DUST Search - My proposition to balance vehicles, turrets, and AV

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

My proposition to balance vehicles, turrets, and AV

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2012.11.16 06:06:00 - [1] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: after actually reading more, my main argument is that this would make vehicle vs vehicle very very slow- possibly making it next to impossible for vehicles to destroy eachother if the drivers know what they're doing. Wouldn't that justify their price then finally? I support these changes because it gives vehicles a role that won't overshadow infantry, but rather support them. It makes them big, mean platforms to spearhead an assault with. It would make infantry feel more like they are in the heavy duty armor they supposedly wear. It would increase the skill required to dominate the battlefield with a vehicle dramatically. Combine this with the fixes I proposed for swarm launchers, and a general reduction in AV damage AND increase in resists values, and overall you have longer, more interesting fights for both sides. OHK weapons are not fun for anyone, and tank turrets START at OHK territory and only get stronger. +9000 Skytt
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2012.11.18 10:12:00 - [2] - Quote The should just make the free vehicle a simple transport (with no fitting slot options at all) and re-emphasize the A in LAV by adding a roof. SP investment in something you can easily be shot out of is not a good investment proposition.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2012.11.19 18:01:00 - [3] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Also, why would a large blaster deal HMG damage if that's what autocannons are going to do? Autocannons are anti-air guns primarily. People seem to commonly confuse autocannons and Gatling cannons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocannon - these are not anti personnel weapons.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2012.11.19 18:22:00 - [4] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Noc Tempre wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Also, why would a large blaster deal HMG damage if that's what autocannons are going to do? Autocannons are anti-air guns primarily. People seem to commonly confuse autocannons and Gatling cannons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocannon - these are not anti personnel weapons. Pretty sure YOU'RE the one thinking of the wrong kind of Autocannon. Try this link instead. I'm missing your point. Unless we are going gyrojet territory, you can't scale an autocannon down to anti-infantry sizes. The "tiny" cannon on that page is over a decimeter diameter. That there is a "Gatling" variant means there is a fusion of autocannon and Gatling feed, not that the two things are normally the same, otherwise it wouldn't need specified would it? Edit: typo of decimeter as meter.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2012.11.19 18:30:00 - [5] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Noc Tempre wrote: I'm missing your point. Unless we are going gyrojet territory, you can't scale an autocannon down to anti-infantry sizes. The "tiny" cannon on that page is over a meter diameter. That there is a "Gatling" variant means there is a fusion of autocannon and Gatling feed, not that the two things are normally the same, otherwise it wouldn't need specified would it? 125mm is NOT 1m. 125mm = 12.5cm = 0.125m Also, how do you know they CAN'T make them smaller - there's nothing stating they can't, and plenty of reason to assume they just CHOOSE not to because smaller weapons aren't practical to use against spaceships. Bah misread + typo equals fail. And yes, you can't scale them down due to the square-cube law. You basically need fission or better to get enough energy density in a bullet sized autocannon.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2012.11.19 19:06:00 - [6] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Noc Tempre wrote: Bah misread + typo equals fail. And yes, you can't scale them down due to the square-cube law. You basically need fission or better to get enough energy density in a bullet sized autocannon. Got a source for that which is both relevant to New Eden and capable of proving that our Dropsuits aren't already capable of the kind of power output we're talking about? Because with the ability to operate laser weapons, I'd say high energy requirements are par for the course. Laser draws extra power from the suit to operate. Still, now we are talking about a fully automatic nuclear grenade launcher vs a plasma blaster. And this all goes back to an autocannon does NOT act like an HMG.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2012.11.19 19:16:00 - [7] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Noc Tempre wrote: And this all goes back to an autocannon does NOT act like an HMG. Again, source? That's not what the New Eden definition sounds like. You blatantly have ignored real sources. No point arguing with a fool. Autocannons are distinct from rifles by payload. They are not kinetic kill weapons (mass drivers in sci-fi lingo), they are explosive. The most iconic real life analog is the flak cannon. HMG fires bullets, autocannon fires shells. Shells can't be made tiny and still have enough energy density to be lethal due to square-cube law. Edit: Nothing from EVE wiki suggests they are anything but as I described them.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2012.11.19 20:28:00 - [8] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Noc Tempre wrote: Edit: Nothing from EVE wiki suggests they are anything but as I described them. Except the fact that several of the projectile options are non-explosive types, and the explosives specifically reference the kind of tech you're describing as being required for the charge to be effective in such a small projectile. http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Projectile_ammunition Hmm, the only ones that don't have an explosive component are direct energy conversion (proton and plasma). I admit I am in a foul mood currently, so can we move past the autocannon =/= big HMG distraction and back to why this is a great way to balance the game?
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2012.11.19 22:38:00 - [9] - Quote Because we want people to use blasters for once.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2012.11.19 23:26:00 - [10] - Quote Tiel Syysch wrote: Garrett Blacknova wrote: Weapons don't have to be single-purpose They'd be better if they were, because then there'd be counters to a given playstyle since it can't do everything. Versatile weapons should be much weaker. If anything, blasters would encroach on autocannons if they have enough range to be AA.

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.