|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
   |
Posted - 2012.09.06 06:28:00 -
[1] - Quote
Sorry we couldnt get any questions asked CCP nothin took the lead in disucssion.
Anyways more postings from IRC though on up and comming stuff.
CCP nothin poked his head in and gave some insight to what ccp is up to.
Dust Cast 514 featuring Gridiboss and Nova Knife
As previous disclaimers are, I have transcribed the entire conversation and paraquoted the developer to prevent things from being taken too literally or as prophecy as some things may have been said as a joke or without checking with the rest of the team. Treat all postings as informal, and speculation fuel and as always anything is subject to change.
Dev Blogs
'Expect a small explosion of them very soon (as in next week) both Eve Online and Dust 514 are gearing up twoards thier next releases.'
Reset and new build
'For the same reasons we couldnt transfer data from the BigBen to Singularity we cannot transfer that data from Singularity to Tranquility, the live Eve Online server and final Dust 514 destination. Inventory, Isk, and SP will be nulled out while Aurum and item rewards or bought from PSN store will be reset to preissued states. You should be keeping names and npc corps and contacts. This should be the last reset of the beta, followed by the last one for when we launch.'
HAV Nerfs
'We're considering doing either max speed reduction or velocity penalty making tanks take longer to get to full speed. Either way they're getting tested internally now.
The main problem with havs also was found to be with the modules which havent been tweaked to keep current, which partially fits problem the shield resistance amp the most notorious of them. so a near future pass on all modules will be
made expect significant changes not in the HAV's favor.'
OB Strikes
'Buffed up in speed, you wouldnt want to park a tank underneath one anymore becuase of previously mentioned nerfs . Also reducing delay between telegraph and first strike.'
Loot Table Discussion
'The system works by measuring your presence on field and equipment destroyed, we're going to try to tailor it based off the generated loottable and your primary role on the field as we found out having it based on acutal drops on the field was too bandwidth intensive. We did toy with the idea of having a manual battlefield looting that would increase the pool and pool's chances with war points to the team.'
The conversation quickly turned into one about running around with nanite injectors designed to eat people and tanks with shredders and CCP nothin made a stealthy exit entire conversation was between ccp and irc was about 3 minutes. Conversation about the anti-zombie fitting the tank was much longer. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 06:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
Current question queue gathered.
1. The camera feels a bit floaty with a gun attached to it sometimes is there any changes in camera animation to address this?
2. Sensors seem to work too well making ambushes more difficult when there are a large number of 'eyes' on the field. Also the sensors seem inable of hearing only seeing.
3. Sniper operators in IRC argued over this for two hours and concluded for at least now that Sniper Rifle sway and recovery should be increased drastically to encourage training to lvl 5. This will award skillful players for making the first shot count while not so skillful can make up for it. Also that damage be scaled down a bit now that suit hp is a bit more normalized. They also belived that charged variant is albit of powerful and are wondering if you'd consier giving them assault forge gun function where they cannot contain thier charge.
4. What are the current plans for turret families? Many feel missile launchers are too superior in every role while railguns have the edge over blasters still? A good thought out suggestion addressing overall issue can be found here
5. After another long discussion about tank warfare, one idea that emerged was infantry trenches? Your thoughts?
6. Is mass being adjusted for suits and vehicles? Some of them feel alot lighter than they need to be and have no regards to velocity at times.
7. The aim shake during aiming down sights seems very punishing is there any thoughts about having the shake while ads return to pre shake spot? Also the amount of shake being considerate of class of suit? Heavies being the hardest to wave off while scouuts light tapping would screw up thier sniping?
8. The issue of the ever presistent ghost/dud grenades? Annoying as it is any insight to what could be causing the grenades to break? they dont like the idea of slamming into walls.
9. Are the new pilot and Command suit going to use new models? or are they going be copy and paste (*shivers)
10. Has there been any consideration of Subscription packages with various price points? Packages could include items such as 30 day UVT for all packages while higher ones will have active and passive sp boosters?
11. Is thre any additional plans for new vehicle 'types' (HAV/LAV/DS) before launch? Some are wondering about the Fighter.
12. When can we start beta testing the neocom? Some of us bought vitas but no games yet... |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 12:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
Clone Number 1 wrote:So the arguments that took place in irc about sniper rifles is important? Because the dust forums don't seem to reflect this? Maybe someone could post their arguments for or against. Since this seems to be important to the irc/ devs.
It is discouraging to see so many odd nerfs and buffs. With no real rime or reason may come from the irc.
Silly really. Yes I should be in there and not here the official forums. What was I thinking face palm
Arguing about tanks gets old. So IRC set off to find other things to argue about.
If I where to transcribe our argument abouts tanks and all the variables involving them I would have to use the first two pages and with proper formating and arrangment youll have one hell of a debate put up with on why HAVs should be nerfed and the sticky issue of various other vairables not known yet.
So the conversations drifts twoards guns and the entire skill points in power out vs player own skil and after alot of sorting out of guns we think are not working well becuase of bad hit detection the sniper riflel was brought to be a bit ahead of the curve overall that once you get the charged sniper there isnt a need to get more advanced versions or hincreasing the sniper rifel skill at all.
So the overall concession of about 2 hours of aruging about sniper rfiels which included alot of tihngs such as bullet drop wind gravit and oh gawd multiple planets. Eventually lead us a long round of ring around the rosey on how to adjust sniper rifels to encourage skilling up, but still be deadly in the hands of effecient users. So in the end most of IRC agreed more sway before and after shots. This would highly encourage training the skill to lvl 5 for unskilled players. but skilled players would still be rewarded for the precise shot to the head still.
While the shotgun and swarm launcher was argued in the same context the issues sourringing them are easy to adjust sliders. Low end swarms need to be brought up, low end shotguns need ot be brought down.
As for the tank nerfs... they're nothing we suggested but its often one of the things complained about. tanks just running away when they're in danger. The modules things itself however was internal testing on the devs end as they where trying to investigate as how the devs put it, immortal tanks. This may have stemmed from them looking at remote reppers the tanks are using. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 13:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
Burger Helper wrote:ironwolf broke the 1,000 like barrier?
sounds about right
You should see my eve character. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 13:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
Paran Tadec wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Sorry we couldnt get any questions asked CCP nothin took the lead in disucssion.
HAV Nerfs
'We're considering doing either max speed reduction or velocity penalty making tanks take longer to get to full speed. Either way they're getting tested internally now.
The main problem with havs also was found to be with the modules which havent been tweaked to keep current, which partially fits problem the shield resistance amp the most notorious of them. so a near future pass on all modules will be
made expect significant changes not in the HAV's favor.'
Looks like CCP is bowing to the noobs who cant be bother to train up AV. Tanks already go down against AV, no reason to add a nerf in. I expect even after this nerf the whiners will whine when they still can't kill a tank with an assault rifle.
CCP Devs have numbers you tank pilots have generated, from the looks of it tanks are survivng too long for thier price tag. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 13:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
Paran Tadec wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Paran Tadec wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Sorry we couldnt get any questions asked CCP nothin took the lead in disucssion.
HAV Nerfs
'We're considering doing either max speed reduction or velocity penalty making tanks take longer to get to full speed. Either way they're getting tested internally now.
The main problem with havs also was found to be with the modules which havent been tweaked to keep current, which partially fits problem the shield resistance amp the most notorious of them. so a near future pass on all modules will be
made expect significant changes not in the HAV's favor.'
Looks like CCP is bowing to the noobs who cant be bother to train up AV. Tanks already go down against AV, no reason to add a nerf in. I expect even after this nerf the whiners will whine when they still can't kill a tank with an assault rifle. CCP Devs have numbers, from the looks of it tanks are survivng too long for thier price tag. Against who, a team of random noobs? Tankers shouldnt be punished for using their equipment correctly, which lets me get away 90% of the time. Often when the enemy team does come at me with AV gear I either have to back off or charge through them. AV against tanks right now is fine when opposition brings it onto the field and uses it correctly. STOP THE HANDHOLDING. Its just like all of those pathetic highsec miners who begged for more nerfs to suicide ganking until finally CCP gave the mining barges battleship HP.
The most unsetteling thought that should be in your mind is not these nerfs. No, Its the simple thought that CCP (as well as just about anyone else) cant reasonably answer the question of what role HAVs are supposed to fulfill...
That sort of question usually leads to deleteion of items by most other developers.
You should also know that ccp play by the paper quite often, but what happens on paper rarely exactly happens on in practice. For example they think that HAVs vs HAVs would be rather common. But we explained its extremly rare because tanks prevents other tanks from deploying in the first place.
If you want to bring eve side to this, look at the nanomacheriel. 14 km/s of death that blapped any 12km/s interceptor that dared catched it, which is just silly anywyas becuase if an inty ever did catch it its so far awya from any support fleet that its all alone and the webbers didnt work as the mach would just float out of webber range so fat you could never slow down the nano mach fast enough to make good use of guns or missiles.
Also another nerf to point out, the warp core stabilizer, oftenly used to uncommit a ship from battle was so heavily nerfed it was no logner a viable pvp fitting. CCP wants things to die. You drive a tank into battle you better buckel up instead of just running away when you get a small boobo, most infantry dont have the luxury of running away, neither should tanks. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 14:03:00 -
[7] - Quote
Let me put it to you this way.
"I don't feel like dying today" should never be an option for a HAV pilot. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 14:05:00 -
[8] - Quote
Paran Tadec wrote:Daalzebul Del'Armgo wrote:why not just put in the Web grenades? adjusting there speed wouldn't matter then?
This is what I've been asking for, more AV toys.
We're getting webmines, which is part requires the velocity nerf in order to work. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 14:09:00 -
[9] - Quote
So... your agument is that a squad of 4 tank pilots on comms should lose 4 infantry on comms? |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 14:20:00 -
[10] - Quote
Paran Tadec wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:So... your agument is that a squad of 4 tank pilots on comms should lose 4 infantry on comms? Huh? Usually I run a tank while my squad is on foot or in a dropship.
No but that is the arugment. How is AV teamwork supposed to compete against HAV teamwork? Especially in random spawn ambush or redlinig skirmish? |
|
|
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 14:25:00 -
[11] - Quote
Sure let me position 6 tanks in positions able to cover every single spawn place. Good luck coordinating tactics when dead :D |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 15:38:00 -
[12] - Quote
Paran Tadec wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Paran Tadec wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:So... your agument is that a squad of 4 tank pilots on comms should lose 4 infantry on comms? Huh? Usually I run a tank while my squad is on foot or in a dropship. No but that is the arugment. How is AV teamwork supposed to compete against HAV teamwork? Especially in random spawn ambush or redlinig skirmish? Thats not impossible to overcome, and you may even see the otherside field tanks then. Played one round last night with 3-4 tanks per side, and several dropships, and a decent amount of AV, and it was one of the most fun matches we've played yet. The only reason someone would not bring a tank onto the field if the opposition is fielding them is that the cost of losing one is prohibitive and that they CAN be killed by a competent team working together. If they truely were invincible you would see even more on the field, but most people dont want to lose at minimum 800k ISK per round.
Actually with the extremly few number of people its nearly impossible to overcome with the currently 'broken' shield resistance amps nullifying any attempt to attack without lock between the time you spawn and the time before one of the 2 tanks shooting at you nails you. In other words this is nightmare scenario where people are not allowed to spawn on an ambush map becuase the tank presence covers enough possibilities.
If you want to talk balancing on tactic you always present the nightmare scenario. Because there is always a group of players that want to create it every time. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 17:48:00 -
[13] - Quote
Other things to throw out the airlock when it comes to predicting player behaivor on the field.
Cost, SP investments.
Cost should be an ignored factor overall, you will have a team that can deploy as much and any peice of equipment hwoever they desire espeically if it means that equipment will survive the encounter. This lead to titan and super carrier overprofiliation that the tought of cost would factor into keeping number low the current nubmer of titans are well... staggering. Blow a titan up? who cares we got nother one.
SP investment becomes something that is nullified in time, Eventually it becomes the big melting pot and you will have all sorts of players in all sorts of skills and professions. There is only so much an older player can do shoving skills into sniping he will ahve to consider a secondary role sooner and later.
But as it stands now HAVs are to the point of asking the overal big picture question of WHY even deploy dropsuits? If dust 514 is a puzzel then the HAV is a hammer, it doesnt fit into the puzzel it wrecks it.
In the previous build they did fit in a few roles though mostly seiging faciliteis and turret encampments and making the battelfield much safer form overly powerful groups of infantry and battelfield dominance with a tank was difficult because of the dropships that could hound them to death. However large multitude of AV nefs went in. Heavy HP significnatly dropped, Range on AV wepaons severly reduced, damage was eliminated a quater off (to which some degree I have ot say the AV nade needed it the most out of all that) HP on all suits normalized. Sensors are too good, Tanks got better anti infantry weapons, and if the drop ship controls were not made so difficult the lot of you would not be complaining about tanks atm I will assure you the lot of you be complaing about people like me flying around in dropships.
Its also much safer to nerf an 'OP' thing so you can see what is causing it to die too often instead of having an OP thing never die.
LAVs and DS should be uneffected by most of hte module tweaks though because they cant equip the heavy modules.
Overall the IRC topics brings to mind the following issues with HAVs.
The HAV itself is considered 4th in the entire aspect
The AV response is 3rd part
The envionrment is the second most important part
and the culture is the highest part for the entire king of the hill itis tanks are experincing at the moment.
HAV itself isnt that entirely overflawed, the velocity 'nerf' is just to make sure the webifier mines work as it becomes a trait that can be ajdusted on HAVs and other vehicles (and I hope suits) . CCP has pointed this out several times its not the base that been having problems. So if it wasnt the base they turned thier attention to the modules and began to find the issues stemming from there. While the updates on stats may not all be that accurate an exaggeration of 90% damage resists HAV with an extender and nanofibers can be a seriously strong and tough cookie to destroy.
AV response I already went over mostly alot of them got nerfed and in most secnarios where its multiple tanks vs multiple av squad the av squad only gets one dumbire launch off before they're blown to bits, rarely do they get the chance to fire twice.
The enviornment is why they dont have the chance to shoot twice, there is not enough infantry sized cover for the av squads to setup and use for thier tank busting ambushes. Majority of the maps we are using now are HAV fiendly and have HAV sized cover which is why running away on these maps has such an appeal and is quite doable.
Finally culture. Lack of Role, No incentive to kill a HAV, and CCP thinking on paper is the worst offender in causing HAV misbalances. These habit forming behaviors are most dangerous becuase they will lead to players quitting. Currenlty the effort time and isk wasted brought to possibly 'kill a tank' is extremly fustrating to the point it is far more effective to avoid the tank and kill infantry and its very true,. Another issue severly hurting culture is ccp's thoery on HAVs not needing infantry to do its 'job' whatever it may be. IRC group reminds ccp that tanks should not be 'solomobiles' and require infantry support to keep the HAV safe that HAVs should be moved from main goto unit to useful tool you call in when you need it for 'situation' IE Turrets pinning your guys down out in the open between your spawn and the base is when you call in a tank to take care of the turrets.
On one final note this is beginning to sound like IRC most of the day when somone mentions tank. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 20:02:00 -
[14] - Quote
Paran Tadec wrote:
It doesnt require an expensive suit to kill a tank. me and one other guy took out a well specced gunnlogi with swarms and AV grenades in a few seconds. Also, its pretty hard to OHK a heavy with a forgegun using a railgun, unless you directly hit them.
Same could be said for tanks, you can't cap objectives in a tank, while using AV you certainly can cap an objective. My AV fit uses swarms and submachine gun, and I can get kills with both, so stop QQing.
On a tank heavy team there is no need to cap points... you just kill them faster than your mcc drops. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 20:17:00 -
[15] - Quote
Paran Tadec wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Paran Tadec wrote:
It doesnt require an expensive suit to kill a tank. me and one other guy took out a well specced gunnlogi with swarms and AV grenades in a few seconds. Also, its pretty hard to OHK a heavy with a forgegun using a railgun, unless you directly hit them.
Same could be said for tanks, you can't cap objectives in a tank, while using AV you certainly can cap an objective. My AV fit uses swarms and submachine gun, and I can get kills with both, so stop QQing.
On a tank heavy team there is no need to cap points... you just kill them faster than your mcc drops. I've never seen that happen, even when our team had 3-4 tanks and dropships.
You also havent seen 6 hav deployed on the same team either I wonder how long before we start seeing teams with 12 of these things on 12v12 maps. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 20:19:00 -
[16] - Quote
Paran Tadec wrote:Knarf Black wrote:These tank guys are getting kind of desperate to hold onto their e-peens. How does it not get boring in there? I have even less fun on the winning side of a tank domination match.
The game completely breaks down: one side scrambling just to survive for a few more seconds and the other roaming around looking for kills. No tactics. No challenge. Just a charnel house. Entertaining only to an e-peen stroking, griefer mentality, and ultimately poisonous to the game community's long term prospects. Cause you whiners will continue to whine until you can single handedly bring down a tank with an assault rifle, just like EVE's carebears whined until CCP removed one of the most exciting highsec events.
Removed? Lol. Suicide ganking is quite possible still you just need to ship scan for the idiots that dont fit tanks.
Whole reason why they stopped fitting tanks was to lower cost of the ship, you couldnt reasonably get a miner's EHP high enough cost effectively against some of the newer ships before concord showed up. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 20:29:00 -
[17] - Quote
Paran Tadec wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Paran Tadec wrote:Knarf Black wrote:These tank guys are getting kind of desperate to hold onto their e-peens. How does it not get boring in there? I have even less fun on the winning side of a tank domination match.
The game completely breaks down: one side scrambling just to survive for a few more seconds and the other roaming around looking for kills. No tactics. No challenge. Just a charnel house. Entertaining only to an e-peen stroking, griefer mentality, and ultimately poisonous to the game community's long term prospects. Cause you whiners will continue to whine until you can single handedly bring down a tank with an assault rifle, just like EVE's carebears whined until CCP removed one of the most exciting highsec events. Removed? Lol. Suicide ganking is quite possible still you just need to ship scan for the idiots that dont fit tanks. Whole reason why they stopped fitting tanks was to lower cost of the ship, you couldnt reasonably get a miner's EHP high enough cost effectively against some of the newer ships before concord showed up. What game are you playing? The majority of those miners are AFK while they mine, or before, used botting software. After the concord buff even a slight tank was enough to hold on until concord showed up and killed the offender, unless you used multiple pilots. Hulkageddon was one of the few things that brought excitement and danger to the Dullscape that is HighSec.
Acutally dull space is non fw low sec. They dont calll it the great wildlands for nothing. Hell roaming in null takes two hours to get a fight thats how dull its gotten lately.
Why dont you guys migrate back to low and null those where exiting times during the great war. Oh thats right, hot drop 0' clock. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 23:22:00 -
[18] - Quote
Paran Tadec wrote:Only reason null is dull is because the carebears are too afraid to venture out of highsec, because they might actually have to learn how to fit correctly. There is a vast amount of room in null for players, most of them are just too scared to try to take it.
Pffft Nullbears reject the idea of ever needing industry geared characters just ask test allaince and thier bleeding wallet. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:52:00 -
[19] - Quote
Yeah IRC doesnt fill up nerf tanks they're op statements at all.
The sort of arguments that rise out out of IRC is concerning tanks, would be like Why isnt there more infnatry sized cover? Sensors are too good that it prevents alot of ambuses and how tanks can easily choose to get out of a fight wher eas infnatry must commit to death. Why is only one missile out of the entire swarm launch hitting? Why is the forge gun reticule lying to us? Why do AV nades have just the same issue as other explosives and the sorts?
You can go though a half dozen Fourum threads and you wont see issues about tanks being brought up like this. There is some sort of refinment and discovery processes IRC goes though when it brings up an issue.
If I where to transcribe and use all the logs of IRC's arguments about tanks it be more than enough than convincing that the HAV needs to be nerf, but also it be about two pages long on reasons why and reasons you may not have considered before. We look over things like eveolution of the HAV, devolution of AV and man poewr efforts
Mostly the IRC is in full agreement that HAVs and AV need another pass over especially with the newer tools comming in. Velocity nerf was required for the new mine to work that was explained. Also this would commit a tank to death. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:00:00 -
[20] - Quote
Scalesdini wrote:Tanks are kinda OP.
I decided to try my hand at tanking yesterday and using only a militia sica with militia gear, I went something like 87-8 all day. 3 of the deaths were from rolling out of bounds and blowing up due to not paying attention, 4 were from high level tanks picking on me, only 1 was from ground troops, and it took quite a few of them to pull it off.
And this was in a tank so cheap that even if I lose one per match, I can still come out ahead on ISK.
^and we dont get this sort of stuff up here in IRC |
|
|
|
|
| |
|