DUST Search - Ideas I've had that I'd like to get reaction to (please, no trolling or ...

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Ideas I've had that I'd like to get reaction to (please, no trolling or ...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Dagger-Two Villore Joint Task Force 11	Posted - 2013.05.04 01:18:00 - [1] - Quote I don't post on here too often, as I'm not a forum warrior and don't care for internet arguments and all the whining that goes on here. I do, however, read the forums regularly and know what people are complaining about. I have a few interesting ideas I'd like to propose about certain weapons. Laser Rifles A lot of 'nerf' or 'don't nerf' threads about this weapon. I've been using it lately, and I have to admit, it is kinda FUN to use, I'm not gonna lie. Very easy to rack up kills with it when you're using it at it's correct range, and mowing people down with it is a blast. That being said, I DO feel that it's a bit off as a light weapon, partly because of its huge damage potential and partly because I'm a long time EVE player who LOVES the lore. And in the lore, we can find this tidbit: "These weapons emit coherent beams of light to damage their target. However, they require enormous amounts of energy, so a personal-based application is a little tricky. Some laser weapons have an integral power supply but are not very powerfull and thus largely insufficient for engaging targets in heavy bodyarmor. Other types, especially military rifles, use an external miniature reactor strapped to the users back and can provide excellent firepower with extraordinary accuracy. " EVE lore even tells us that the kind of weapon we have right now shouldn't be as powerful as it is. A solution? Make the current incarnation of the laser rifle, this Beam-laser type death machine, a HEAVY weapon, and even go as far as to make it BETTER, make it build up hear slower, and make it a medium range anti-infantry beam of death for heavy suits. I can't count the number of times I've been on comms playing, and I hear someone say "look out, laser rifle". The weapon is a serious threat, one that I believe is too great for a light weapon. As a Heavy weapons, however, heavy suits would have a medium range, effective anti-infantry beam that plays counter to the short range HMG. The existing laser rifle could be replaced with a more appropriate pulse-style laser, firing short, intense laser pulses with lethal precision at close to medium range, giving it a role alongside the plasma rifle, with its own flavour, advantages, and drawbacks over the 'AR'. Tanks A LOT of moaning about HAV's, on both sides. Infantry hate tanks for being dropped in on close-quarters infantry maps, and tankers hate getting blown up by what they think is over-powered AV weapons. Here's the thing: If a tank is a powerful tool of destruction, so must be the weapons that intend to disable or destroy one. Hell, read the forge gun description. 10 km/s is a phenomenal velocity for a projectile. Even the 'militia' variants SHOULD be feared/respected by that standard. That being said tank weapons should be even more fearsome. Make those missile fly faster and longer, blasters hit harder and with more splash, and railguns shoot clear across the map (and, really, should out-damage the forge gun. Its a much larger railgun folks, that's just common sense), and for the love of kittens remove the flight-time on the railgun slugs. As fast as those slugs are supposed to travel, you wouldn't have time to blink. But I want to talk about the tanks themselves, and how they could be made a more tactical, squad-and-team-oriented vehicle, and that is: Make driver and gunner seperate. And I know what you're thinking. "This is my tank, I paid for it, I don't want some blueberry controlling any major part of it" Understandable in a game where you have to EARN that tank through your skills and ISK made, but think about it. What could possible encourage more group cohesion than two people in a tank, relying on each other to survive? It's a mechanic that could unite corp members who love tanking into practicing together, making themselves into a formidable driver/gunner team. It would make solo-tanks unfeasable, and tanks would rarely be seen being used unless by corpmates who trust one another's skill. Suddenly, when there ARE multiple tanks on the field, you're fighting against real tank vets, and tank vs tank warfare has the potential to create truly epic and tactical firefights. Driver drives, observes (and maybe even marks targets for the gunner) and operates defensive modules, gunner shoots and activates any offensive modules. And not that this has any bearing on DUST, but I've played my fair share of games like Project Reality, and ArmA 2, where mechanics like this are in place, and I can tell you that NOT being in control of everything in the tank, and having to RELY on someone else, is pretty damn thrilling. I've heard a lot of people say they don't want DUST to degenerate into CoD. THIS kind of mechanic would damn well set it apart. (part 2 below)
Dagger-Two Villore Joint Task Force 11	Posted - 2013.05.04 01:19:00 - [2] - Quote Plasma Rifle Or otherwise known as the 'assault rifle' which is a pretty generic name considering there are probably hundreds of types of assault rifles in New Eden, from Caldari gauss-based assault rifles to Minmatar slug throwers. This thing works like a blaster, it takes a bunch of plasma, compresses it into a bolt, magnetically seals it, and then fires it at some poor *******. It's a very elegant, and a VERY short-range weapon. Toning down assault rifle range in exchange for a slight boost (yes, I know, a boost) in damage. It's meant to be a devastating short range rifle, and useless against anything more than, say, 50-60m away. (You could then fill those longer ranges with, say, rail or gauss rifles/carbines, or, wait, that pulse laser I was talking about!) Disappearing Projectiles Bullets don't just disappear, they either hit something in flight or they hit the ground. If coding allowed for it, ALL weapons that fire solid projectiles should behave this way, just taper damage down to zero past a certain range (through still making shields flicker). Make that SMG and HMG worth the duct tape and hope keeping them together. tl;dr If you're actually interested in it, please read the post. Reading is an important skill. If you can't be bothered to maintain your focus for a few minutes to read this, you don't deserve to reply in any way.
Dagger-Two Villore Joint Task Force 11	Posted - 2013.05.04 01:45:00 - [3] - Quote again i resort to shameless self bumps to try and get this to the top of a page -_- My appologies
slypie11 Planetary Response Organisation 249	Posted - 2013.05.04 02:14:00 - [4] - Quote Good ideas all around, except for the one about the AR. 1. We already have enough close range weapons that are MUCH better at their job, namely the SMG, HMG, shotgun, and nova knives. The AR would become a glorified SMG that is worse in its optimal range. 2. What about the breach? This was supposed to be the CQC AR. Would it be limited to 15m? 10?
Dagger-Two Villore Joint Task Force 11	Posted - 2013.05.04 02:27:00 - [5] - Quote Well when we talk about the shotgun, that is REALLY short range, like, point blank. I disagree at the effectiveness of the SMG vs the plasma rifle at short range just due to experience (Ar seems to come out on top vs SMG most times for me at close range, regardless of which one I'm using). I also think that there should be many options available in terms of weapons and their effective range. Just because one weapon exists that is effective at a certain range, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be others as well. I'm not much on the numbers when it comes to these weapons, but I'm sure there could be enough tweaking done to make them both viable in their own ways, especially if the plasma rifle gets its range lowered and damage boosted (slightly). And yeah, I don't see anything wrong with taking the breach down to, say, 30-40m range if the standard rifle is 50-60. Plasma bolt contains larger amount of plasma, and is more compressed, but as such the magnetic bottle containing it collapses faster (Rp reasoning behind the breach rifle, i guess).
slypie11 Planetary Response Organisation 249	Posted - 2013.05.04 02:34:00 - [6] - Quote Dagger-Two wrote: Well when we talk about the shotgun, that is REALLY short range, like, point blank. I disagree at the effectiveness of the SMG vs the plasma rifle at short range just due to experience (Ar seems to come out on top vs SMG most times for me at close range, regardless of which one I'm using). I also think that there should be many options available in terms of weapons and their effective range. Just because one weapon exists that is effective at a certain range, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be others as well. I'm not much on the numbers when it comes to these weapons, but I'm sure there could be enough tweaking done to make them both viable in their own ways, especially if the plasma rifle gets its range lowered and damage boosted (slightly). And yeah, I don't see anything wrong with taking the breach down to, say, 30-40m range if the standard rifle is 50-60. Plasma bolt contains larger amount of plasma, and is more compressed, but as such the magnetic bottle containing it collapses faster (Rp reasoning behind the breach rifle, i guess). I don't know about you, but I destroy AR users with my standard SMG. Granted, it is on my sniper fit with 2 enhanced damage mods, but higher levels should be that good. Anyway, based on your reasoning behind the breach AR, what about the tac? Those deal massive amounts of damage and I think will be dealing more after uprising, but have huge range compared to the regular AR.
Dagger-Two Villore Joint Task Force 11	Posted - 2013.05.04 02:49:00 - [7] - Quote True, and I don't have all the answers when it comes to these things, haha. They're all just ideas i had, but they all obviously need fine tuning. You could say, i suppose, the tactical variant is akin to the breach, but has compensated with a more powerful mag-field stabilizer, at the expense of slowing rate of fire to single-shot only. Personally? I don't think the tactical plasma rifle should exist at all
Django Quik R.I.f.t Orion Empire 398	Posted - 2013.05.04 08:00:00 - [8] - Quote slypie11 wrote: I don't know about you, but I destroy AR users with my standard SMG. Granted, it is on my sniper fit with 2 enhanced damage mods, but higher levels should be that good. I too destroy occasionally destroy AR users with my SMG but I question your post on the highlighted. Are you fitting 2 enhanced sidearm damage mods to your sniper fit!? Or are you talking about having 2 enhanced light damage mods? Because light damage mods don't affect SMGs.
Cosgar The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 422	Posted - 2013.05.04 08:09:00 - [9] - Quote My rebuttal in video form.(Not trolling) So, ask yourself this: Is the fun to use weapon you're using just as fun for the player it's being used on? Are there meaningful choices to counter said weapon? Are those meaningful choices only being provided to you but limiting them to the person on the other end?
Django Quik R.I.f.t Orion Empire 398	Posted - 2013.05.04 08:17:00 - [10] - Quote Cosgar wrote: My rebuttal in video form.(Not trolling) So, ask yourself this: Is the fun to use weapon you're using just as fun for the player it's being used on? Are there meaningful choices to counter said weapon? Are those meaningful choices only being provided to you but limiting them to the person on the other end? One of the most apt video responses I've ever seen on this forum and something CCP should really really consider with this game. There need to be far more counterplays instead of nerfs and buffs.

KalOfTheRathi Talon Strike Force LTD Orion Empire 396	Posted - 2013.05.04 11:51:00 - [11] - Quote Don't post list in Feedback/Request and Technical Support/Bugs Forums. See sticky: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=37174&find=unread Posts like this actually are better served in either The Foot Locker or, possibly, General Interest. This is a dissertation about how you want the game to be so you will enjoy it better. Improving the game itself seems to have fallen by the wayside. Which might just my reading of it but whatever. In addition the separate Driver/Main Gunner has been brought up by all the BF3* fans and everybody that Doesn't drive a Tank thinks it will be Great. Everybody that Does drive a Tank Hates the idea as long as any Random Berry can jump in Their Tank. Look for posts about locking seats in a Tank. Or any vehicle for that matter. * or CoD, the fans seem to blend together after awhile.
slypie11 Planetary Response Organisation 250	Posted - 2013.05.04 12:22:00 - [12] - Quote Django Quik wrote: slypie11 wrote: I don't know about you, but I destroy AR users with my standard SMG. Granted, it is on my sniper fit with 2 enhanced damage mods, but higher levels should be that good. I too destroy occasionally destroy AR users with my SMG but I question your post on the highlighted. Are you fitting 2 enhanced sidearm damage mods to your sniper fit!? Or are you talking about having 2 enhanced light damage mods? Because light damage mods don't affect SMGs. OOOOOOOOOOOhhhh thats right. So yeah, I was using 2 enhanced light damage mods. Now I feel even better about myself.
J Lav Opus Arcana Orion Empire 56	Posted - 2013.05.04 15:39:00 - [13] - Quote Regarding Laser Rifles, I would love to see a heavy laser rifle, but I don't believe the current ones are all that awesome either. Every weapon should be a credible threat in the right hands, in the right circumstance. You applied the circumstance as a parameter in your post when you said "using at its correct range". There are tricks to using a laser rifle more effectively that infuriate people, ie. charging it up on a wall before hitting the target - this leads to a false impression of its ability to deal damage. For a heavy version, I'd like it to mow down shields like a banshee, and maybe even have the option of splitting into a swath with multiple beams, but the adjustment I think needs to happen in both cases would be less damage to armour. Tanks - I think you've hit the nail on the head, effectiveness and splash damage. It is baffling to think that I can point a devastatingly large gun at someone, with a damage mod on it, and still take 3 shots to kill an assault suit, and there's no splash. The adjustments I'd like to see on it are: splash damage on blasters (It's a frigg'n cannon) and variable effectiveness of weapons on targets, rather than a generic numerical system. I am however not a proponent of separate driver-gunner combinations. This already exists in the subsidiary turrets, and providing compensation to a driver will be a mess on par with dropshits at the moment. The last comment I have to make is that all of these weapons are implemented on maps with very basic bunker and no man's land setup. There's no concealment, almost no interior variation of play, almost no verticality, and extremely long lines of fire. I feel this greatly effects people's impressions of the weapons.
Dagger-Two Villore Joint Task Force 12	Posted - 2013.05.05 00:31:00 - [14] - Quote KalOfTheRathi wrote: Don't post list in Feedback/Request and Technical Support/Bugs Forums. See sticky: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=37174&find=unread Posts like this actually are better served in either The Foot Locker or, possibly, General Interest. This is a dissertation about how you want the game to be so you will enjoy it better. Improving the game itself seems to have fallen by the wayside. Which might just my reading of it but whatever. In addition the separate Driver/Main Gunner has been brought up by all the BF3* fans and everybody that Doesn't drive a Tank thinks it will be Great. Everybody that Does drive a Tank Hates the idea as long as any Random Berry can jump in Their Tank. Look for posts about locking seats in a Tank. Or any vehicle for that matter. * or CoD, the fans seem to blend together after awhile. It's rather difficult to give suggestions regarding a game if the suggestions aren't things you yourself would like to see in the game. That being said, I hardly suggested these things because I personally would enjoy it better. They are suggestions to make the game in general better for everyone, I think. Prime example, I stated that I use the laser rifle itself and enjoy it, but I STILL think it could be better and more in line with lore according to the changes I mentioned. As I recall, in BF3 as in every battlefield game so far, the tank driver controls the gun as well. And obviously, tanks would have to have some sort of squad-based locking system so that only people you WANT in the tank get in, to make the system I suggested viable. And i know about the list thing, but I still felt this was the best place to post.
Aighun Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 811	Posted - 2013.05.05 04:24:00 - [15] - Quote Dagger-Two wrote: Make driver and gunner seperate. Has been suggested. No traction. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=507193#post507193 https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=34747 https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=29844 For starters...
KalOfTheRathi Talon Strike Force LTD Orion Empire 399	Posted - 2013.05.05 04:46:00 - [16] - Quote @Dagger-Two, -- snip -- "And i know about the list thing, but I still felt this was the best place to post". Well you got your reactions but I believe you might have gotten better reactions by following the guild lines, maybe not. And as stated the Driver/Main Gunner Dead Horse has been beaten to death, buried, dug up and presented as new many times over. So forgive me not being open to it one more time. Without the list issue here is my reaction. Make the Gunner pay me the price of my Tank and a percentage of my Skill Books as they Enter my vehicle. Without my tank and my turret skills there is no place for them to even clamber in. Not to mention I would no longer be able to use the turret without stopping which would let some Random Berry come in and drive my Tank away. Considering how the DS works the Driver spends all this SP and ISK to get little to no WP for my efforts. I suspect that making that the default behavior for a Tank means no more tanks.
Jathniel G I A N T EoN. 216	Posted - 2013.05.05 08:09:00 - [17] - Quote +1 OP. +1 for a well thought out and articulated post. I regret passing it over. I agree with your proposals 100% I agree with your proposal for the Gallente Plasma Rifle as well. Face it folks, the thing IS a blaster. 60m tops, but YES in exchange, it should **** CQC. This is acceptable. Laser Rifles as a Heavy weapon makes plenty of sense to me. LRs approximate HMG dps at optimum... it shouldn't be a weapon that an Assault or Scout scrub should be using. Limiting the LRs use to the Heavy would also help mitigate it control of the map, on many maps, since Heavies have to be more aware of where they plant themselves. Yes, it makes ZERO sense that a HAV railgun round moves SO slow you can see it sailing through the air, yet a forge gun round packs a similar wallop, with a much faster projectile. Very good observations with common sense remedies. +1 all the way.
Jathniel G I A N T EoN. 216	Posted - 2013.05.05 08:12:00 - [18] - Quote Yeah, but I do take issue with the tank driver/gunner idea. Looks good on paper, but tankers put a LOT at risk with that idea... maybe too much. Dropping a tank, can be critical in some firefights, but if that tanker doesn't get a good gunner if he does drop it... It can cost him his tank, AND the match. As it stands now, a solo tanker without a second gunner is already at a disadvantage against another tanker that does. But they need combat capacity if they are alone.
SickJ French unchained corporation Squale Operation Empire 59	Posted - 2013.05.05 17:24:00 - [19] - Quote Dagger-Two wrote: [ As I recall, in BF3 as in every battlefield game so far, the tank driver controls the gun as well. And obviously, tanks would have to have some sort of squad-based locking system so that only people you WANT in the tank get in, to make the system I suggested viable. AFAIK, This is true of every tank in the BF series except for the Mobile AA in BC2 (driver has weak grenade launcher&lmg, gunner has antiaircraft gun), and the Amtrac in BF3 (driver has no weapons, gunner has wicked grenade launcher&hmg).
Draco Cerberus Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 32	Posted - 2013.05.05 19:09:00 - [20] - Quote I agree with the Laser Rifle ideas. It does seem strange that it is a cartridge based weapon like the AR and not a big bulky gun like the HMG. The large amount of energy required should not fit into such a small gun. If CCP were to allow tanks/vehicles to lock I suggest they allow more than one option. A locked tank should be able to toggle between allowing no one to enter, squad mates can enter, and team mates can enter settings. I think that the tanks are pretty good with respect to role atm with them able to solo or have 2 gunners and a driver gunner. Sometimes you need to bring more firepower out and having it able to be a one man role can make it a lot easier to operate as a team. Would removing the driver's ability to fire the main turret add a 4th seat in the tank to maintain the 3 turret aspect or would it just mean that one of the turrets would be removed? With the prospect of 6 man squads around the corner, I think the ability to gun an drive should remain as is. A 6 man squad could run 2 tanks with everyone gunning and be a devastating force on the battlefield or just as easily be 6 easy kills depending on skill level.

Godin Thekiller Ghost Wolf Industries Alpha Wolf Pack 50	Posted - 2013.05.05 19:31:00 - [21] - Quote You see, in New Eden, we have advanced piloting systems, to the point of starships requiring a crew for maintenance; the rest is done by the Cap'. Therefore, the splitting would be a nerf to force a actual pilot to find himself a gunner. Also, if this in a corp match, or in PC, this would nerf your team size. Also, have you even tried using a HAV? It's not the "GG guys, I winz" button everyone thinks it is. You have to actually try to stay alive, not like the proto suits. Peace, Godin
Dagger-Two Villore Joint Task Force 12	Posted - 2013.05.05 22:16:00 - [22] - Quote I've been playing eve for years and years Godin, I know how starships in eve work :P I don't have any personal complaints about HAV's. I've never really seen too much of an issue with them, aside from when they're over-used in a match or, say, dropped into a pub ambush match for no reason other than the guy wanting to rack up a load of kills with zero effort. The tank thing was more of just a suggestion based on my experience in various games. If people are horribly against it, obviously it'll never happen. It's just a thought. (And i guess you're right, even tanks could have some sort of interface where the driver also shoots, though clone troops don't have anywhere near the synchronization between them and their equipment ,that capsuleers do with their ships)


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

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.