Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
2341
   |
Posted - 2013.04.02 11:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
Firstly, I'd like to say I can't take full credit for "my" idea in this thread - I got it from someone else, but at the time, I couldn't find the source to give proper credit. Still haven't been able to, actually. I didn't quote it word-for-word, and I'm very interested in where you took the suggestion.
Baal Omniscient wrote:Perhaps set it up so that it's powered by the NULL cannons and it automatically starts firing after charging up (it charges while all NULL Cannons are under the control of one side for a set amount of time). You could even set up one on each NULL cannon and if the enemy owns that NULL cannon for too long, the AA cannon kicks in and begins to cause bonus damage on top of the NULL cannon damage. THAT would cause people to try to hold their bases much harder, as well as try to at least temporarily snatch away control of enemy cannons. Just different variants on Garrett's idea to toss around.
This puts me in mind of how Star Wars Battlefront: Elite Squadron works. At ground level, you could capture various objective points, and most provided some benefit beyond being a spawn point. One of these points on each map was an Ion Cannon Battery. While your team held onto that particular objective, the Ion Cannon slowly charged up, and if you got it fully charged, you could man the controls and fire on the enemy capital ship to destroy its shields and open it up for boarding actions.
A similar charging mechanic could be integrated with the current system in DUST, so that the NULL Cannons deal their steady DPS while charging up for a more powerful volley or locking onto a weak point where the shot will deal extra damage. If the enemy team even manages to successfully initiate a hack on the Cannon, it resets the process even if you counter-hack the point before they take control of the Cannon. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
2343
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 13:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
Baal Omniscient wrote:I was thinking it would give incentive to counter-hack without adding additional SP gains if it means that the longer you hold the objective, the shorter the match can be.
That's a VERY good point that I overlooked... Well spotted. I'll retract that part of my earlier post (but I'm not editing it out, because then your comment would look weird). The charge/lock on should only be interrupted by the Cannons changing hands, not by a hack being initiated as I first suggested.
Quote:The weird thing about this idea though is that on a 3 point map we could see some strange results. Say one team holds a single base all match and periodically picks up one other base, alternating between them, for just a few seconds piece before letting them fall back into the other team's control. If the AA weapon is stronger than a normal NULL cannon, and the NULL cannon continues to fire as well as the AA weapon, then a team holding a single base all match could win by simply preventing the other team from being able to charge their AA all the way.
While that may seem a little unbalanced, it would make for awesome strategic gameplay. We would see all kinds of new tactics emerging to both prevent AA's from charging and to protect a fully charged NULL cannon.
But this is why the idea seemed so awesome to me.
I don't think it would be unbalanced. One team is maintaining solid control over a single objective, the other team is constantly losing one objective or the other on a regular basis. When there's a significant benefit to holding onto an objective, you're going to want to hold onto the objective to gain that advantage. Breaking a team's secure position will become a higher priority, and that will make for some very interesting dynamics. |