| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The Attorney General
ZionTCD
Unclaimed.
69
   |
Posted - 2013.05.30 14:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
I understand that you guys are not really a connection to the Devs, but I figured I shouldn't waste my time making a post in the feedback section, as that place is only useful as a place where posts go to die.
I want to talk about design in general, but relate it specifically to HAV theory in Dust today.
In a general sense, all designs need to serve a purpose, and that purpose defines their functions and attributes.
In a well thought out design there is what the Bauhaus school would term Gestalt, roughly translated as wholeness, or being of a singular mind.
This concept is completely lacking in the vehicles present in the game today.
The enforcer class is decidedly one sided, with only the Falchion being anything resembling useful. For the Gallente enforcer, there is no reason for it to exist. Everything that it can do, a Madrugar can do better.
This problem extends across most of the vehicle spectrum.
Consider if you will a hypothetical where a designer has to present these designs to a military committee. If you were sitting on that board, would you approve any of these vehicles for production?
How could any military justify a slower, more expensive, more vulnerable infantry support vehicle(Vayu)?
How could any military justify a troop transport with zero survivability(dropships)? This applies even more to the assault dropship, which can not reliably perform either of its roles if there is any AV present.
Why would a military invest in HAV's when the technology exists to make LAV's almost impervious to infantry based AV(logi LAV's)?
Why would a military not demand that the same damage soak ability not be ported to their HAV's?
These problems are not with the balance of vehicles, they strike to the fundamental core of why these things even exist.
I know that IWS use to be a serviceman, so maybe he can understand this in a similar light. I just can't figure out how some of these vehicles would have made it through the procurement process.
|
Zat Earthshatter
Ghosts Of Ourselves
309
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 06:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
To filter down the OP, Attorney General feels not only that vehicle variants do not properly fit within their roles, but some may be less effective in battle than their less-expensive Standard versions, causing him to question whether a corp would even want to use them.
I agree with most of his points, and add my opinion per vehicle class.
LAVs:
>the Logi LAV is currently used as a more-durable "murder taxi" simply due to a lack of squad/team coordination that Logistics vehicles require. I reccomend evaluating its effectiveness based on PC matches as an infantry-support vehicle before attempting a rebalance.
>I haven't even met the Scout variant, likely due to the speed not justifying the lower Effective HP (EHP - based on resistance as well as raw HP). My idea for balancing the Scout involves adding cloaking modules to the game, and I won't bore you with the details.
HAVs:
>The Enforcer was clearly intended as a "field artillery piece", providing extended bombardment from range. Due to small maps unsuited for that role and a lack of indirect fire-capable Large Turrets, this variant turns into a sluggish, vulnerable-to-AV version of the Standard HAV with no extra fitting points and multiple times the cost.
Dropships:
>Logistics dropships are, in my opinion, actually very well-balanced when it comes to combat and soldier deployment when well-coordinated and timed as a squad. The issue is that pilots do not earn enough WP to justify the flight, only ever getting assists should a gunner directly kill an enemy. Resolving the WP will make it more worthwhile.
>Assault Dropships are currently the best way for a pure-pilot character to gain WP, thanks to the pilot-controlled turret. Having used this variant myself, It definitely has enough EHP to survive a few hits, especially when you take advantage of its greater speed and agility.
My only gripe is the elastic reticule - it auto-centers too fast when you let off the right thumbstick, requiring the user to keep the ship stable with the left stick while holding the right stick at exactly the right amount for an accurate shot (or burst, with Cycled launchers fitted). |
Crucias Soulreaver
Gothic Wars Consortium
4
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 10:52:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'm an HAV driver so I'll add a few more considerations grounded in logic here.
HAVs General
- Feels more like a "tackler" frigate than a "battleship of the land" as CCP described them
- Can survive the fall off a skyscraper but can be seriously damaged by militia AV and LAV impacts
- When corner of HAV touches an edge it "velcros" to it, seriously impairing handling
- Both racials are very hard to fit after PG and CPU nerf, Caldari is significantly harder to loadout
Railguns
- Why the hell do these have slow travel time? High School physics says the shell should be instantaneous over the distance we are fighting
Blasters
- Range is significantly shorter than that of Large Blaster Installations
Missiles
- Explosion AoE is not large enough
- Explosions have very small chance of hitting people*
- Cannot elevate large turret as far as it's model implies
* I've had someone stand on the other side of what is effectively a medium thickness lamppost and I've been unable to hit them with fragmented launchers. You can also "bunny hop" over the AoE and avoid damage |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
5135
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 22:32:00 -
[4] - Quote
Some very very valid points made here. |
Shley Ashes
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 01:37:00 -
[5] - Quote
I will just say + 1 to all the posts here as they all speak volumes,
|
Garth Mandra
The Southern Legion
RISE of LEGION
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 05:14:00 -
[6] - Quote
Nice posts guys.
I really think that everyone (CCP, pilots, infantry and AVers) need to step back and consider what vehicles are for.
Once we have clear goals for the various vehicle hulls then we can figure out what capabilities (damage, tank, range, passengers, speed, ...) are required to achieve those goals. Obviously the goals and capabilities have to take balanced, interesting and fun gameplay into account.
This isn't easy. I have a hard time coming up with goals for tanks other than: kill everything, be invincible. Supression perhaps? Basic dropships and LAVs aren't too difficult though.
One other thing is that CCP has to tell the community what they intend certain vehicles (and dropsuits for that matter) to be doing so we can critique the design. Not that we have to use them for their intended purposes of course (sandbox etc).
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |