|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aeon Amadi
13990
   |
Posted - 2017.01.09 16:29:00 -
[1] - Quote
We don't have mechs, but we do have MTACs
(Former) CPM2 Representative for Dust 514 and Project Nova
Twitter: @Aeon_Amadi
Eve: Nomistrav
|
Aeon Amadi
13992
|
Posted - 2017.01.10 02:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:DeadlyAztec11 wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Function before Form.
Give me a mechanic or purpose that needs to be fulfilled that would only make sense if that mechanic or purpose was being fulfilled by a mech/MTAC.
I'm not necessarily pro-mech, but I'll play the Devil's advocate for the sake of the discussion. I imagine the mech to be a larger and more menacing vehicle which would do more things than an HAV. Not only would it have offensive capabilities, but it would be very mobile. It would be a moving spawn point and would have massive health. It would have the capability to have both anti air, anti personnel and anti ground vehicle. The real downside would be the massive cost and how large of a target it would be. If you brought out a mech and thought it would win you the game then the enemy team could bring out HAV's, turrets and anti MANPADS suddenly your giant mech is disintegrating on the ground and the battle just hot a lot costlier. Balancing with ISK doesnt work. What you described was basically "It's does basically everything but that's OK because it's it's expensive" which is....Something I've heard before and it didn't end well for anyone. The conversation should never be "We want mechs, let's think of a role for them to fill". It should be the other way around "So the game design requires a role with these functions....What should that element of gameplay look like?"
A while back on Discord we came up with the 'Pokemon Method' in that Fire > Plant > Water > Fire could work for Dust 514 (or Nova). In that case, it was Infantry > Tanks > MTACs > Infantry. MTACs in that design would be very anti-infantry bias with strong resistances toward small arms but highly susceptible to Tanks with their larger guns.
(Former) CPM2 Representative for Dust 514 and Project Nova
Twitter: @Aeon_Amadi
Eve: Nomistrav
|
Aeon Amadi
13993
|
Posted - 2017.01.16 03:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
Joel II X wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:DeadlyAztec11 wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Function before Form.
Give me a mechanic or purpose that needs to be fulfilled that would only make sense if that mechanic or purpose was being fulfilled by a mech/MTAC.
I'm not necessarily pro-mech, but I'll play the Devil's advocate for the sake of the discussion. I imagine the mech to be a larger and more menacing vehicle which would do more things than an HAV. Not only would it have offensive capabilities, but it would be very mobile. It would be a moving spawn point and would have massive health. It would have the capability to have both anti air, anti personnel and anti ground vehicle. The real downside would be the massive cost and how large of a target it would be. If you brought out a mech and thought it would win you the game then the enemy team could bring out HAV's, turrets and anti MANPADS suddenly your giant mech is disintegrating on the ground and the battle just hot a lot costlier. Balancing with ISK doesnt work. What you described was basically "It's does basically everything but that's OK because it's it's expensive" which is....Something I've heard before and it didn't end well for anyone. The conversation should never be "We want mechs, let's think of a role for them to fill". It should be the other way around "So the game design requires a role with these functions....What should that element of gameplay look like?" A while back on Discord we came up with the 'Pokemon Method' in that Fire > Plant > Water > Fire could work for Dust 514 (or Nova). In that case, it was Infantry > Tanks > MTACs > Infantry. MTACs in that design would be very anti-infantry bias with strong resistances toward small arms but highly susceptible to Tanks with their larger guns. Infantry > Tanks Haha, yeah. Okay. I see what you're trying to do, though, and I like the idea, but it would need to be well thought out in order to work.
I amend you to the latter part of Saving Private Ryan for more details.
On a side note, before anyone says "but real life =\= games", that is correct, and it goes both ways. A tank does not necessarily have to be immune to infantry armaments in a video game due to an appeal to its genetic design of being a tank. That said, I've never heard a complaint in the entirety of the Battlefield franchise where infantry commonly kill tanks.
(Former) CPM2 Representative for Dust 514 and Project Nova
Twitter: @Aeon_Amadi
Eve: Nomistrav
|
Aeon Amadi
13994
|
Posted - 2017.01.16 10:03:00 -
[4] - Quote
DeadlyAztec11 wrote:Joel II X wrote:
Infantry > Tanks
Haha, yeah. Okay.
I see what you're trying to do, though, and I like the idea, but it would need to be well thought out in order to work.
This is easy. I remember people talking about this during the open beta. It's supposed to be Infantry>AV Infantry>Vehicles>Infantry. Basically rock paper scissors.
I mean, it could work that way as well if you replace AV Infantry with MTACs. Infantry > MTACs > Tanks > Infantry.
I really don't care as long as there is more rock paper scissors and less "if it has treads it beats everything... or nothing.. Depends on the build."
(Former) CPM2 Representative for Dust 514 and Project Nova
Twitter: @Aeon_Amadi
Eve: Nomistrav
|
|
|
| |
|