Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Asirius Medaius
Planetary Response Organization
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 00:11:00 -
[1] - Quote
Well, here's the main issues that we face on both the HAV drivers and the AV side of Dust 514:
As HAV, you want to be able to become a viable asset to the field, decimating all buildings and installations, and becoming a visible threat to those who are in your path.
As AV, you want to be able to do considerable damage to vehicles in bursts, thus "shaving" their integrity with each blow.
I offer some "food-for-thought". What about some sort of compromise, in which vehicles hp are constant or adjusted, but instead, all vehicles in Dust 514 come with some sort dynamic damage dampener (where the ship can reinforce specific spots of the ship's shields or armor), with the balance in mind that only one vector of reinforcement can be projected (thus, everywhere else remains equal or maybe, just maybe, lowered a little, for future balance reasons, if need be.
Now, the point you all have been waiting for!
This balance helps vehicles of all sizes (dropships, tanks, and lav's if needed, which can be strategically positioned with the other rest of the vehicles to take advantage of this game mechanic). The way it does it, is so; The vehicle would not be in danger of getting OHKO'ed (one shot killed) from a pesky redline-railgun fitted tank (no offense to railguns, I understand why you guys do it, but this balance helps put you in the mix of the battlefield just like everyone else) or even destroyed by a Forge-gunner and his buddies with swarms.
The balance with infantry in mind, is that even though the shield acts hardened in one cone of area (in front) of the ship for reinforcement, it has diminishing returns, thus if attacked heavily enough, it will concede to some damage (but at a reduced reinforced rate, unless the vehicle gets damage from another side, which will do full or bonus damage). This gives both AV users some sort of advantage, and vehicles with pilots smart enough to avoid putting their vehicle in the middle of a firefight a way to give some sort of frontal assault advantage.
This game mechanic seems pretty realistic of a sci-fi setting, and doesn't require super amounts of power, but it could be used to make a game mechanic that rewards vehicles that restrict damage to only come from one direction, thus giving us a reason to take flight or drive on the battlefield, all without getting owned by only one guy in particular.
What do you guys think?
Feel free to critic honestly. |
Asirius Medaius
Planetary Response Organization
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 01:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
Really? 12 views but no replies? Surely someone has an opinion about this. There might be tidbits in here that may be better for future balancing. |
Void Echo
Internal Error. League of Infamy
505
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 01:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
the more you try to compromise with the infantry, the less rational they get. best to just remain standing your ground against them and point out every mistake they make in the forums. |
CharCharOdell
Shining Flame Amarr Empire
455
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 01:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
Asirius Medaius wrote:Well, here's the main issues that we face on both the HAV drivers and the AV side of Dust 514:
As HAV, you want to be able to become a viable asset to the field, decimating all buildings and installations, and becoming a visible threat to those who are in your path.
As AV, you want to be able to do considerable damage to vehicles in bursts, thus "shaving" their integrity with each blow.
I offer some "food-for-thought". What about some sort of compromise, in which vehicles hp are constant or adjusted, but instead, all vehicles in Dust 514 come with some sort dynamic damage dampener (where the ship can reinforce specific spots of the ship's shields or armor), with the balance in mind that only one vector of reinforcement can be projected (thus, everywhere else remains equal or maybe, just maybe, lowered a little, for future balance reasons, if need be.
Now, the point you all have been waiting for!
This balance helps vehicles of all sizes (dropships, tanks, and lav's if needed, which can be strategically positioned with the other rest of the vehicles to take advantage of this game mechanic). The way it does it, is so; The vehicle would not be in danger of getting OHKO'ed (one shot killed) from a pesky redline-railgun fitted tank (no offense to railguns, I understand why you guys do it, but this balance helps put you in the mix of the battlefield just like everyone else) or even destroyed by a Forge-gunner and his buddies with swarms.
The balance with infantry in mind, is that even though the shield acts hardened in one cone of area (in front) of the ship for reinforcement, it has diminishing returns, thus if attacked heavily enough, it will concede to some damage (but at a reduced reinforced rate, unless the vehicle gets damage from another side, which will do full or bonus damage). This gives both AV users some sort of advantage, and vehicles with pilots smart enough to avoid putting their vehicle in the middle of a firefight a way to give some sort of frontal assault advantage.
This game mechanic seems pretty realistic of a sci-fi setting, and doesn't require super amounts of power, but it could be used to make a game mechanic that rewards vehicles that restrict damage to only come from one direction, thus giving us a reason to take flight or drive on the battlefield, all without getting owned by only one guy in particular.
What do you guys think?
Feel free to critic honestly.
I've suggested this before. I love the idea and it makes sense. All tanks have armor heavier in specific places for a reason. In the future, it'd make sense to be able to project barriers in specific directions. |
Vavilia Lysenko
Company of Marcher Lords Amarr Empire
146
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 01:58:00 -
[5] - Quote
So you sit on a hill in the redline, facing forward, with extra shields at the front of your vehicle. Is that really what you are suggesting? |
Asirius Medaius
Planetary Response Organization
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 02:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
Vavilia Lysenko wrote:So you sit on a hill in the redline, facing forward, with extra shields at the front of your vehicle. Is that really what you are suggesting?
To be honest, it isn't like you are able to kill them regardless, unless you're in a tank, and even if so, you have the same advantage. Usually, these kinds of tank snipers are out of swarm and forge range anyway, so this almost doesn't need to apply. |
Vyzion Eyri
The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION
917
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 02:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
In a dropship, I spend every second wondering when AV is going to start hitting me, and when it does, 80% of the time I don't know where it's coming from.
Sure, I could hover at the flight ceiling, with the hardener projected below me, and become an immune spawn point in the sky.
But as a dropship pilot, my position in relation to the ground gets much harder to discern the higher I am. Furthermore, I don't want to drop my squad from such heights. I want to be down there with them, with gunners suppressing the surrounding area as the rest of the passengers deploy onto a point.
As for tanks, this will only encourage railgun sniping, where only the front of a tank is visible. Project the hardener in front of you, and you're set. EDIT: as mentioned above
LAVs are pounded by AV from every direction, so they won't even bother with projected reinforcement.
I think hardeners which last a short amount of time, with fairly short cooldowns, but give high amounts of resistance would do the job better. Combine this with incoming AV indicators (a forge gun has you in its sights, swarms just locked onto you) and pilots can activate this module to essentially nullify all damage for that short period of time, similar to the module on the Saga-II which was recently removed from the market. It gave something like 70-80% shield resistance for 8 seconds, but with a 3 minute cooldown. Instead, lower this cooldown, or even better, implement capacitators or give the module its own energy supply, and make it a toggled module. When it's off, it recharges, and when it's on, it depletes its energy supply.
Wow, and this opens up a whole new branch of modules. Toggling modules with their own energy supply. In fact... this might be better than current modules... mother of God, we have stumbled upon a gold mine. |
Azri Sarum
BurgezzE.T.F
41
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 05:21:00 -
[8] - Quote
Vyzion Eyri wrote:Wow, and this opens up a whole new branch of modules. Toggling modules with their own energy supply. In fact... this might be better than current modules... mother of God, we have stumbled upon a gold mine.
I don't think adding multiple independent power supplies to modules, on top of multiple module cooldowns is what we want...
What we need to do is just use what EVE has, it works and is a very solid, deep mechanic.
Vehicles should each be given a capacitor, with various sizes and recharge rates for flavor. Modules consume energy to do their thing. Tanks could have passive hardeners (low bonus but no cap use) or active hardeners (larger bonus, but draws cap). You turn on your armor repper and it reps for as long as you have power, or until you turn it off. They can then add cap usage to appropriate weapons, similar to how weapons work in EVE (lasers use lots of cap, missiles use none for example)
I mean think of it, if you do this there is now this entirely new mechanic that can be explored by both infantry and vehicles, it has a proven track record, matches EVE, and is interesting.
I mean seriously, do this, add energy neutralizing weapons for infantry, bam, whole new dynamic to the game. I for one would enjoy the heck out of neuting dropships out of the sky.
Or we can, you know, keep using the multiple cooldown (boring) system we have now. |
Cruor Abominare
Horizons' Edge Orion Empire
95
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 05:42:00 -
[9] - Quote
Oh for fucks sake you already have this you dumbass. Tanks take less damage from frontal attacks than they do in the rear. I swear to god every game I play at least one twit is flying across the map at me in reverse and wonders why he just got ripped apart by swarms and Av nades and calls for a nerf.
Positioning matters. |
Skihids
Bullet Cluster
1724
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 06:12:00 -
[10] - Quote
As a dropship pilot I run passive resists because I can't tell when I'm going to get hit. Now you want me to predict from where I'm going to get hit? And change the orientation as I'm desperately trying to turn and run away while also activating my repper and my AB? |
|
Asirius Medaius
Planetary Response Organization
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 12:14:00 -
[11] - Quote
Azri Sarum wrote:Vyzion Eyri wrote:Wow, and this opens up a whole new branch of modules. Toggling modules with their own energy supply. In fact... this might be better than current modules... mother of God, we have stumbled upon a gold mine. I don't think adding multiple independent power supplies to modules, on top of multiple module cooldowns is what we want... What we need to do is just use what EVE has, it works and is a very solid, deep mechanic. Vehicles should each be given a capacitor, with various sizes and recharge rates for flavor. Modules consume energy to do their thing. Tanks could have passive hardeners (low bonus but no cap use) or active hardeners (larger bonus, but draws cap). You turn on your armor repper and it reps for as long as you have power, or until you turn it off. They can then add cap usage to appropriate weapons, similar to how weapons work in EVE (lasers use lots of cap, missiles use none for example) I mean think of it, if you do this there is now this entirely new mechanic that can be explored by both infantry and vehicles, it has a proven track record, matches EVE, and is interesting. I mean seriously, do this, add energy neutralizing weapons for infantry, bam, whole new dynamic to the game. I for one would enjoy the heck out of neuting dropships out of the sky. Or we can, you know, keep using the multiple cooldown (boring) system we have now.
I completely agree that we should draw alot of emphasis on using a system like this. It allows for quite the complexity and balance potential, but I am skeptical at this point about whether or not CCP Shanghai can make it happen (effectively, that is). Other than that, I think the same system carried from EVE Online would be rather beneficial, and it would be easy to import the idea since CCP has all the staff that made the original system in the first place (in Reykjavik). |
dannyMasters11
Vherokior Combat Logistics Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 16:53:00 -
[12] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:the more you try to compromise with the infantry, the less rational they get. best to just remain standing your ground against them and point out every mistake they make in the forums.
Lol your funny and right. Lool |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |