Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
Covert Intervention
1396
   |
Posted - 2013.08.04 20:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:Its kind of disappointing that the anti-MCC cannons we have just shoot boring missiles, and not something more visually spectacular. While being disappointed, I thought of this. What if public battles each came with a variety of cannon types; objective A could be a null cannon firing missiles, but objective B could be a massive laser cannon, objective C could be a railgun cannon, and objective D could be an ion cannon.
On districts owned by player-corporations, the anti-MCC cannons on the district should be decided by the CEO or directors.
Laser cannon: 120% shield damage, 80% armor damage. Does continuous gradual damage.
Null cannon: 70% shields, 130% armor. Fires high damage missiles in intervals.
Railgun cannon: 90% shields, 110% armor. Fires high damage railgun rounds in intervals, similar to the null cannons.
Ion cannon: 110% shield, 90% armor. Does continuous gradual damage.
As well as as adding spectacle and variety, it would add a new tactical element to the battlefield; when your enemy's MCC still has its shields, it would be best to prioritize the laser and ion cannons because they're best for destroying shields, but once the armor is exposed it will be preferable to go for the null and railgun cannons because they're good for destroying armor.
EDIT: For the safety off aerial pilots, I suppose they could all just fire in interval bursts just like the null cannons, but that's not as fun. If the ion and laser cannons fire in a continuous stream instead of one powerful burst, it should be survivable to dropships, so they may actually be less bad for dropships.
Good overall post as usual KAGEHOSHI, +1
A few minor tweaks/concerns. I wonder about the effects on client performce if null cannon sized weapons are using continues visual effects, perhaps a "charge and burst" mechanic would work better both for performance and for our pilots.
Regarding Corps in PC being able to change the types yes please. I would however put a couple cavoits on it. First add a randomized configuration to FW and/or Pubs first and run it that way for a couple of builds to gain field data on the effects as a way to avoid adding an imbalanced mechanc to PC.
Second make the configuration of cannons cost the Corp ISK for every change, just like installations.
Great idea 
Cheers,
Cross |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
Covert Intervention
1396
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 20:10:00 -
[2] - Quote
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:Vyzion Eyri wrote:I want to see installations which negate anti-MCC cannons. Anti-anti-MCC cannon insallations. AAMCCCIs Lol okay maybe just AAMIs.
Then we'll see fights where teams could decide to solely access the AAMIs, so even if the enemy takes all the AMCs, they can't do anything.
Bigger maps could facilitate this type of gameplay by having all AAMIs on one end of a map and AMCs on the other. Then we'd see a bit of vehicle warfare happening between the AAMIs and AMCs as teams tried to get to either side.
That would be very cool.
Sounds good though to prevent stale mates they should reduce damage not eliminate it, the reduction could even be quite high if that turned out to be good for balance just not 100% so that games continue to progress.
0.02 ISK
Cross |