|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Daedalus Stray
Talos Incorporated
22
   |
Posted - 2012.07.22 01:53:00 -
[1] - Quote
Gameplay:
-Increase draw distance in matches. Dropships keep blinking into and out of sight during fights and it makes fighting them much more difficult.
-Increase turn radius on HAV turrets.
Militia Vehicles:
-Militia vehicles should stay limited to HAV and LAV.
Militia Gear:
-The scrambler pistol and revive tools are currently unavailable for any other drop suit fittings other than the pre-set fittings.
-Militia AT grenades should also be a feature in the finished product.
Mentioned Features To Implement:
-Artillery and autocannons should be put in as soon as possible to allow for testing.
-Some E-War modules so they can be tested.
-A better variety of maps with varied terrain and vegetation would be nice to see how brush cover and trees influence combat. Adding maps with water hazards would also help to test its influence on combat.
-One PvE map would be a nice thing to see before release.
New Features:
-Flamethrowers. Flamethrowers can deal thermal damage, have a low range but reasonably high damage. They can even come in heavy (hold like a forge gun) and light (hold like an assault rifle) variants. This could also allow flamethrower turrets on HAVs and LAVs.
-Dust Mercs Being Able To Partake In Incursions. This wouldnGÇÖt need to be implanted any time soon since it would most likely happen in low or null sec. But these could be PvE missions with specific objectives, harder enemies (improved AI over normal PvE drones), and bigger rewards. Missions could be as simple as survive long enough so that civilian ships can escape, siege enemy buildings to GÇ£stealGÇ¥ Sansha intelligence and so on. This can also lead to rare Sansha weapon/module/BPO/BPC/dropsuit drops from scavenging.
-Chemical and incendiary grenades would be interesting and use full additions to the game. These chemical and incendiary payloads would also make for interesting mass driver variations. Chemical weapons need to be actually dangerous, most games nerf them to the point of being useless. |
Daedalus Stray
Talos Incorporated
22
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 23:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
Thanks Garrett for the info. I find it difficult to keep up with all of the new fixes being done. For the scrambler pistol and the nanite injector militia versions there should be a version for custom fittings. The pistol has a slow fire rate and tiny clip making it effectively weaker than the militia submachine gun that while lower damage per bullet, has a large clip and is full auto. If anything they should both be unlimited use militia item since they're on opposite ends of the sidearm spectrum, players shouldn't be forced to use a militia SMG like they are now. Currently nobody uses the militia scrambler pistol because it is a single use item, people see it as why spend 500 ISK per pistol when they can spend 510 ISK and have unlimited numbers of the SMG. Then for the nanite injector, I understand if the devs don't want to to be abused but just make it militia and give it something like a 3 charge limit before you have to go to a supply depot and get it refilled, this way roughly a squad can be revived before it is rendered inert. |
Daedalus Stray
Talos Incorporated
22
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 00:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kagehoshi, fire can be equally as dangerous. The fuel used in the weapons to take down these suits would not be your usual yellow flame it would be blue or white hot and clean burning making for a very deadly weapon. Keep in mind that flame throwers do not need air to burn they just need a flammable gas which is what would the flame thrower would be shooting to create the heat to do the damage. Plasma would also create a different image entirely than flame. The psychological factor is very important for the flame thrower, seeing that stream of flame is crucial to create that effect. Seeing a stream of plasma for the first time would confuse people to the point that they may not even understand what just hit them; which is not scary it is just aggravating. And on a planet with atmosphere you would see a giant stream of flame anyway because it would instantaneously ignite the air around it hiding the plasma from view. The damage would be something along the lines of an assault rifle just continuous and with lasting effects when not even being directly hit. The point of the low range is simply because it is difficult to project liquid fuel long distances. The spread of the flame thrower should be a fairly small cone only about a meter or so on the outer edge of the weapons range making it comparable to a shotgun but not nearly as large of a spread. If anything a flamethrower would be a Minmatar style of weapon, plasma could be Gallente, Amarr and Caldari could find their own versions that do effectively the same thing. |
Daedalus Stray
Talos Incorporated
22
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 02:00:00 -
[4] - Quote
How is organization relevant?
I understand what plasma is and how it works. Flamethrowers do not use a fuel as a gas. They are fuel mixtures and they would have all of the necessary elements in the liquid mixture to burn and generate tremendous amounts of heat. I fully understand that plasma is superior to flame but do you not realize the amount of energy necessary to create a constant stream of plasma. Your references to what plasma looks like is also coming from a giant ball of extremely dense gas; so dense that it has started to create nuclear fusion at its core. Lightning is also an immense amount of energy being discharged in only a few hundredths of a second.
Solar flares may look like flame when you are 1 Astronomical Unit(AU) away. Up close you would see it is cylindrical bands of magnetized plasma.
I am not pushing for this weapon for its usefulness at close range. I simply thing they are a fun idea and gives a greater variety of weapons that will use heat as their mode of attack. I don't know about you but I would not enjoy the sight of a tank coming at me with a very hot very deadly stream of flame coming from its turret.
I only point out the visual aspect of a plasma weapon because it would look strange to a newcomer and they may not understand what it is that just killed them. Not only that but I for one would see a stream of goo coming out of an enemies gun as more comical than threatening.
If you had a better understanding as to what I was talking about and the way a flamethrower works you would have understood the point I was trying to get across. Please do not insult my intelligence by posting links that would assist me in my apparently necessary education.
I am not posting just so people like you can poke holes in my ideas. It was only a suggestion. I do not wish to start a debate concerning the goings on of a fictional universe 80,000 years ahead of us. But if you want you can read this quote from evelopedia: " Charge munitions are typically composed of lead and use a cyclotronic firing mechanism. All variants project magnetic containment bottles up to their targets for the plasma to travel in. Because of this, plasma rifles do not have long ranges, make inadequate sniping rifles, and are extremely vulnerable to EMP countermeasures. These are power-intensive weapons. First generation rifles required separate battery and ammunition clips to operate; second generation rifles recycle the energy used in the solid-state-to-plasma conversion to power the magnetic bottle projection."
To sum it up, plasma is a bad choice. It has massive power requirements, is vulnerable to any E-War thrown at it, and can only be fired as a small packet of energy held together by magnetism and requires lead to function. |
|
|
| |
|