DUST Search - My optimal vehicle balance

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

My optimal vehicle balance - what's yours?

» 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)
Skihids The Tritan Industries 1144	Posted - 2013.04.05 18:54:00 - [1] - Quote I would love to see more complexity and flexibility added at the timing stage if it also meant easier operation on the battlefield. Right now trying to fly in three dimensions in real time, shoot (when we get Assault craft), and activate modules is a bit much.
Skihids The Tritan Industries RISE of LEGION 1191	Posted - 2013.04.16 20:30:00 - [2] - Quote I would like to see vehicles be more complex and nuanced. I would like to see them require more player skill and practice to field effectively. I would like to see counters more complex than "Hit it with a bigger gun". Vehicle pilots should be a breed apart from infantry and that means it should take a different skill set. Right from the start I've been lobbying for an equal and seperate role for vehicles that treats them as more than an accessory to the infantryman. Capacitors would facilitate flexibility and nuance as you could ditch the clunky activation/cool down mechanism. Not having played EVE I'm a bit concerned at how well they could be managed in real time by a pilot who has other duties, but I think it should be possible to design a workable system. I also believe balance demands that the larger vehicles should require multiple players to operate effectively. I wrote a post way back in Precursor that called HAVs a "Super Heavy Fat Suit" because they were one man operated, moved faster than a scout, hit harder and had more HP than a heavy. They didn't need anything. That leads to the current "debates" about balancing vehicles and AV. The AV guys point out that they should be able to solo a vehicle if the driver can operate it solo, yet the pilot points out that his ride costs far too much to support that reasoning. There's no way to settle the argument. If you add additional operators you can justify it being harder to kill. You also add something much more important for the long life of this game, teamwork. Yes, it's fun to roll over the enemy team solo in your killing machine, but I believe that would pale in comparison to the pride in being a member of an elite tank or fighter team. One person can only perform so many tasks at once, that's why real world vehicles have multiple crew members. They can do more and be more complex. They can be more than an infantry accessory. There is too large a focus on public matches as far as vehicle balance and use is concerned. Balance it for pub matches and you ruin it for corp play. Random masses of blue dots will never present an organized response to a vehicle, leading to AV strong enough to solo the vehicle. Then AV dominates in corp matches. I don't know the solution to this problem other than to allow larger squads into pub matches to increase the coordination of infantry or the elimination of larger vehicles from public matches. The first risks rolling a team of randoms and the second leave vehicle pilots with no outlet except FW and PC which is a tiny fraction of available battles. Tank drivers don't want to share thier baby with blue dots, and I understand that. But that doesn't mean they can't share with a corp mate. This is a team oriented game and the larger assets should reflect that. This isn't CoD. Of course that introduces a requirement to share expenses to field the asset. You can't ask one person to foot the bill for the whole vehicle squad. Shared expenses plus also help bind the team together as they would have a strong sense of shared ownership. There is a place for one man vehicles at the low end. LAVs, MTACs, maybe light tanks. Those would be simpler to operate and less powerful as a result.
Skihids The Tritan Industries RISE of LEGION 1191	Posted - 2013.04.16 20:58:00 - [3] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote: ECM -The obvious thing is to have it break all target locks and keep them broken for some period, but so few things require target locks that this becomes unusably situational, and would be used almost exclusively by vehicles. That said, I honestly don't have a better idea. The best I can think of is disrupting the sensors on all enemy suits/vehicles in the area so that their radar is screwed up. Y'know, that on top of breaking locks. Why not just disable turrets? Right now it's all or nothing. Either the vehicle s operating at 100% efficiency or it's destroyed. I like the idea of more selective damage/incapacitation. We will eventually see webifiers that selectively disable movement, and the capacitor story suggests we may have our power supply attacked. Adding the ability to target vehicle weapons might add nuance to the game.
Skihids The Tritan Industries RISE of LEGION 1194	Posted - 2013.04.17 02:20:00 - [4] - Quote CCP is going to be the one to decide if this is a team based or solo game. Either they have a vision and stick with it, or they let the mass of the player base used to solo style play design their game for them. We can lobby for a novel game that requires teamwork to reach the higher levels, but we are but a few voices drowned out by those who either don't appreciate the higher level of fun that comes with teamwork or who just want another game where they can jump in solo and dominate. There is room for both in that there should be standard level vehicles that can be fielded solo, but the more powerful platforms should be squad based. We know that trying to balance on ISK is a fools game. Well off players could rampage and would demand dominance for their dollar. Everyone else would scream. Letting players buy "Super Proto Suits" can't be balanced. I will keep lobbying for skill and teamwork. That is ultimately the most rewarding.
Skihids The Tritan Industries RISE of LEGION 1194	Posted - 2013.04.17 02:23:00 - [5] - Quote Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote: I'm not huge on the idea of destroying turrets, simply because you run the risk of ending up stuck in a HAV that can't defend itself, but you have to stick out the match with it because it's too expensive to just abandon. It has the potential to turn into a really un-fun mechanic. This is why I prefer the idea of using eWar on them. It only disables the turret for as long as the eWar guy is able to do so. I agree in that "destroying" a turret wouldn't be permanent in the same way that destroying armor isn't. Those nanites can repair them.

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.