording of DCS World where the player fired a heatseeking missile without knowing his friend had hit his afterburners above and in front of him, which caused the missile to make a sharp turn up and detonate right behind him, which wiped him out in one shot. FF FTW!!! kitten bacon taco (nom)

Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7814	Posted - 2016.07.15 16:29:00 - [211] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: What I'm saying is we already had confirmed for us that Fighter weren't in Dust because the maps were too small. That and the design shown at FanFest 2012 both fairly clearly indicate that they were meant as Fixed-Wing only and not meant to function in any capacity as a pseudo-gunship. Also, similar to your example of not using Dust as an example of the only way that knock-on weapons can work, I don't think Dust should be used as any example of map size in Nova, especially considering that we were eventually supposed to get all 25 square kilometers in Dust maps before then moving bigger. I would be very surprised if CCP Ratatti's master plan is to bring back Territorial Warfare in small maps with 32 players maximum. Well if they bring in maps big enough to support them, I don't have a problem with fixed wing aircraft. The Fighter I was envisioning does not have to have a fixed wing mode. (I suggested the fixed wing mode because I did not think that exclusively fixed wing craft would be viable, and I wanted that fixed wing feel for dog fights.) The Fighter I was thinking of would be a one person craft slightly large than a LAV with stubby rear wings and a forward canard. A large articulating thruster at the end of each wing, and a small articulating thruster at either end of the canard. Low weight/high thrust, so it can change direction easily. It would probably require finesse and skill to bring it to a stop or land in a tight spot, but you would not have to wary as much about your momentum as you can overcome it with counter thrust much faster than with a Dropship. Hopefully aircraft would actually have some instrumentation this time around: - Pitch indicator - Yaw indicator - Movement vector in relation to the direction the craft is pointing. - Flight speed indicator. I like the idea of a sphare with a ring at the equator representing level flight, a second ring indicating the pitch and yaw of the aircraft, and an arrow from the center of the sphere indicating the actual direction the craft is traveling in, with forward being the direction the craft is pointed in. Have the arrow's length be proportional to movement speed. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8304	Posted - 2016.07.15 18:38:00 - [212] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: What I'm saying is we already had confirmed for us that Fighter weren't in Dust because the maps were too small. That and the design shown at FanFest 2012 both fairly clearly indicate that they were meant as Fixed-Wing only and not meant to function in any capacity as a pseudo-gunship. Also, similar to your example of not using Dust as an example of the only way that knock-on weapons can work, I don't think Dust should be used as any example of map size in Nova, especially considering that we were eventually supposed to get all 25 square kilometers in Dust maps before then moving bigger. I would be very surprised if CCP Ratatti's master plan is to bring back Territorial Warfare in small maps with 32 players maximum. Well if they bring in maps big enough to support them, I don't have a problem with fixed wing aircraft. The Fighter I was envisioning does not have to have a fixed wing mode. (I suggested the fixed wing mode because I did not think that exclusively fixed wing craft would be viable, and I wanted that fixed wing feel for dog fights.) The Fighter I was thinking of would be a one person craft slightly large than a LAV with stubby rear wings and a forward canard. A large articulating thruster at the end of each wing, and a small articulating thruster at either end of the canard. Low weight/high thrust, so it can change direction easily. It would probably require finesse and skill to bring it to a stop or land in a tight spot, but you would not have to wary as much about your momentum as you can overcome it with counter thrust much faster than with a Dropship. Hopefully aircraft would actually have some instrumentation this time around: - Pitch indicator - Yaw indicator - Movement vector in relation to the direction the craft is pointing. - Flight speed indicator. I like the idea of a sphare with a ring at the equator representing level flight, a second ring indicating the pitch and yaw of the aircraft, and an arrow from the center of the sphere indicating the actual direction the craft is traveling in, with forward being the direction the craft is pointed in. Have the arrow's length be proportional to movement speed. Your description of a Fighter actually sounds like what I would consider an ideal setup for a single-seater Gunship. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Thaddeus Reynolds Dead Man's Game Preatoriani 757	Posted - 2016.07.15 18:46:00 - [213] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: What I'm saying is we already had confirmed for us that Fighter weren't in Dust because the maps were too small. That and the design shown at FanFest 2012 both fairly clearly indicate that they were meant as Fixed-Wing only and not meant to function in any capacity as a pseudo-gunship. Also, similar to your example of not using Dust as an example of the only way that knock-on weapons can work, I don't think Dust should be used as any example of map size in Nova, especially considering that we were eventually supposed to get all 25 square kilometers in Dust maps before then moving bigger. I would be very surprised if CCP Ratatti's master plan is to bring back Territorial Warfare in small maps with 32 players maximum. Well if they bring in maps big enough to support them, I don't have a problem with fixed wing aircraft. The Fighter I was envisioning does not have to have a fixed wing mode. (I suggested the fixed wing mode because I did not think that exclusively fixed wing craft would be viable, and I wanted that fixed wing feel for dog fights.) The Fighter I was thinking of would be a one person craft slightly large than a LAV with stubby rear wings and a forward canard. A large articulating thruster at the end of each wing, and a small articulating thruster at either end of the canard. Low weight/high thrust, so it can change direction easily. It would probably require finesse and skill to bring it to a stop or land in a tight spot, but you would not have to wary as much about your momentum as you can overcome it with counter thrust much faster than with a Dropship. Hopefully aircraft would actually have some instrumentation this time around: - Pitch indicator - Yaw indicator - Movement vector in relation to the direction the craft is pointing. - Flight speed indicator. I like the idea of a sphare with a ring at the equator representing level flight, a second ring indicating the pitch and yaw of the aircraft, and an arrow from the center of the sphere indicating the actual direction the craft is traveling in, with forward being the direction the craft is pointed in. Have the arrow's length be proportional to movement speed. Your description of a Fighter actually sounds like what I would consider an ideal setup for a single-seater Gunship. C&C Orca Gunship anyone? A combination Cobra-Harrier might end up being the best compromise...but I would miss true fixed wing...again... Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. #PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
Nomed Deeps The Exemplars 511	Posted - 2016.07.15 20:19:00 - [214] - Quote I always wondered why there were no small single person vehicles in DUST 514; ground and air. Back to vehicle spawning, it could have easily decreased lag if there were ground vehicle spawns you could buy in while in war barge. Would also have been good if vehicle drops were limited per match (not counting initial vehicle buy ins) and if your team's RDV was destroyed, vehicles would not drop for a set amount of time. I think those would not only decrease lag but add strategy. I cannot be bought, but I can be leased.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1483	Posted - 2016.07.15 22:54:00 - [215] - Quote Nomed Deeps wrote: Back to vehicle spawning, it could have easily decreased lag if there were ground vehicle spawns you could buy in while in war barge. Would also have been good if vehicle drops were limited per match (not counting initial vehicle buy ins) and if your team's RDV was destroyed, vehicles would not drop for a set amount of time. I think those would not only decrease lag but add strategy. I never personally noticed an increase in lag from RDV's... Even when they were stuck in the middle of the map playing the yoyo glitch. As nice as it would be to not have to wait for deployment at the start of a match, I'm neither here nor there on the issue. Having the max amount of vehicles already set out could actually take away strategy, since it removes the need to decide the order vehicles are brought in. Then again on the other hand, if the vehicles are still brought in by RDV's at the start of battle, being able to decide where each one is brought in could be interesting, especially for decoying those pesky start of match barrages we used to get. Nomed Deeps wrote: I always wondered why there were no small single person vehicles in DUST 514; Probably because with the vehicle limits you'd have had the LAV spam problem, but on a larger scale. All the vehicle slots taken up by disposable jeeps, but with no extra seats to carry your team in with you, even less teamwork would have been bad.
Thaddeus Reynolds Dead Man's Game Preatoriani 757	Posted - 2016.07.15 23:01:00 - [216] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Nomed Deeps wrote: Back to vehicle spawning, it could have easily decreased lag if there were ground vehicle spawns you could buy in while in war barge. Would also have been good if vehicle drops were limited per match (not counting initial vehicle buy ins) and if your team's RDV was destroyed, vehicles would not drop for a set amount of time. I think those would not only decrease lag but add strategy. I never personally noticed an increase in lag from RDV's... Even when they were stuck in the middle of the map playing the yoyo glitch. As nice as it would be to not have to wait for deployment at the start of a match, I'm neither here nor there on the issue. Having the max amount of vehicles already set out could actually take away strategy, since it removes the need to decide the order vehicles are brought in. Then again on the other hand, if the vehicles are still brought in by RDV's at the start of battle, being able to decide where each one is brought in could be interesting, especially for decoying those pesky start of match barrages we used to get. Nomed Deeps wrote: I always wondered why there were no small single person vehicles in DUST 514; Probably because with the vehicle limits you'd have had the LAV spam problem, but on a larger scale. All the vehicle slots taken up by disposable jeeps, but with no extra seats to carry your team in with you, even less teamwork would have been bad. Some form of socket that augments vehicle spawns (not necessarily replaces RDVS entirely) that functions just as a special Industrial Supply Depot/CRU that would bring in the vehicle instantly/on spawn on that point might be something to consider...especially since I like the idea of RDV cool - down on destruction Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. #PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13095	Posted - 2016.07.16 00:45:00 - [217] - Quote Echo 1991 wrote: Ripley Riley wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: "Weakspot" is a relative term. It might be more literal to say "Weaker spot". Just popping in to say this. A weak spot doesn't have to be a "critical hit" location. It can simply mean small arms do damage when hitting [insert location]. Which would mean anything bigger should do more damage too. A forge gun is gonna be more destructive to that point than it would on area that isn't "weak". I would actually posit that a Forge gun hitting an LAV is pretty much a Death warrant, weakspot or no. It's kinda hard to up the destructive power of "goes through the engine and still kills the driver" by and large. LAVs shouldn't be scaled to weather anti-tank weapons. Aircraft should be nimble enough that casually hitting one with an anti-tank weapon should be challenging enough to be called a skillshot. If AT weapons are at their most effective against tanks, period, and lesser weapons will do sufficient damage to lighter vehicles so as to be unnecessary, then most people won't waste time lugging AT Forge Guns across a battlefield. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13095	Posted - 2016.07.16 00:50:00 - [218] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I would say if you lose lock, missiles go on terminal ballistic path. IE they fly straight and fast in whatever direction they were pointed. As long as they're designed not to fire forwards this would be fine, otherwise you'll get a lot of people not holding the lock for more than a millisecond, because it's already launching forwards. Not a huge problem for vehicles that move a lot on multiple axis like dropships, but ground vehicles and possibly infantry would be at risk of fire and forget gameplay. If however the missiles follow the lock, it would allow for interesting manoeuvring of the missiles, allowing the person launching to fire around multiple obstacles and friendly assets, or even just to juke a dropship into dodging one way and ending up in a whole world of trouble. My thoughts here exactly. My idea is Lock to fire. Meaning without an actual vehicle lock, you cannot fire the guided missiles. Must hold lock for missiles to track all the way to target. If lock is lost, Missiles take terminal ballistic path to target or until they expire/hit an obstacle. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8304	Posted - 2016.07.16 14:20:00 - [219] - Quote Guys, seriously, fire-and-forget missiles are not automatically a bad thing. Dust 514 had Super-Ultra-Physics-Defying fire-and-forget missiles. They were in no way an example of proper mechanics for designing fire-and-forget missiles. As long as the missiles can be evaded through a pilot being skilled with controlling their vehicle, and there are some forms of countermeasure available to allow a few get-out-of-jail-free cards in case you get a bunch of them shot at you at once, they'll be perfectly fine in forms of balance. The important factor to consider here is that AV is a dual purpose role of destroying vehicles but also of area-denial. If there are enough fire-and-forget launches in an area to make a pilot nervous about flying there, you're already doing your job to help support your teammates. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13095	Posted - 2016.07.16 18:15:00 - [220] - Quote I understand your point. But until we get confirmation that countermeasures and such are in the cards, I tend to plan and prep for worst-case scenario. In this case, we get a guided missile weapon without any kind of countermeasures. My concern with that being if missile range is short, missiles might be too easy to evade with countermeasures. If missile range is too long, then you are continually being bombarded and they only delay inevitability. I'm more a fan of stinger missile style AA missiles that have to maintain a lock precisely because they force the gunner to take as much risk and exposure as the target, or a forge gunner. But if missiles can only alter course 15-20 degrees per second that also solves a lot of issues. But all of this is entirely dependent on what the devs can do with the engine they are using. I'm not a programmer, so I cannot give a realistic assessment of what is possible, or what is worth plugging in the man-hours. Some things could be so calculation-heavy that they might slow FPS. That would be the fastest way for a feature to get dumped. Right now I'm going purely on what I know is possible, what we might get at minimum. So bear in mind that I'm poking at worst-case scenarios, because I am not going to set myself up for disappointment. That is where my perspective is at. Another part of it is even if I do know something is doable/being worked on/planned, I cannot base my premises on that knowledge, publically. I respect your perspective, mobius. Please understand that my ability to spitball with you is more sharply limited than derpty or DUST Fiend. So please don't take my limited-perspective comments as disagreement, or my full perspective on the topic. I simply prefer to not pour gasoline and lit matches on bridges with false hope or NDA breaches. The instant that I am allowed to add more to the conversation, you will KNOW. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.

Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8307	Posted - 2016.07.17 14:43:00 - [221] - Quote No need to explain that part. I'm used to that with everyone I know that's been on the CPM. You've all been pretty consistent with expressing irritation at trying to converse with anyone else about game balance or progress since you can only bring half or less of your total knowledge of the picture to the table. Basically just theory-crafting here. For all our talk, planets were confirmed, but vehicles were not. We still have no way of knowing if Rattati intends this to be an infantry-only game universally. Obviously myself and others hope not, which is why we're so invested in keeping threads like this going to try and present the situation in a different light. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
byte modal 917	Posted - 2016.07.17 17:42:00 - [222] - Quote I think at this point, the few remaining willing to play the forum game are dedicated to the spirit of this conversation and (hopefully) smart enough to read the difference between personal opinion and NDA filters. Though I empathize with your concern, I do believe it best to filter through open discussion rather than internal judgment based on a possibilty of misunderstaning. I would like to think we're better than that (at this point). Judging by the positive and non-derailing attitude of what is now 12 or 13 pages I think there is little to assume otherwise. Also, I tend to lean towards putting all ideas on the table aiming high. If we only aim short, we hit short. We will never go farther than the restrictions we place upon ourselves. And really, this is all fan fantasy preproduction theory crafting on a dead forum for another game that may never exist. So there's that. kitten bacon taco (nom)
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13098	Posted - 2016.07.17 17:58:00 - [223] - Quote Oh my God, what have I done? We're discussing realistic situation assessment on the DUST forums! Crapcrapcrap quick, someone call someone a no-skill scrub! Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Dragonmeballs Better Hide R Die 332	Posted - 2016.07.17 18:22:00 - [224] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Oh my God, what have I done? We're discussing realistic situation assessment on the DUST forums! Crapcrapcrap quick, someone call someone a no-skill scrub! In best Lurch voice: You rang? Caldari in the streets, Amarr between the sheets
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1484	Posted - 2016.07.17 19:59:00 - [225] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Crapcrapcrap quick, someone call someone a no-skill scrub! I vote Medico, everyone loved it when he called someone a scrub... I miss Medico... that lovely skraaaaaab.
byte modal 918	Posted - 2016.07.17 21:01:00 - [226] - Quote I thought we (they?) were already doing that on page 1. ? kitten bacon taco (nom)
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1485	Posted - 2016.07.18 07:33:00 - [227] - Quote byte modal wrote: I thought we (they?) were already doing that on page 1. ? Only scrubs read page 1... scrub...
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8307	Posted - 2016.07.18 12:54:00 - [228] - Quote I would normally be warning about going off topic, but there aren't any ISD for the Dust forums so I guess threads will only get locked excessive profanity or slurs and stuff. It really is pretty cool we've been having a discussion this long. As sad as it makes me to think about sometimes, I think losing one of our favorite games had the effect of making us nicer to each other. Now we're all here without the game we got sucked into and not knowing what will be in the new one or even when it will come. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
byte modal 919	Posted - 2016.07.18 15:07:00 - [229] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: byte modal wrote: I thought we (they?) were already doing that on page 1. ? Only scrubs read page 1... scrub... lol <3<3<3 kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 919	Posted - 2016.07.18 15:16:00 - [230] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: I would normally be warning about going off topic, but there aren't any ISD for the Dust forums so I guess threads will only get locked excessive profanity or slurs and stuff. It really is pretty cool we've been having a discussion this long. As sad as it makes me to think about sometimes, I think losing one of our favorite games had the effect of making us nicer to each other. Now we're all here without the game we got sucked into and not knowing what will be in the new one or even when it will come. I wonder though. Most of the people still posting and replying have (for the most part!) a history of offering thoughtful discussion. We all get testy, and even snarky from time to time but that's going to happen in anything in life. Game forums are probably more susceptible to sarcasm, jaded perceptions, and BVS---here maybe more than most! Still though, whining is gone. Trolls have picked up camp and migrated to greener pastures. The ones that have stayed are either truly dedicated or have a borderline masochistic personality. Either way, it's all good. We all need our egos checked... from time to time. kitten bacon taco (nom)

Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1486	Posted - 2016.07.18 18:04:00 - [231] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: It really is pretty cool we've been having a discussion this long. As sad as it makes me to think about sometimes, I think losing one of our favorite games had the effect of making us nicer to each other. Nah, I think (almost) everyone was nice before they came to the game, then through playing the game we all got a bit **** towards each other and now with it gone for a while, we've calmed back down a little. Anyway vehicles... If we can have destructible environments, how about something that digs tunnels... But give the main buildings/sockets defences so you can't just tunnel under the null cannons and just drop it to the centre of the planet. Edit - Or even just let tanks dig down and spring up out of nowhere! lol... "peekaboo mother ***!!!" boom*
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13099	Posted - 2016.07.18 21:12:00 - [232] - Quote Having spots where they can go "hull down" isn't necessarily a bad idea either. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8311	Posted - 2016.07.20 14:55:00 - [233] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: It really is pretty cool we've been having a discussion this long. As sad as it makes me to think about sometimes, I think losing one of our favorite games had the effect of making us nicer to each other. Nah, I think (almost) everyone was nice before they came to the game, then through playing the game we all got a bit **** towards each other and now with it gone for a while, we've calmed back down a little. Anyway vehicles... If we can have destructible environments, how about something that digs tunnels... But give the main buildings/sockets defences so you can't just tunnel under the null cannons and just drop it to the centre of the planet. Edit - Or even just let tanks dig down and spring up out of nowhere! lol... "peekaboo mother ***!!!" boom* Tunneling would be VERY hard to pull off. You have to consider that the server needs to track every shift in the terrain and then rebroadcast that to every connected client. The lag would be horrifying. I can totally get behind allowing craters, because you can automate the generation of those and they rarely involve going that deep. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8326	Posted - 2016.07.24 10:15:00 - [234] - Quote So, hey, a German gaming magazine's spread on Star Citizen's planet building tech just had some of its pages leaked recently. With everyone hopping on the Procedural Generation train, one can only hope CCP builds themselves a system for that within the next few years for whatever Nova becomes. It'd be pretty nice to have insanely large spaces to battle on and over, if nothing else. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Joel II X Bacon with a bottle of Quafe 10399	Posted - 2016.07.25 02:21:00 - [235] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: So, hey, a German gaming magazine's spread on Star Citizen's planet building tech just had some of its pages leaked recently. With everyone hopping on the Procedural Generation train, one can only hope CCP builds themselves a system for that within the next few years for whatever Nova becomes. It'd be pretty nice to have insanely large spaces to battle on and over, if nothing else. I doubt it. *Scouts United* Gk.0s & Quafes all day.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8334	Posted - 2016.07.26 11:53:00 - [236] - Quote Joel II X wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: So, hey, a German gaming magazine's spread on Star Citizen's planet building tech just had some of its pages leaked recently. With everyone hopping on the Procedural Generation train, one can only hope CCP builds themselves a system for that within the next few years for whatever Nova becomes. It'd be pretty nice to have insanely large spaces to battle on and over, if nothing else. I doubt it. I don't doubt it at all. CCP Rattati already said he'll go as far as he can with this game, and that's a logical step in my opinion, considering how essential massive-scale PvP is to EVE Online. If you're going to have another game in the same universe, it would make sense to push the scale of combat as large as you can. Obviously Valkyrie is an exception to that considering it's an arcade-style game. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7816	Posted - 2016.07.28 11:51:00 - [237] - Quote I have not lost interest in this topic. I have just been too busy over the last week or so to read the forms. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1498	Posted - 2016.07.28 12:01:00 - [238] - Quote OK new stupid idea, instead of EvE people blowing us up, why don't we blow them up? We invade a ship and fight like crazy, call in a tank/dropship and start pew-pewing the very ship we're in until "Boom!" everyone dies... Mission accomplished, harvest some scrap metal and space ship tears.
FraggerMike G.R.A.V.E 410	Posted - 2016.07.28 14:24:00 - [239] - Quote ^ Interesting. There would, undoubtedly, be "lifeboats" available. That way the survivors would at least have an opportunity to escape afterwards. Shouldn't have to die after winning a battle :p CEO of G.R.A.V.E
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8341	Posted - 2016.08.03 12:38:00 - [240] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: OK new stupid idea, instead of EvE people blowing us up, why don't we blow them up? We invade a ship and fight like crazy, call in a tank/dropship and start pew-pewing the very ship we're in until "Boom!" everyone dies... Mission accomplished, harvest some scrap metal and space ship tears. Except of course that'd be the fastest way possible to get the entire EVE community unanimously against any form of interaction with whatever Project Nova becomes. That's not good. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector

FraggerMike G.R.A.V.E 411	Posted - 2016.08.03 13:08:00 - [241] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: OK new stupid idea, instead of EvE people blowing us up, why don't we blow them up? We invade a ship and fight like crazy, call in a tank/dropship and start pew-pewing the very ship we're in until "Boom!" everyone dies... Mission accomplished, harvest some scrap metal and space ship tears. Except of course that'd be the fastest way possible to get the entire EVE community unanimously against any form of interaction with whatever Project Nova becomes. That's not good. But, but.... isn't that what Eve players do to each other every day? I see Derpty Derp's idea as an extension of the Eve universal way of life. What happens when one Eve player blows up another Eve players ship? Revenge. Now imagine that revenge being applied to Mercs. Eve ships bombarding ground installation Clone facilities. I think that would open up a whole new way of playing - Both in space and on the ground. CEO of G.R.A.V.E
DUST Fiend 18482	Posted - 2016.08.03 13:54:00 - [242] - Quote FraggerMike wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: OK new stupid idea, instead of EvE people blowing us up, why don't we blow them up? We invade a ship and fight like crazy, call in a tank/dropship and start pew-pewing the very ship we're in until "Boom!" everyone dies... Mission accomplished, harvest some scrap metal and space ship tears. Except of course that'd be the fastest way possible to get the entire EVE community unanimously against any form of interaction with whatever Project Nova becomes. That's not good. But, but.... isn't that what Eve players do to each other every day? I see Derpty Derp's idea as an extension of the Eve universal way of life. What happens when one Eve player blows up another Eve players ship? Revenge. Now imagine that revenge being applied to Mercs. Eve ships bombarding ground installation Clone facilities. I think that would open up a whole new way of playing - Both in space and on the ground. I think we've seen what happens when CCP tries to connect the games in real time. It's nice to dream but it's probably better to leave that kind of gameplay to Star Citizen. CCP needs to keep Nova in its own seperate EVE Universe and not try to connect the two. They need to stick to the basics. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
FraggerMike G.R.A.V.E 411	Posted - 2016.08.03 14:02:00 - [243] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: I think we've seen what happens when CCP tries to connect the games in real time. It's nice to dream but it's probably better to leave that kind of gameplay to Star Citizen. CCP needs to keep Nova in its own seperate EVE Universe and not try to connect the two. They need to stick to the basics. You may be right, however, that tie-in to a completely different type of game was one of the biggest attractions to Dust514 for me. Bummed that it never made it to full integration. I would really hate to see that factor disappear. CEO of G.R.A.V.E
DUST Fiend 18482	Posted - 2016.08.03 14:22:00 - [244] - Quote FraggerMike wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: I think we've seen what happens when CCP tries to connect the games in real time. It's nice to dream but it's probably better to leave that kind of gameplay to Star Citizen. CCP needs to keep Nova in its own seperate EVE Universe and not try to connect the two. They need to stick to the basics. You may be right, however, that tie-in to a completely different type of game was one of the biggest attractions to Dust514 for me. Bummed that it never made it to full integration. I would really hate to see that factor disappear. Don't get me wrong, that tie in was the only reason I got into DUST and then EVE for a time, I just feel like between the technical hurtles and the acidic response from EVE players it's just not worth even trying, not for a few more years at least. Nova feels like it needs to be its own separate thing just like Valk, as much as I hate to say it. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
Ripley Riley Incorruptibles 14117	Posted - 2016.08.03 14:55:00 - [245] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Nova feels like it needs to be its own separate thing just like Valk, as much as I hate to say it. Rattati did say integration was something he wanted to do. I believe he said linking the economies was possible. It's not that it will never happen, just that it isn't a priority. Like vehicles. My advice to you, playa.
DUST Fiend 18482	Posted - 2016.08.03 14:59:00 - [246] - Quote Ripley Riley wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Nova feels like it needs to be its own separate thing just like Valk, as much as I hate to say it. Rattati did say integration was something he wanted to do. I believe he said linking the economies was possible. It's not that it will never happen, just that it isn't a priority. Like vehicles. When you have a tiny dev team with low resources you've gotta start somewhere. Here's hoping we have news of an Alpha before next year. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8342	Posted - 2016.08.05 18:50:00 - [247] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Ripley Riley wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Nova feels like it needs to be its own separate thing just like Valk, as much as I hate to say it. Rattati did say integration was something he wanted to do. I believe he said linking the economies was possible. It's not that it will never happen, just that it isn't a priority. Like vehicles. When you have a tiny dev team with low resources you've gotta start somewhere. Here's hoping we have news of an Alpha before next year. I hope so too. I plan to have fun with Titanfall 2 this fall but no matter how many free map packs they release I'm eventually going to start wanting Nova again. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13129	Posted - 2016.08.05 20:50:00 - [248] - Quote I actually suck driving titans. I'm a lot better at wasting them as a foot soldier in that game. I think titanfall did a good job making titans things that very much altered the flow of the game while still being destructible by the infantry players. I will admit going toe to toe with other titans was just good fun. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
MEDICO RITARDATO Dead Man's Game 496	Posted - 2016.08.17 00:10:00 - [249] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Crapcrapcrap quick, someone call someone a no-skill scrub! I vote Medico, everyone loved it when he called someone a scrub... I miss Medico... that lovely skraaaaaab. Skrab The pen is on the table. TheD1CK is a scrub.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13138	Posted - 2016.08.17 00:21:00 - [250] - Quote MEDICO RITARDATO wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Crapcrapcrap quick, someone call someone a no-skill scrub! I vote Medico, everyone loved it when he called someone a scrub... I miss Medico... that lovely skraaaaaab. Skrab I approve of this message and/or service. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.

Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1529	Posted - 2016.08.17 07:27:00 - [251] - Quote MEDICO RITARDATO wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Crapcrapcrap quick, someone call someone a no-skill scrub! I vote Medico, everyone loved it when he called someone a scrub... I miss Medico... that lovely skraaaaaab. Skrab il gatto e sul tavolo... il gatto Skraaaaaaaaaaaaab!


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