| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jonquill Caronite
Tronhadar Free Guard
Minmatar Republic
115
   |
Posted - 2012.07.08 06:36:00 -
[1] - Quote
In the last build there was AT LEAST one structure which was completely shielded by walls and thus vehicles played no part in the capture of the structure making infantry much more important on the battlefield.
I think this will be resolved in release, and the Infantry VS Vehicle debate is just a problem because of this particular map, and you won't see this problem at all later on. HOWEVER, I would stress that almost all maps, should have at least one structure that is closed off in such a way that infantry are the primary means of infiltration. This is the true way to balance against vehicles, and anything short of this is just abusive...
Also I'm going to add again to this post for the sake of encouraging TRYING TO WIN, please add a multiplier to SP for winning the match that shows in the SP calculation at the end so we all know if we receive it or not... 10% 25% I don't care just something. |
Vetis Cato
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
250
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 06:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
Jonquill Caronite wrote:In the last build there was AT LEAST one structure which was completely shielded by walls and thus vehicles played no part in the capture of the structure making infantry much more important on the battlefield.
I think this will be resolved in release, and the Infantry VS Vehicle debate is just a problem because of this particular map, and you won't see this problem at all later on. HOWEVER, I would stress that almost all maps, should have at least one structure that is closed off in such a way that infantry are the primary means of infiltration. This is the true way to balance against vehicles, and anything short of this is just abusive...
Also I'm going to add again to this post for the sake of encouraging TRYING TO WIN, please add a multiplier to SP for winning the match that shows in the SP calculation at the end so we all know if we receive it or not... 10% 25% I don't care just something.
so good idea, and we will have internal buildings on some maps.
i even heard there considering (long into the future) station based battles. which excites me
EDIT: just not all maps that is to spice up the varity, 7000 ish predicted maps, have to mix it up a bit |
Jonquill Caronite
Tronhadar Free Guard
Minmatar Republic
115
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 06:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Yes I was in the last build =), I guess I would also understand variability and some maps with no internal structures. I guess Corps should have the option to build their defenses however they want, and if that means all out in the open so they can stage nothing but snipers, vehicles, and anti-vehicle, that's fine. HOWEVER, if that's an option, then corps should also have the option to build structures that are just HUGE complexes VERY unfriendly to vehicles, not with one stage that's friendly and a second stage that still lets vehicles in even if slightly unfriendly.
Of course we're still uncertain how much customization and installation control there will be... So we'll see. |
Vetis Cato
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
250
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 06:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jonquill Caronite wrote:Yes I was in the last build =), I guess I would also understand variability and some maps with no internal structures. I guess Corps should have the option to build their defenses however they want, and if that means all out in the open so they can stage nothing but snipers, vehicles, and anti-vehicle, that's fine. HOWEVER, if that's an option, then corps should also have the option to build structures that are just HUGE complexes VERY unfriendly to vehicles, not with one stage that's friendly and a second stage that still lets vehicles in even if slightly unfriendly.
Of course we're still uncertain how much customization and installation control there will be... So we'll see.
what we know about how customizable is the terrain will be randomly generated. buildings will be based on what the corp has on the planet at the time. an during the battle eve players, maybe even dust players can call in additional installations. i doubt they will have much more options then that tbh.
its onething having 7,000 + maps its another letting a player design each one. way to much on the resources.
nice thort tho
|
Maximus Chabe
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 06:58:00 -
[5] - Quote
I was just writing up a topic on this same issue (tried to post but didn't see it come up). Here is what I wrote:
Reading through the threads on here I think a lot of the things people are complaining about have more to do with the map than the actual mechanics.
Take vehicles for example. The role of dropships and tanks drastically changed in this build. But go and look at the E3 patchnotes, there were barely any changes made to vehicles (militia vehicles added, some bugs fixed, and vehicle handling improved).
But the ways that infantry could engage vehicles HAS drastically changed because of the new map.
On the old map players had to navigate through canyons, and the easiest path for vehicles was to stay in the bottom of the canyon while the infantry would fight higher up in the canyon walls. Turrets were an easy counter to infantry, but they were usually visible from the canyon floor. Vehicles could clear most of the turrets, but it was easy for infantry to hide from the view of vehicles without being completely ineffective at protecting the objectives. The canyon terrain also made it difficult for any dropships trying to play whack-a-mole against infantry. But the dropships were still useful in denying the enemy the high-ground around the objective points.
In the second part of the level for the old map there was a lot of fighting taking place in more narrow spaces. Vehicles couldn't maneuver in the tight spaces, or just couldn't get inside to where the fighting was occurring. But open spaces split apart the objectives, so vehicles could be used (and were used) as a way of area denial.
The new map is open. All of the areas around the objectives are easily accessible for vehicles, if a team is pushed back to its spawn point they can be held there by snipers and tanks. Together they can lay down enough firepower to entirely lock a team down. (it doesn't help there there is only one guaranteed spawn point instead of two like the old maps had).
To summarize:
The new map is more open, and infantry and vehicles fights are occurring in the same space. The old map effectively blocked out vehicles from certain areas creating a need for infantry units.
Why this matters:
It would be bad to change the balance of the game mechanics if its actually the map that has created the balance issues in the first place. |
Jonquill Caronite
Tronhadar Free Guard
Minmatar Republic
115
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 09:46:00 -
[6] - Quote
Maximus Chabe wrote:
Why this matters:
It would be bad to change the balance of the game mechanics if its actually the map that has created the balance issues in the first place.
Completely agree, and very important... Could you imagine nerfing all vehicles and then we get to maps where they're at a disadvantage already? +1 |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |