|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
trollsroyce
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
189
   |
Posted - 2013.03.07 16:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
Snipers in dust have one endgame issue that's going to surface soon, as corps get the game. Dust is local objective based, and snipers are a global field asset.
This will ultimately mean, that the counter to snipers is at the same time the only way to win the game: tanks and frontline troops, using drop uplinks to deploy, bypassing sniper cover. A full local team wins, so why waste time thinking about snipers?
The core issue can be fixed - and the game can be broadened much - by introducing open objectives without cover. A random generator makes objectives spawn without hacking cover, let's say 25% probability. The game changes drastically as tanks are required to provide hack cover, and sniper dominance along with tank dominance gives an advantage at holding some of the objectives. A game with 3/3 open objectives is a game of field control, a game with 0/3 open objectives is your generic assault bash. Teams need to adapt to circumstances, and base design allows you to play to your strenght.
Mini fixes to accompany:
GÇó thale damage reduction, clip size +1
GÇó range scaled damage. optimal range 200m, falloff 400, sharpshooter actually matters.
GÇó scope selection |
trollsroyce
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
191
|
Posted - 2013.03.07 18:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
I'm talking low/nulksec fights here. Pubs can stay as they are :) |
trollsroyce
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
196
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 07:28:00 -
[3] - Quote
Perhaps the better approach on that would be buffing all other officer guns ;) |
trollsroyce
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
196
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 08:48:00 -
[4] - Quote
It makes an occasional shift from local to global tactics, which is a good change. The game is now all about fighting in strategic spots, while it could be that AND fighting for field control. On those maps you mentioned, Laurent, only Manus Peak is the one where I would not contribute more at front line than as sniper. And I suck at frontline.
Edit: thus far in 100% corp matches I've fought, its first minute of game stall by sniping, then I hop voluntarily to AR because I want the team to win. Drop uplinks bypass snipers. |
trollsroyce
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
196
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 10:09:00 -
[5] - Quote
Here is what I think the "meta goal" would be:
A team optimally consists of 3 parts:
1/3 of it is frontline
1/3 of it is long range battlefield control
1/3 of it needs to adapt to map specifics
Currently:
2/3 of it is frontline
1/3 adapts, which can be snipers, AV, tanks or just more frontline
The games are focused around frontline, while they could change by map to have long range field control focus some times.
The current system inevitably leads to "crush frontline, have tank advantage with rail tanks positioned up front. Sniper is most efficient to just replace by rail tank at high ground, wasting enemy time to AV and dodging it.
Do you ever see a game evolve to half sniper/railtanks? It should, because it most of the time is over half frontline. I have adapted and am going full AR/scram rifle focus with sniping as a sidekick role, for when the enemy team is redlined. Those matches are won regardless of sniping. Hard fights? Better take frontline than to get ignored |
|
|
| |
|