|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malkai Inos
The Vanguardians
Orion Empire
208
   |
Posted - 2013.05.31 11:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
Balance is a relative term. If any piece of gear is better than the rest to the extend that everything else becomes useless that's the one that's broken and that's the one that requires a balance pass.
Changing all the other guns leads to a significant change in gameplay and is likely to produce it's own set of FOTM broken parts, thus requiring significant effort and multiple balance passes to get back to a somewhat usable build.
Changing that particular gun leaves the current flow of combat unchanged and requires as much work as tweaking three or four values with a high chance of that beeing it.
|
Malkai Inos
The Vanguardians
Orion Empire
208
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 11:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
Jathniel wrote:IamI3rian wrote:Jathniel wrote:It's FUN to use the tactical, because you can put your enemy down fast... ...and herein lies the problem. This is a squad based game, and like it or not if you're any good you're moving with at LEAST one other person (buddy system). In that instance, each of you fires twice and takes down anything but a heavy... or a CalLogi. Three times (less than a second of fire for most... even without a turbo effect) and even the heaviest heavy is almost dead, If not picking his deployment, completely bled out. Now, let's assume there are three or four people moving together. At this point, it becomes nearly impossible to accomplish anything against this threat, as by the time you're targeted you're eliminated. This may be a 'fun' weapon for the lone wolf/run & gun player... which is fine. When it's combined with squad tactics it becomes (essentially) unstoppable. Now that squads can be up to SIX people, at bare minimum that's 420+ damage PER SHOT going out. Without giving dropsuits final fantasy hit points, there's simply no way to compete with that output. Not to mention you're dead more often than not before even getting into range to return fire. Assuming you are not also using a TAR as well. THIS is the problem. Your weapon, whatever you use, should down your target, especially when you have lined up your aim, and you put rounds into him. A squad of six heavies, should be able to deliver a barraging wall of unstoppable force. A squad of six guys with Geks should be able to do the same. A squad of six snipers should be a field denial team. Again, this isn't a problem with the tactical. It's a problem of nothing else, being able to stand up to it. And it's a joke to see the guy in the vid demonstrating that the other weapons can barely stand up to each other.
It is a problem with the TAC. I'm afraid you are confusing cause and effect here. |
Malkai Inos
The Vanguardians
Orion Empire
208
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 12:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jathniel wrote:
Ignoring the fact that the tactical doesn't blow up tanks, and there are a myriad other weapons that are far more potent against infantry than a tank's blasters, i'll get back on topic.
Dust is a squad-based game, yes. How that's supposed to translate into one's weapon not being potent, I don't know.
1v1 combat is something that happens often in pub matches, and often in CQC. The efficiency that the tactical has is quite inspiring as to how fast CQC should be. You can't look at a FPS game, that has guys running in circles around each other emptying their clips and not dying, and call that balance.
That is stupid. I tried to warn about that in the thread I linked to. It wasn't addressed, and was called out in the IGN review, and it won't be the last time that reviewers and people alike see that.
I was trying to draw attention to a broken mechanic, and used the tactical as a reference of potency.
The problem is not with the game but with you and IGN expecting the gunplay to be like the competition. Your whole argument is build upon this premise. It is wrong. Your argument is invalid. |
Malkai Inos
The Vanguardians
Orion Empire
208
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 12:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jathniel wrote:
The whole argument is NOT built on such a premise. It is not wrong, nor is it invalid.
.
Comparisons were made with BF3, not for arguing that Dust be exactly like it, but for the sake of pointing out an error in Dust. Namely clunkiness of aim, and the absurd TTK in CQC.
Yes it is. 
Jathniel wrote:Che Cortez wrote:Kenderr, did he say 1-2 shots? Your assuming, that shield Nd armor wouldn't matter, if the Time to kill is decreased by tweaking weapons, dmg, spread and dispersion ( u can't just increase base dmg of the weapons collectively as they all have different factors and ways to be implemented, eg like lazer the dmg build up could be increased slightly rather than a dmg increase ) so shield and armor fitting would still make a difference. While stopping prolonged shoot outs, but a few further tweets would be required if this to be put in place.
Such as increased rep for armor repair tool, and shield regen rate. Plus many others
This might mean weapons get their functionally back, instead of the Tac AR being the best slayer. A Hmg pointed down a hallway 30m in length, a realistic fire lane, where this weapon should carve up, if the heavy can aim properly. It should hold its ground, stopping at least for a few seconds any advancing enemy, until they start to flank or get a MD to start lobbing volleys into the wall. But it doesn't happen, the AR can comfortably move into the hallway knowing that he can out DPS and take down the Heavy
I agree with OP, the Tac AR is OP cause it kills to fast, but I think it has appropriate TTK,
I know this won't happen but it's my 2 Another person with reading comprehension. Thank you. Lowering TTK while increasing regen rates is a viable mechanic with its own ups and downs but functionally identical to a CODification of the gameplay. Granted you don't spell it out but you are pretty much arguing for it. |
Malkai Inos
The Vanguardians
Orion Empire
208
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 12:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
Jathniel wrote:
I'm not defending the TAR so much so as I'm drawing a complaint against clunkiness of controls and TTK in CQC mechanics.
The TAR, with it's current iteration, compensates for Dust's failure in both of these aspects.
In it's role, it drops them fast. In CQC, it drops them fast.
Should it be doing this in CQC? Probably not, but if you can hit the person why not? Should other weapons like the breach ar, full-auto, and HMG be doing that? Absolutely. Do they? No.
Should someone survive a headshot from a sniper rifle when the rifle is literally 3 inches from their head? You decide.
Should someone survive a shotgun blast 3 inches from their chest? You decide.
But if you say yes to either of those, you have a very misconstrued viewpoint of balance.
Although this was not adressed to me i'd like to commend on the part i put in bold.
Firstly, Dust is not a simulation. It doesn't need to behave realistically. Appeals to real world intuition are moot when the game is not even trying to behave like the real world.
Would i it be realistic if any hit, from any weapon, to any point of the body makes you drop to ground screaming and cussing in pain until some medic gives you some morphine and carries you off the battlefield, making the character unavailable for the nex 8 weeks. Yes.
Would it be any fun. Probably not.
Realism is not balance. |
Malkai Inos
The Vanguardians
Orion Empire
208
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 12:48:00 -
[6] - Quote
Jathniel wrote:"CODification". lol... (English is a wonderful language isn't it. Enabling the coining of all sorts of words. Humor me more.) Lower TTK doesn't necessarily need increased regen. With Dust, both depends on *gasp* your fitting. As it stands however, defense capacities far exceed attack capacities in Dust. Proof of this is when you have two guys with ARs, spinning around in place emptying their clips at each other.  Or when nova knives into someone's back does NOT kill them. Or when HMGs at point blank range, do NOT kill a fleeing dropsuit. Or when any gun short of a shotgun doesn't kill instantly on a point-blank headshot.
You describe the current reality of the gameplay in dust accurately. Yet i still fail to see any reasoning why it is bad.
Nova knifes might not kill someone. Ok. So?
HMGs do not shred everything at point blank. And the problem is?
Shotguns don't OHK heavily armored dudes. Your Point?
The gameplay works (somewhat) and is (somewhat) fun, spoiled mainly by the dominance of one single piece of gear. The tac is the culprit. Not the fighting mechanic as a whole. |
Malkai Inos
The Vanguardians
Orion Empire
209
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 13:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jathniel wrote:Malkai Inos wrote:Jathniel wrote:
I'm not defending the TAR so much so as I'm drawing a complaint against clunkiness of controls and TTK in CQC mechanics.
The TAR, with it's current iteration, compensates for Dust's failure in both of these aspects.
In it's role, it drops them fast. In CQC, it drops them fast.
Should it be doing this in CQC? Probably not, but if you can hit the person why not? Should other weapons like the breach ar, full-auto, and HMG be doing that? Absolutely. Do they? No.
Should someone survive a headshot from a sniper rifle when the rifle is literally 3 inches from their head? You decide.
Should someone survive a shotgun blast 3 inches from their chest? You decide.
But if you say yes to either of those, you have a very misconstrued viewpoint of balance.
Although this was not adressed to me i'd like to commend on the part i put in bold. Firstly, Dust is not a simulation. It doesn't need to behave realistically. Appeals to real world intuition are moot when the game is not even trying to behave like the real world. Would i it be realistic if any hit, from any weapon, to any point of the body makes you drop to ground screaming and cussing in pain until some medic gives you some morphine and carries you off the battlefield, making the character unavailable for the nex 8 weeks. Yes. Would it be any fun. Probably not. Realism is not balance. I don't follow. I haven't requested realism. Just that aiming and CQC-TTK mechanics better be adjusted. Guns are deadly up close. Just the gases released from a revolver can blow your finger off. But god forbid I ask for that kind of realism. No my friend, smoothness of gameplay is my aim. I simply used BF3 and the tactical AR's proficiency as an example of weapon smoothness, potency, and ease of use.
I can see where you're coming from and i think i understand now what you're asking for.
It becomes apparent to me though, that we won't agree on this subject as i don't share your vision of what constitutes the best shooting mechanics. We would argue in circles until we annoy each other and i prefer to go passive before this happens. I will still keep an eye for out inspiring arguments that i can use against you though.
Fly saf- oh wait...Be well.  |
|
|
| |
|