DUST Search - MTAC, not a super mech

Valen Caronite wrote:

Perfect balance and perfect imbalance thinking...

You know what would suck? If they did replace heavies. You know how you fix that? Make them expensive as hell..

The thing that bothers me the most about this sort of thing is the fact that over time people make the assumption that everything needs to fit into this perfect balance framework, unfortunately that's not warfare, and I hope its not the mindset that we adopt for a game which I hope will play out more as an arms race then as a perfectionist selection game.

The way we should balance is not by balancing the power of tools, but via introduction of new tools. MTAC's outstanding at what they do better then heavies in every way, but how about this, much more difficult to shield against EM weapons, allow easier disability, make them more vulnerable to certain types of attacks. Allow player customization of structures so if a player wants they can make their structures inaccessible to MTAC's or perhaps make EVERYTHING accessible to vehicles and MTAC's to square the field, or just large enough for MTAC's but too small for vehicles.

Keep adding content, and de-bug the content and get rid of glitches. Be realistic about the power, and have developers who's job it is to think up creative sci-fi counters to the content other developers create. In time it will become a literal arms race, and potential creativity of design and play will go through the roof. It will feel like REAL war, where the enemy is always trying to outpace his opponent in tech, strategy, and equipment.

Make entire sections of gameplay dedicated to the covert to sneak around the front line gameplay. And same thing, teams of developers who's job is counter-co-version. Hey maybe I'm asking for too much, probably am, but I've always found the reality of warfare and TRUE strategic pushes on both the intellectual and physical stages of warfare to be most interesting. Was kind of hoping that was where this game was going.

Are MTAC's practical OP weapons if we really think about it? Hell yes. Should we pre-preemptively nerf them to prevent them from stepping on other roles toes? Hell no. Is there creative ways we could build in to counter them, and give some of that power back to other roles without artificially nerfing them? Absolutely... So should we give in to whiners without the creativity to make these alternative suggestions who'd rather go on a rampage with a nerf bat? Hell no.

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.10.13 20:07:00 - [1] - Quote i think the MTAC should be a small compact walker. with less armor than a tank but more than a LAV, and 1 medium turret, i dont want a super mech that stomps around destroying everything out in the open i want a small compact warmachine design to bring some of the firepower of tank along with much greater mobility, something to walk the more urban enviorments quicker turn speed than eitehr the LAV or the HAV but slower at flat out speed, but fairly tough since its expected to get upclose and personal with the AV gear.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.10.13 20:10:00 - [2] - Quote Well, we don't know what the medium ground vehicles will be, so you're probably in luck.
Ops Fox ZionTCD Legacy Rising 197	Posted - 2012.10.13 20:14:00 - [3] - Quote MTAC would be cool slightly shorter than the ones from Avatar and it be one awesome piece of equipment, no need for gundam mechs though keep it real. Ive got to give it to you avenger, good idea +1
Ranger SnakeBlood OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 126	Posted - 2012.10.13 20:31:00 - [4] - Quote Agree it should act as a somewhere between APC(possibly) and tank, its main preditor should be AV and tanks while it could excell at being antiinfantry and aircraft perhaps depending on weapon load out, should it be able to combat armour i personaly dont thing so as it still fits into rock paper sissors deal
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.10.13 20:44:00 - [5] - Quote tanks should execl at blasting away ground vehicles and overwhelming defended positions. the MTAC should excel at providing infantry support, fast enough to not be left in teh dust but with plenty of mobility to go where they go most of the time, hills and such shouldnt be a problem for the MTAC but yeah th MTAC should be designed around infantry support and should loose to tanks
Zat Earthshatter Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 304	Posted - 2012.10.13 22:16:00 - [6] - Quote Just dropping in my opinion. MTACs are tricky business. Too big, and they become OP. Too small, and you might as well use a Heavy suit. Also, although I've made a thread about this before, That idea needed some work, especially with the obvious overkill with the biggest type. If any MTAC is to be used, it should act as a mobile AA and anti-personnel platform, as well as allowing a smart single-purpose fit and player to go toe-to-toe with a HAV. The "medium" size should allow that. 3 points below to bring my ideas to the new table. >Eliminate the "small" and "brute-large" sizes, leaving only the medium. >I'd ditch my tank-turret and industrial-arm ideas for a pure MG arm suit. In exchange, allow it to jump a short distance on capacitor energy. >Later in the thread, a guy named "Simon Havoc" brought up the idea of the MTAC bracing to use big guns. This should be incorporated if the MTAC fires any more than 2 guns at a time, if it even gets more. EDIT: made one of my opinions a little more visible
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.10.13 22:54:00 - [7] - Quote i see it as being more useful a small walking vehicle more used as infantry support more HP than the LAV, but unable to take on tanks directly, more mobile than the LAV or HAV. the arm igrabbing punching arm idea kinda pointless why grab a vehicle when you could shoot it? also if its big enough to grab and hold a tank then its to big to be mobile enough to support infantry. no need to have to brace yourself to fire most engineers are smart enough to build machines within their specs however it could slow down when firing powerful weapons. the MTAC should be realistic in terms of uses and design, form follows function, we need a light wight mobile, infantry support vehicle that can work efficently in cluttered and combat enviorments. that is its function so being short enough not to clip its self on every overhang or walkway is important, having a medium sized gun to provide proper infantry support is need, being able to turn quickly becuase rarly does a enemy charge you head on is a requiremnt as well, not to mention the MTAC doesnt need to be fast just able to keep up with heavies. keeping those 4 things in mind is how CCP should make the MTAC.
Evane Sa'edi Celtic Anarchy 62	Posted - 2012.10.13 23:11:00 - [8] - Quote Sounds like the MTAC should act like a Protomech from the Battletech Universe or Hardsuits from the Appleseed Anime. They range in size from 3 to 9 tonnes in mass, mounting multi heavy infantry weapons either on shoulder hard points or carried in hand mounts.
Patches The Hyena Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 24	Posted - 2012.10.14 00:10:00 - [9] - Quote Avenger 245 wrote: i see it as being more useful a small walking vehicle more used as infantry support more HP than the LAV, but unable to take on tanks directly, more mobile than the LAV or HAV. the arm igrabbing punching arm idea kinda pointless why grab a vehicle when you could shoot it? also if its big enough to grab and hold a tank then its to big to be mobile enough to support infantry. no need to have to brace yourself to fire most engineers are smart enough to build machines within their specs however it could slow down when firing powerful weapons. the MTAC should be realistic in terms of uses and design, form follows function, we need a light wight mobile, infantry support vehicle that can work efficently in cluttered and combat enviorments. that is its function so being short enough not to clip its self on every overhang or walkway is important, having a medium sized gun to provide proper infantry support is need, being able to turn quickly becuase rarly does a enemy charge you head on is a requiremnt as well, not to mention the MTAC doesnt need to be fast just able to keep up with heavies. keeping those 4 things in mind is how CCP should make the MTAC. This sounds like a total replacements for the Heavy. It's just as mobile as a heavy, better protected, more capable and has Medium turrets? How about everything you said but we limit it to small turrets. Maybe dual small blasters for anti infantry or dual small missiles to dominate LAVs and give HAVs some concern without replacing a forge gun heavy like a med railgun would.
Ops Fox ZionTCD Legacy Rising 197	Posted - 2012.10.14 00:25:00 - [10] - Quote .

Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.10.14 00:25:00 - [11] - Quote All the MTAC needs to do is fill the criteria for mobile enough to stay with infantry normally, fast enough to keep up with a heavy be able to provide firepower and support for infantry . Weather it has 2 small turrets or one medium turret is up to CCP but there is a lot a heavy could do that a MTAC couldnt
Ignatius Crumwald Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic 475	Posted - 2012.10.14 00:58:00 - [12] - Quote MTAC should fill the same role as a tank with terrain being the deciding factor as to which you deploy.
Magpie Raven ZionTCD Legacy Rising 161	Posted - 2012.10.14 02:43:00 - [13] - Quote Just got a cool idea. What if it had to modes. The first is the normal. Guns on the arms. Very mobile. A great infantry support. But the second mode is this. Not to be cheesy or anything. It has some kind of railgun on then back. It has to brace itself. Maybe transforming.Maybe it beds over and turns into a sort of turret. This could be maybe a MTAC variant. Maybe AV. But I think it could be cool. It obviously can't move went braced. Has more armor at the front but weaker in the back when deployed
Valen Caronite 3	Posted - 2012.10.14 03:07:00 - [14] - Quote Perfect balance and perfect imbalance thinking... You know what would suck? If they did replace heavies. You know how you fix that? Make them expensive as hell.. The thing that bothers me the most about this sort of thing is the fact that over time people make the assumption that everything needs to fit into this perfect balance framework, unfortunately that's not warfare, and I hope its not the mindset that we adopt for a game which I hope will play out more as an arms race then as a perfectionist selection game. The way we should balance is not by balancing the power of tools, but via introduction of new tools. MTAC's outstanding at what they do better then heavies in every way, but how about this, much more difficult to shield against EM weapons, allow easier disability, make them more vulnerable to certain types of attacks. Allow player customization of structures so if a player wants they can make their structures inaccessible to MTAC's or perhaps make EVERYTHING accessible to vehicles and MTAC's to square the field, or just large enough for MTAC's but too small for vehicles. Keep adding content, and de-bug the content and get rid of glitches. Be realistic about the power, and have developers who's job it is to think up creative sci-fi counters to the content other developers create. In time it will become a literal arms race, and potential creativity of design and play will go through the roof. It will feel like REAL war, where the enemy is always trying to outpace his opponent in tech, strategy, and equipment. Make entire sections of gameplay dedicated to the covert to sneak around the front line gameplay. And same thing, teams of developers who's job is counter-co-version. Hey maybe I'm asking for too much, probably am, but I've always found the reality of warfare and TRUE strategic pushes on both the intellectual and physical stages of warfare to be most interesting. Was kind of hoping that was where this game was going. Are MTAC's practical OP weapons if we really think about it? Hell yes. Should we pre-preemptively nerf them to prevent them from stepping on other roles toes? Hell no. Is there creative ways we could build in to counter them, and give some of that power back to other roles without artificially nerfing them? Absolutely... So should we give in to whiners without the creativity to make these alternative suggestions who'd rather go on a rampage with a nerf bat? Hell no.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. 1216	Posted - 2012.10.14 03:09:00 - [15] - Quote The Amarrian one detailed in Templar One was described as being able to carry a single heavier weapon, though whether that would mean a Large Turret sized weapon, I have no idea. It was also described as having a completely enclosed torso large enough to fully enclose the operator. It didn't sound that big, however. Maybe about twice the height of a person, from the way they described them.
Ops Fox ZionTCD Legacy Rising 197	Posted - 2012.10.14 03:22:00 - [16] - Quote Valen Caronite wrote: Perfect balance and perfect imbalance thinking... You know what would suck? If they did replace heavies. You know how you fix that? Make them expensive as hell.. The thing that bothers me the most about this sort of thing is the fact that over time people make the assumption that everything needs to fit into this perfect balance framework, unfortunately that's not warfare, and I hope its not the mindset that we adopt for a game which I hope will play out more as an arms race then as a perfectionist selection game. The way we should balance is not by balancing the power of tools, but via introduction of new tools. MTAC's outstanding at what they do better then heavies in every way, but how about this, much more difficult to shield against EM weapons, allow easier disability, make them more vulnerable to certain types of attacks. Allow player customization of structures so if a player wants they can make their structures inaccessible to MTAC's or perhaps make EVERYTHING accessible to vehicles and MTAC's to square the field, or just large enough for MTAC's but too small for vehicles. Keep adding content, and de-bug the content and get rid of glitches. Be realistic about the power, and have developers who's job it is to think up creative sci-fi counters to the content other developers create. In time it will become a literal arms race, and potential creativity of design and play will go through the roof. It will feel like REAL war, where the enemy is always trying to outpace his opponent in tech, strategy, and equipment. Make entire sections of gameplay dedicated to the covert to sneak around the front line gameplay. And same thing, teams of developers who's job is counter-co-version. Hey maybe I'm asking for too much, probably am, but I've always found the reality of warfare and TRUE strategic pushes on both the intellectual and physical stages of warfare to be most interesting. Was kind of hoping that was where this game was going. Are MTAC's practical OP weapons if we really think about it? Hell yes. Should we pre-preemptively nerf them to prevent them from stepping on other roles toes? Hell no. Is there creative ways we could build in to counter them, and give some of that power back to other roles without artificially nerfing them? Absolutely... So should we give in to whiners without the creativity to make these alternative suggestions who'd rather go on a rampage with a nerf bat? Hell no. if CCP did this they would have gold mine on their hands this would become the only game i play. an actual video game arms race and perfect imbalance, made me drool on my self when i heard dust put that way. ive never put much thought toward dust potential but wow... do that CCP @other guy who made comment I honestly donGÇÖt think anything should be able to match a tank @other other guy that would be awesome yet impractical
WHz DS9899 Doomheim 136	Posted - 2012.10.14 04:01:00 - [17] - Quote My take on the MTACs - I think there should be just like the regular dropsuits, having similar guns, and having different types, like a light, two mediums, and a heavy. This is how I think they should be laid out: Light: Has one gun, no equipment slot, and the same module setup as the scout dropsuits; the fastest MTAC type. Assault: Has two guns, one equipment slot, same module setup as the assault dropsuits; the second slowest MTAC type. Support: Has one gun, two equipment slots, same setup as the logi dropsuits; the second fastest MTAC type. Heavy: Has three guns, no equipment slots, same setup as the Heavy dropsuits; The slowest MTAC type. Gun types are the same, but adding a AA missle launcher, which would only be for heavy, and a laserrifle type deal, but with a longer beam range and overheating time. Also, on vehicles, there could be a ammo count, which could be refilled at points on the map, at the base, or by vehicle nanohives, which could be deployed by my care package idea thread. The MTAC's could even carry the Care packages to a specific point. Equipment Types- Repair beam: Repairs vehicles at a faster rate than the handheld versions; can't repair dropsuits. Vehicle nanohive: deployable nanohive that can refill vehicles at a slower rate than the care packages' nano hive Radar scans: for other vehicles, and stronger versions can scan for dropsuits. the radar has a time limit before shutting down. Video feed: Can get a video feed from the commander's UCAV, which can be viewed from my Remote controlled drones idea thread. (P.S, if you want to critize me, please be reasonable, and explain yourself. Thank you )
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.10.15 01:30:00 - [18] - Quote I dont support the above trolling Wow valen how you put that is amazing CCP should defintly do it like that
Longshot Ravenwood Algintal Core Gallente Federation 680	Posted - 2012.10.15 01:57:00 - [19] - Quote Valen Caronite wrote: Are MTAC's practical OP weapons if we really think about it? Hell yes. Should we pre-preemptively nerf them to prevent them from stepping on other roles toes? Hell no. Is there creative ways we could build in to counter them, and give some of that power back to other roles without artificially nerfing them? Absolutely... So should we give in to whiners without the creativity to make these alternative suggestions who'd rather go on a rampage with a nerf bat? Hell no. MTACs bringing back this moment for everyone.
Darth Tyrannnus Citadel Mercantile Exchange Amarr-Caldari Mercantile Exchange 26	Posted - 2012.10.15 02:29:00 - [20] - Quote Ops Fox wrote: MTAC would be cool slightly shorter than the ones from Avatar and it be one awesome piece of equipment, no need for gundam mechs though keep it real. Ive got to give it to you avenger, good idea +1 i like gundam mechs



Pages: 1 :: [one page]