DUST Search - [Suggestion] Red Zone "fix"

KalOfTheRathi wrote:

The Red Zone is a simple solution to the problems you mentioned. It is fast, cheap and effective in that it can be modified with little more then editing a text file.

The AFK problem is under investigation and they are looking into a solution for it. Read Updates from Devs.

Sniping from range is a standard and valid tactic for any Sniper in any game as it is in real life. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't valid. My Squad mates hunt down Red Line Snipers daily. Get out your Shotgun and hunt them down. If they are too far out, get out your Sniper Rifle and Counter Snipe.

You should have been here for the real MCC camping. That was definitely worse. And at Manus Peak it isn't gone yet. Watch a HAV sit on the road leading down the hill past C to see them shooting the descending or landing Mercs.

To fix your boredom you want CCP/Shanghai to implement an entire array of new weapons that require Art, 3D-Models, Texture, AI, Weapon design and balance, WP designation on top of trying to get the game to a stable status while, probably, developing the PS4 version as well. Sure, it is just Software. They can do it over the weekend. Maybe even work late a night or two.

The Red Line breaks immersion in a Space Game based thousands of centuries in the future. Seriously?

I am guessing that means you need Lore for the justification of the Red Line. Fine.

Technical Details On Red Lines for Mercenary Clone Customers

Red Lines are displayed to help defined the edges of TacNet support for a given MCC. If a Merc tries to operate past the effective range of their TacNet their Drop Suit will no longer function properly and will quickly fail completely. This is why battles cannot continue once the MCC has been destroyed as the TacNet Must be running for Drop Suit functionality to be maintained.

No TacNet means no communication, data, tracking, scanning, profile dampening, targeting data and readout of Reds information. Thus the HUD and all its functionality will be lost. Potentially (at the Devs discretion) the HUD might fail immediately upon entering the Red Zone. Or it might start displaying erroneous information as TacNet security may be compromised once past the Secure Battlefield indicated by the Red Line borders.

Being past the Red Line for more than 20 seconds will normally result in the Death of the Clone and will void its warranty. This will also Fail To Transfer data from the currently active clone to its replacement for the amount of time the Clone lost connection with the TacNet. Any associated WP, Kills, etc. will fail to record as well. Since death is the normal result it will be counted against Suit/Equipment loss and Clone Count in Battle similar to Suicide.

The reason the Red Line does not go under the opposing MCC is highly classified ECC solutions prevent exactly that situation and leaves the Mercs associated with an MCC a buffer from which to base their attacks/defense. Unfortunately the limitations of establishing such a secure area over the entire battlefield are beyond what the modern MCC is able to maintain. Otherwise we would simply establish insurmountable advantage over our opponents. While we would like that we do not have sufficient CPU/PG capacity to provide that level of support*.

* Not to mention the Battle Clone Electronic Counter Measure Treaty that limits the Power Grid and CPU capabilities of MCC type of field deploy-able equipment.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kray Dytt THE DOLLARS 19	Posted - 2013.03.14 11:21:00 - [1] - Quote Problem: The "Red Zone" (the part of the map that your team can be in but the other team can't) is in place to prevent MCC camping of teams with no other spawn points. It provides a place to regroup in and attempt to retake objectives. This is important because otherwise a team that loses all spawn points is basically powerless to do anything and the match might as well end. However, the way it's implemented now has a number of "side effects" that I think should be fixed: -People can use the Red Zone to go AFK and still get rewarded (they can also do this in the MCC, which I propose to fix with another suggestion LINK (In my opinion going AFK is fine, but since you're not doing anything you shouldn't be rewarded for it) -People can use the Red Zone to snipe from. In many cases, this is a logical choice since some of the best sniping locations are in the Red Zone. It doesn't really make sense to be able use the artificial protection the Red Zone offers in this way though. -The Red Zone is "immersion breaking" (this is also true for the Red Line around the whole battlefield, but it becomes a problem, I think, when a piece of the map is apparently safe for one group of ground units but not for another). -Matches in which a team gets "Red Zoned" often end in Red Zone camping. While this is not as bad as MCC camping would be, it still isn't a very fun way to play. This is in part because if a team gets Red Zoned, the other team is apparently better, so the chances of turning the tide aren't that big. It's also caused by people reverting to sniping the enemy from the Red Zone to at least get some kills in (which makes sense, given the current system). Solution: I would propose replacing the Red Zone with actual in-game weaponry/defenses. This would mean there is one Red Line around the entire battlefield which is the same for both teams. Beneath the MCC's is a zone protected in a number of ways: a few automated turrets and a (large) number of player operated turrets. The effective range of these defenses would define the safe zone for people to drop/spawn in. The safe zone defined would be smaller when only the automated defenses are used. Manning the player operated defenses would increase the size of this zone. (this way, a team which has other spawn points will not have a large safe zone to use for sniping) All these defenses are destroyable. But, they will be replaced by new drops from the MCC, at a certain pace. This "pace" is an important balancing instrument (and could possibly change depending on number of objectives held). Effectively, this would do 3 things: -It introduces an immersive mechanic to prevent MCC camping (as opposed to the current unimmersive mechanic). -It would reduce the size of the safe zone when it's not needed, preventing "abuse" of this safe zone. -It would make "lost" matches more interesting. Additionally, I could see a mechanic that would lead to quicker match resolution, for instance by introducing an objective in the safe zone which can be used to make the MCC more vulnerable if held. But, I haven't really thought that through yet. Would like to hear how people feel about something like that though.
KalOfTheRathi CowTek 219	Posted - 2013.03.14 14:02:00 - [2] - Quote The Red Zone is a simple solution to the problems you mentioned. It is fast, cheap and effective in that it can be modified with little more then editing a text file. The AFK problem is under investigation and they are looking into a solution for it. Read Updates from Devs. Sniping from range is a standard and valid tactic for any Sniper in any game as it is in real life. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't valid. My Squad mates hunt down Red Line Snipers daily. Get out your Shotgun and hunt them down. If they are too far out, get out your Sniper Rifle and Counter Snipe. You should have been here for the real MCC camping. That was definitely worse. And at Manus Peak it isn't gone yet. Watch a HAV sit on the road leading down the hill past C to see them shooting the descending or landing Mercs. To fix your boredom you want CCP/Shanghai to implement an entire array of new weapons that require Art, 3D-Models, Texture, AI, Weapon design and balance, WP designation on top of trying to get the game to a stable status while, probably, developing the PS4 version as well. Sure, it is just Software. They can do it over the weekend. Maybe even work late a night or two. The Red Line breaks immersion in a Space Game based thousands of centuries in the future. Seriously? I am guessing that means you need Lore for the justification of the Red Line. Fine. Technical Details On Red Lines for Mercenary Clone Customers Red Lines are displayed to help defined the edges of TacNet support for a given MCC. If a Merc tries to operate past the effective range of their TacNet their Drop Suit will no longer function properly and will quickly fail completely. This is why battles cannot continue once the MCC has been destroyed as the TacNet Must be running for Drop Suit functionality to be maintained. No TacNet means no communication, data, tracking, scanning, profile dampening, targeting data and readout of Reds information. Thus the HUD and all its functionality will be lost. Potentially (at the Devs discretion) the HUD might fail immediately upon entering the Red Zone. Or it might start displaying erroneous information as TacNet security may be compromised once past the Secure Battlefield indicated by the Red Line borders. Being past the Red Line for more than 20 seconds will normally result in the Death of the Clone and will void its warranty. This will also Fail To Transfer data from the currently active clone to its replacement for the amount of time the Clone lost connection with the TacNet. Any associated WP, Kills, etc. will fail to record as well. Since death is the normal result it will be counted against Suit/Equipment loss and Clone Count in Battle similar to Suicide. The reason the Red Line does not go under the opposing MCC is highly classified ECC solutions prevent exactly that situation and leaves the Mercs associated with an MCC a buffer from which to base their attacks/defense. Unfortunately the limitations of establishing such a secure area over the entire battlefield are beyond what the modern MCC is able to maintain. Otherwise we would simply establish insurmountable advantage over our opponents. While we would like that we do not have sufficient CPU/PG capacity to provide that level of support. Not to mention the Battle Clone Electronic Counter Measure Treaty that limits the Power Grid and CPU capabilities of MCC type of field deploy-able equipment.
Kray Dytt THE DOLLARS 21	Posted - 2013.03.14 14:49:00 - [3] - Quote KalOfTheRathi wrote: The Red Zone is a simple solution to the problems you mentioned. It is fast, cheap and effective in that it can be modified with little more then editing a text file. The AFK problem is under investigation and they are looking into a solution for it. Read Updates from Devs. Sniping from range is a standard and valid tactic for any Sniper in any game as it is in real life. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't valid. My Squad mates hunt down Red Line Snipers daily. Get out your Shotgun and hunt them down. If they are too far out, get out your Sniper Rifle and Counter Snipe. You should have been here for the real MCC camping. That was definitely worse. And at Manus Peak it isn't gone yet. Watch a HAV sit on the road leading down the hill past C to see them shooting the descending or landing Mercs. To fix your boredom you want CCP/Shanghai to implement an entire array of new weapons that require Art, 3D-Models, Texture, AI, Weapon design and balance, WP designation on top of trying to get the game to a stable status while, probably, developing the PS4 version as well. Sure, it is just Software. They can do it over the weekend. Maybe even work late a night or two. The Red Line breaks immersion in a Space Game based thousands of centuries in the future. Seriously? I am guessing that means you need Lore for the justification of the Red Line. Fine. Technical Details On Red Lines for Mercenary Clone Customers Red Lines are displayed to help defined the edges of TacNet support for a given MCC. If a Merc tries to operate past the effective range of their TacNet their Drop Suit will no longer function properly and will quickly fail completely. This is why battles cannot continue once the MCC has been destroyed as the TacNet Must be running for Drop Suit functionality to be maintained. No TacNet means no communication, data, tracking, scanning, profile dampening, targeting data and readout of Reds information. Thus the HUD and all its functionality will be lost. Potentially (at the Devs discretion) the HUD might fail immediately upon entering the Red Zone. Or it might start displaying erroneous information as TacNet security may be compromised once past the Secure Battlefield indicated by the Red Line borders. Being past the Red Line for more than 20 seconds will normally result in the Death of the Clone and will void its warranty. This will also Fail To Transfer data from the currently active clone to its replacement for the amount of time the Clone lost connection with the TacNet. Any associated WP, Kills, etc. will fail to record as well. Since death is the normal result it will be counted against Suit/Equipment loss and Clone Count in Battle similar to Suicide. The reason the Red Line does not go under the opposing MCC is highly classified ECC solutions prevent exactly that situation and leaves the Mercs associated with an MCC a buffer from which to base their attacks/defense. Unfortunately the limitations of establishing such a secure area over the entire battlefield are beyond what the modern MCC is able to maintain. Otherwise we would simply establish insurmountable advantage over our opponents. While we would like that we do not have sufficient CPU/PG capacity to provide that level of support. Not to mention the Battle Clone Electronic Counter Measure Treaty that limits the Power Grid and CPU capabilities of MCC type of field deploy-able equipment. I understand that the Red Zone is a simple solution to the MCC camping problem. However I feel it has issues, hence my suggestion. This is not meant to battle AFK'ing, as I indicated. I know the dev's are looking into fixes for AFK'ing, their last update I believe was "considering an inactivity auto-kick". In my AFK "fix" suggestion I explain why I don't think that will work. Sniping from range is not an issue. I haven't even mentioned it. Yes, MCC camping needs to be prevented, I agree. I think most of what I propose (possibly all) can be done with existing weapons (turrets, basically). The only coding involved would be changing the Red Lines, adding the turrets and programming the re-deployment of destroyed turrets. Your piece of lore is nice, and yes you can come up with an explanation for anything, this is true. I concede, the "immersion" argument doesn't really work. All that aside (correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that your main point is "this would cost resources and it isn't needed"), how do you think this would play if implemented? Do you think it would work at all? Would "lost" battles become better or worse, game play wise? Would it cause other issues?


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