DUST Search - (Suggestion/Feedback) Don't Nerf- Limit

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

(Suggestion/Feedback) Don't Nerf- Limit

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Shyeer Alvarin Dead Six Initiative 45	Posted - 2012.09.13 07:27:00 - [1] - Quote So. CCP, first off, I bought a couple of Merc Packs just to be able to justify typing in all caps "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!" because DUST is bloody amazing as a whole. I've also been keeping track of some of the stuff that's been getting thrown around about tanks being hellishly OP, AV being nerfed too much, etc etc. I also know you guys want to think about balancing things out rather than playing a straight up Nerf-War with everyone because the game's still in Beta and people want what they want. SO: I have a proposition that allows both sides to win. Don't nerf tanks. Making them weaker defeats the purpose of tanks as a whole. Don't nerf Dropships (even though I think it makes sense that they'd have a nose-mounted Swarm Launcher for vehicular/dropship engagements) Instead- I propose this. For Ambush (TDM) mode- Set a limit on the number of HAV's that can be called in at any one point in time. No more than 1 or 2 tanks should be on the field because one is hard enough to drop. This allows everyone on the opposing teams to have a window of opportunity (however small it may be) to call in their own support, or get their butts in gear taking out the active HAV's. Limit dropships to 2-3 per team. This allows people their air support without having an ungodly amount of people in the air just strafing the other guys. Allow Dropship pilots the ability to actually launch from the MCC -in- their dropships. It's already aerial, and saves the boots on the ground some time when it comes to planning an offensive. -Don't- limit LAV's. They're fine the way they are. (Swarm launchers desperately need more damage though. Maybe stock the basic LAV's with a small Swarm turret for some mobile Anti-Air. No new model required from the militia missile launcher, just don't seed them so people can't make tanks more hateful than they already are. Skirmish (Objective mode)- 3 tanks 3 dropships No limit on LAV's. As much as I'd love to say "I don't see a problem here," I can't though. As things stand now, there's a particularly -large- group of people that call in 5-6 tanks in Ambush and make it quite literally impossible for people to earn back the ISK they're losing in fits, and preventing them from earning SP by simply swarming -everything- with more armor. Out of respect because I don't wanna point fingers, I won't name names. I submit that limiting vehicles that are not LAV's will allow -more- players, and -newer- players to keep up with everyone else regardless of what corp/group they play with. As an EVE -and- DUST player, I can honestly say that EVE is large enough to be able to avoid having to join -one corp/alliance- (read as "Goonswarm") just to be able to do anything in the game. I know DUST is still Closed Beta and doesn't have the numbers that EVE does, but the Random Game (read as "Instant Battle") means that there's an -extremely high likelihood- you're going to run into a lot of the same groups and people. My rant is now over. I'll go back to trashtalking everyone now, as is my civic duty.
Lixet The Craniac Naloran Project 50	Posted - 2012.09.13 07:38:00 - [2] - Quote Shyeer Alvarin wrote: -Don't- limit LAV's. They're fine the way they are. (Swarm launchers desperately need more damage though. Maybe stock the basic LAV's with a small Swarm turret for some mobile Anti-Air. No new model required from the militia missile launcher, just don't seed them so people can't make tanks more hateful than they already are. Skirmish (Objective mode)- No limit on LAV's. Well, the only problem with the whole is issue is this part. The no limit is kinda of a terrible idea, reason is because 1. Will cause lag due to the limitless of LAV on the field 2. Technically possible for everyone to swarm a tank and destroy it just using 16 LAVS Otherwise, the tank & dropship limit is alright. But as of right now, I've never seen any more than 2 dropship on a field (corp battle)
Shyeer Alvarin Dead Six Initiative 45	Posted - 2012.09.13 07:48:00 - [3] - Quote LAV's are notoriously difficult to drive already. They're fast, but they're also easily destroyed. Having been on both sides of what could only be described as a tank fest (7 tanks on our side during an Ambush, 6 on the opposing side for another) it limits -everyone's- ISK/SP gains when there's a swarm of tanks rolling around with the exception of the drivers. I look at LAV's more as pests (even as a footsoldier) than a real threat. If I'm staring down the barrel of an LAV rocket launcher, I'll bounce around and play with the guy before I chuck a grenade at his chassis. And LAV's really do need to be -right on top of you- to be effective, but 4 LAV's doesn't pose -nearly- the same threat as even a single tank. A tank on the other hand can perch on top of a hill and pick you off from the opposite end of the map with a Railgun, get in your face with Blasters, or harass you at any distance with large missile launchers. That doesn't even factor in the two gunner seats on them. The only other thing I can really think of to limit the number of tanks on the battle field would make them take a -lot- longer to actually get on the field. Like. 30-45 seconds plus at a minimum. I can see that working out pretty realistically as is because tanks weigh more than LAV's and Dropships. It makes sense that the Carryalls would take longer to have one loaded up and move slower to deploy. (Edit to add-) Anyway, it's a suggestion. I've played a lot of games where the typical response to "OP" was "TOO-OP-NERFNAOW" with no rationalization as to why or how things are OP. Rage is hard to listen to. Rational thoughts that follow the ideas -behind- the game have more appeal in the long run. We may not be able to do the Devs jobs for them, but we can give them complete thoughts so we can say we tried to think of something that maybe they didn't. shrug
Seran Jinkar Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic 214	Posted - 2012.09.13 08:58:00 - [4] - Quote Well keeping it straight and maybe even work as a background story: Why don't we have a Tacnet Capacity ? As a rule in EVE every vehicle and suit that gets better also increases in CPU. Why not set an upper limit on how much CPU can be controlled through the Tacnet before the Tacnet Cap has been reached? So a team can have 2 tanks running, or call down installations and proto suits. But it would put a limit on tank / vehicle spamming without sticking to absolute numbers like 2 tanks and 4 LAVs. It all depends on the layout of the district, the MCC provided as well as additional Tacnet CPU nodes that can be placed on the battlefield to increase the Cap. Another way would be to introduce CPU ressources that have to be claimed before the heavy stuff can be called down. We could even seperate higher level from lower level battles (in terms of equipment used) simply in terms of Tacnet CPU Caps.
Shyeer Alvarin Dead Six Initiative 45	Posted - 2012.09.13 09:17:00 - [5] - Quote Seran Jinkar wrote: Well keeping it straight and maybe even work as a background story: Why don't we have a Tacnet Capacity ? As a rule in EVE every vehicle and suit that gets better also increases in CPU. Why not set an upper limit on how much CPU can be controlled through the Tacnet before the Tacnet Cap has been reached? So a team can have 2 tanks running, or call down installations and proto suits. But it would put a limit on tank / vehicle spamming without sticking to absolute numbers like 2 tanks and 4 LAVs. It all depends on the layout of the district, the MCC provided as well as additional Tacnet CPU nodes that can be placed on the battlefield to increase the Cap. Another way would be to introduce CPU ressources that have to be claimed before the heavy stuff can be called down. We could even seperate higher level from lower level battles (in terms of equipment used) simply in terms of Tacnet CPU Caps. I can see that working for corp/alliance battles where the defining element is the defending/attacking corporation/alliance. For instant battles though, it's a quick pickup battle because we probably won't be doing corp battles 23/7 during all of our uptime. With Instant Battle, we're working with CCP's fixed constants rather than player controlled variables. Leaving HAV deployment totally open would hurt a -lot- of newer players, and limiting HAV deployment allows the player variable to work with CCP's constants without going "ZOMG TANKRUSH!" or "TOO-OP NERFNAOW!" But for Player-Run Corporation battles, I see your idea being pretty damn good. MCC's get fitted and upgraded as needed and the current DUST Market Information on -every- vehicle shows a CPU/PG cost, so they -may- implement that but haven't said anything. For quick games though, the Matchmaking service will -never- be 100% accurate, and it's easy to exploit to boot. Highly skilled players can create alts and suck on purpose while their mains siphon ISK and assets to the alt. Die a lot to make life suck for the newbies. Kinda like Goons. (No offense.) Creating a hard limit covers the vulnerability of the matchmaking service without making Quickmatches impossible for any one person, squad, or team. Equal ground makes for greater training than a steamroll.
Seran Jinkar Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic 214	Posted - 2012.09.13 09:20:00 - [6] - Quote I opened a seperate thread on the Tacnet Cap for all that are interested.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1155	Posted - 2012.09.13 09:50:00 - [7] - Quote some ennemy team spawned 3 HAV yesterday on an ambush. We screwed all of them and ended up winning the match. The HAV problem exists only with very high skilled HAV users that can almost reach invincibility through fitting. An Average HAV without a proper support doesnt last long.
Tyas Borg Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 112	Posted - 2012.09.13 10:07:00 - [8] - Quote An invincible HAV is a total fallacy. Lots of tanks on an Ambush is bad true, but not unbeatable. Just remove HAV's/vehicles from Ambush or maps of that size and it's problem solved.
Shyeer Alvarin Dead Six Initiative 45	Posted - 2012.09.13 10:41:00 - [9] - Quote Point to you, sir. Honestly, I don't mind leaving vehicles in Ambush because keeping an enemy Sagaris on his toes is still entertaining beyond reason... Even if my AV grenades/Swarm Launcher do practically nothing to it. Something else to consider along this train of thought- Matchmaking Improvement: Match players who hit the Instant Battle while -not- in a squad into a predefined Ambush mode with vehicles/HAV's disabled - Have an option to match the above players directly into a preexisting squad (because communication lines may already be established and heavy opposition isn't as much of a hurdle. Game Mode Suggestion: Add a "No Vehicle" Ambush mode. To support this, add an option to the Instant Battle menu like say "Press X for Normal Ambush," "Press Triangle for No Vehicles." Both single players and Squads would be able to go into either mode depending on their preferences.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.