| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
CaptBuckle
3dge of D4rkness
SoulWing Alliance
10
   |
Posted - 2012.11.20 00:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
(Disclaimer: This is my first "online" FPS, and I haven't been playing DUST for more than half a month, at that. I have no idea whether this is feasible within the code capabilities or even the "technological back-story" of the DUST setting, nor am I aware if this would unbalance too far against vehicles...
I _also_ haven't read the entire forum to ascertain if someone may have already suggested something like this. Apologies if this has already been discussed.)
There seems to be a lot of talk about vehicles...particularly tanks and drop ships...being overpowered. Something I think would be interesting would be the combination of a scout fitted as a forward observer, combined with a new class of weapons/skill tree that allow for indirect fire.
For the scout, I could see something like a "remote scanning systems" or something of the sort...plus the usual profile damping, long range scanning and other typical skills. Maybe the backstory would be that the targetting system must be entirely passive, and thus has a limited radius within which the forward observer must close with the target. The "remote scanning systems" skill could unlock a targeting datalink dropsuit module, which would be required for the scout to link with the fire team.
The weapon system could be something like an AV mortar, or perhaps just a ballistic mode to the swarm launcher that is only available if the operator also has a targeting datalink, maybe combined with a HUD sight similar to the mass driver.
(Note: The mass driver itself is short range, and essentially a direct fire weapon. Indirect fire should have longer range. That's the reason I suggest perhaps a ballistic "dumb fire" option on the swarm launcher, or simply a new weapon class, entirely. To simplify coding, I see no reason not to have the "AV mortar" still be held instead of deployed on the ground, since presumably the dropsuits also have powered exoskeleton features, as well...)
So, the way that I see this working, from a player perspective, is:
- The forward observer (FO) infiltrates the enemy position, closing within passive scan range for some sort of ranging device (a scope, special purposed binoculars, or something of the sort).
- The FO unit essentially "locks" the target. He can break the lock, but doing so starts the whole target acquisition process all over again.
- This essentially provides any indirect fire capable (IFC) team or squad mates some sort of indicator, the accuracy of which is dependent upon some combination of the FO and IFC units' respective skill levels. Perhaps it would be a large to small targetting circle...better skills resulting in smaller circle.
- The IFC unit "aims" within this circle and fires a ballistic AV projectile or "blindfire" ballistic swarm.
- If the FO unit remains locked on the target to observe the point of impact, then he can update the IFC unit with a trajectory correction.
- Any time the FO unit breaks the lock, the accuracy of the target circle is reset and the error randomized, all over again.
The trajectory correction mechanic could be implemented in a few ways:
- Verbally: "Up", "Down", "Left" and "Right". This would further encourage and reward good squad/team communication.
- "Tightening" the IFC unit's targeting circle, but only if the FO unit "locks" and observes the impact in one uninterrupted view in the ranging device. (This means that the FO suffers the same potential vulnerabilities as a sniper, unless another squad member is providing security.)
- "Re-centering" the targeting circle more accurately on the target (Without tightening the circle).
I think this would be interesting because it potentially opens up a whole new tactical layer and makes the overall experience that much more immersive.
Also, AV rounds don't have to be destructive. You could also adapt energy drain and webifier technologies from EVE into AV munitions.
Again, it's just a thought...and my feelings won't be hurt if too many others disagree or it just isn't feasible with the codebase.
Of course, this doesn't address dropships, at all...but I don't have enough experience with them to feel comfortable offering feedback, at this time.
:)
|
Mobius Kaethis
Planetary Response Organisation
Test Friends Please Ignore
306
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 05:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
There is going to be off map support in the game. As it is there is already a basic version of this, the precision strkes which can be called in by squad leaders.
The currently plans we know about are for squad leaders to be able to call in strikes from EVE players in orbit (with specialized weapons). The current incarnation of these strikes is quite damaging against vehicles.
Lots of players have also talked about deployable off map weaponry (mortars, artillery, and what not) though I don't know what CCP has said about them yet. I am hoping that it will be something akin to your idea but that would require interaction between two different maps on a single planet, both of which would have to be required by your corporation.
Great idea though. I really like how you've made it so that the aiming would have to be done via voice comms thus forcing a large ammount of team communication. |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1170
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 05:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
While it is an obtuse implementation, this is just another call for an "I win" mechanic tailored to screwing vehicles over. Balance them, balance the maps, or make vehicles equal in SP and ISK to infantry. |
Free Beers
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
1041
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 06:24:00 -
[4] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:While it is an obtuse implementation, this is just another call for an "I win" mechanic tailored to screwing vehicles over. Balance them, balance the maps, or make vehicles equal in SP and ISK to infantry.
shut your cake hole noc. your "it should take 5 proto swarm volleys with max skills to kill a buff tank ds" is just your version of a win button. I mean throw on your rep + passive sheild recharge and you will 3 proto swarm guys to bring you down in a reasonal amount of time |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1170
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 06:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
Free Beers wrote:Noc Tempre wrote:While it is an obtuse implementation, this is just another call for an "I win" mechanic tailored to screwing vehicles over. Balance them, balance the maps, or make vehicles equal in SP and ISK to infantry. shut your cake hole noc. your "it should take 5 proto swarm volleys with max skills to kill a buff tank ds" is just your version of a win button. I mean throw on your rep + passive sheild recharge and you will 3 proto swarm guys to bring you down in a reasonal amount of time
I know you are trolling me, but it takes only 3 proto swarms missiles, not people, to take out the best dropship. |
Free Beers
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
1041
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 06:46:00 -
[6] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:Free Beers wrote:Noc Tempre wrote:While it is an obtuse implementation, this is just another call for an "I win" mechanic tailored to screwing vehicles over. Balance them, balance the maps, or make vehicles equal in SP and ISK to infantry. shut your cake hole noc. your "it should take 5 proto swarm volleys with max skills to kill a buff tank ds" is just your version of a win button. I mean throw on your rep + passive sheild recharge and you will 3 proto swarm guys to bring you down in a reasonal amount of time I know you are trolling me, but it takes only 3 proto swarms missiles, not people, to take out the best dropship.
actually I am quite serious. By your post 1 volley of proto swarms do 600 damage with max skills. so it would take 5 volleys to kill a drop ship and even more if its a shield tanked one. Your math not mine.
I have a hard time getting more then 2 volleys off now against anything. the thought of getting 5 off is just not possible since a clip only has 4 and you have to reload. During this time you will pop the repper and run off behind a building or the red zone. short time later you will make your way back to kill be since you know you can tank the damage so you hover over me and missile spam me.
Vehicle pilots are all "stfu and stop complaing about diying" and then demand more ehp/speed/way to avoid swarms etc.
The bias is there. I have come to the opinion that regardless of how big the maps/teams are it will be matches will be vehicles/av/snipers and regnum running around capping objectives.
truth |
CaptBuckle
3dge of D4rkness
SoulWing Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 07:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:While it is an obtuse implementation, this is just another call for an "I win" mechanic tailored to screwing vehicles over. Balance them, balance the maps, or make vehicles equal in SP and ISK to infantry.
Really? Where do you get that this is a desire for an "I win" mechanic? First, I never said that a single "mortar"...or whatever it would happen to be, should be enough to take out a tank in one hit. But I would want to see it be a extremely "worrisome" hit. For instance, if combined arms tactics are used, then maybe the tank could be knocked out with two additional swarmer hits, assuming the shields/armor haven't recharge or repaired.
Second, if the tank and crew are alert, then they are most likely to get an accidental warning shot with at least the first shell, because it's probably going to miss. Second, the opposing force...to pull this off in a repeatable fashion...is going to have to dedicate at least six people with a very particular dropsuit fit in order to take out a tank.
- Forward Observer
- Mortar or other _linked_ indirect fire capable unit
- Security for the forward observer
- Security for the indirect fire capable unit
- At least two swarm launchers or suitable number of AV grenadiers, for an immediate mass of fire.
In reality, for this to be an "I win" tactic to reliably take out multiple tanks, you would want additional security for the swarm/AV units, probably at least one sniper working on counter-sniping, etc. You are potentially talking about dedicating and coordinating two squads to be able to deliver a knockout punch to a tank. I don't really consider that an "I win" mechanic, Noc. But I would consider that level of coordination to be pretty exciting. And with coordination, it would allow a well coordinated group of new players to at least be able to even the playing field against a complacent veteran with deep pockets.
Really, you don't know me...AT ALL...so don't presume to think you know what I want, why I want it, or presume to think you can accurately paraphrase what I'm suggesting. The only "I win" mechanic that I want to see is that superior tactics should always be able to have even footing with deep pockets. Right now, if one side has been able to deploy all their HAV assets and camp out outside the other side's red zone, the match is over. Precision strikes? How is a redlined team ever going to mass enough WP to be able to break the enemy assault?
And having this be something that is accessible to new players with a modicum of suitable skills, instead of expensive off map assets and the like, would allow a skilled commander to potentially lead a bunch of novices through solid tactics, and possibly catch a bunch of campers with their pants down.
What I want, is for _no one_ to be able to relax and take pot shots on the battlefield. _Everyone_ should be worried and looking over their shoulders at all times. And when they can't look over their shoulders, then if a force wishes to keep an expensive asset in play, then they need to deploy sufficient support and security teams and attach them to protect said assets. Battles might be won through tactical employment of massed fire and combined arms...but wars are won through logistics. |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1170
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 08:50:00 -
[8] - Quote
Free Beers wrote:Noc Tempre wrote:Free Beers wrote:Noc Tempre wrote:While it is an obtuse implementation, this is just another call for an "I win" mechanic tailored to screwing vehicles over. Balance them, balance the maps, or make vehicles equal in SP and ISK to infantry. shut your cake hole noc. your "it should take 5 proto swarm volleys with max skills to kill a buff tank ds" is just your version of a win button. I mean throw on your rep + passive sheild recharge and you will 3 proto swarm guys to bring you down in a reasonal amount of time I know you are trolling me, but it takes only 3 proto swarms missiles, not people, to take out the best dropship. actually I am quite serious. By your post 1 volley of proto swarms do 600 damage with max skills. so it would take 5 volleys to kill a drop ship and even more if its a shield tanked one. Your math not mine. I have a hard time getting more then 2 volleys off now against anything. the thought of getting 5 off is just not possible since a clip only has 4 and you have to reload. During this time you will pop the repper and run off behind a building or the red zone. short time later you will make your way back to kill be since you know you can tank the damage so you hover over me and missile spam me. Vehicle pilots are all "stfu and stop complaing about diying" and then demand more ehp/speed/way to avoid swarms etc. The bias is there. I have come to the opinion that regardless of how big the maps/teams are it will be matches will be vehicles/av/snipers and regnum running around capping objectives. truth
You can't play both sides. You can't tone down AV until after the turrets are diminished. Those numbers were posted to discourage fire and forget as much as possible on purpose. There were skill based (to use, not just SP) ones that put out better damage at longer range. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |