General Discussions

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

3 PagesPrevious page123Next page
 

Do you guys think Mechs could ever belong in Dust?

Author
OSG Planetary Operations
#21 Posted: 2017.01.10 07:44
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:
DeadlyAztec11 wrote:
Pokey Dravon wrote:
Function before Form.

Give me a mechanic or purpose that needs to be fulfilled that would only make sense if that mechanic or purpose was being fulfilled by a mech/MTAC.


I'm not necessarily pro-mech, but I'll play the Devil's advocate for the sake of the discussion.

I imagine the mech to be a larger and more menacing vehicle which would do more things than an HAV. Not only would it have offensive capabilities, but it would be very mobile. It would be a moving spawn point and would have massive health. It would have the capability to have both anti air, anti personnel and anti ground vehicle. The real downside would be the massive cost and how large of a target it would be.

If you brought out a mech and thought it would win you the game then the enemy team could bring out HAV's, turrets and anti MANPADS suddenly your giant mech is disintegrating on the ground and the battle just hot a lot costlier.

But mechs have a 1-man crew. IMO, the more crew members a vehicle can have, the more effective it should be with all of them.

Honestly, mechs are a bad idea in general because vehicles are a force multiplier- any vehicle that can be effective with a single crew member is inherently OP because there's no downside to using them.
If you have 7 people in a dropship, that's 7 people that could be fighting elsewhere. However, the dropship can potentially make those 7 people far more effective if they're coordinated.
That wasn't the case with HAVs- an HAV could be effective with 1 person, and it made that 1 person far more effective with no need for coordination of any kind. That's why HAVs were so much better than any other vehicle.

So, my main point: single-person vehicles (or vehicles which a single person can be effective in) must not be added unless they have a glaring weakness to counteract how much more effective they make a player.
My idea: make an incredibly weak "pilot suit" which is required to operate single-person vehicles, and make some vehicles much more vulnerable to AV than vehicles that need actual crews. I'm saying make the pilot suit extremely weak so we don't have the pilot jumping out and gunning down AVers like they did sometimes in Dust.


See and this is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. This argument of "Oh well it should need this many people to do this but if the other thing has only this many people then it needs to be this but not too much of that so make the other thing weak and require only one person."

As soon as you lock yourself into a system where elements more or less have a singlular purpose of "Kill A, Be killed by B" the balance conversation will immediate degrade into something like this. We've seen it a million times throughout Dust's life and as you know.....the **** never worked right. When the only metric to measure something is its ability to kill and be killed by other elements (which are also as equally shallow), you're going to end up with a shallow gameplay and a endless balance problems, especially when dealing with something with the potential of being a really interesting support/utility element in the game design.

Having strengths and weaknesses to other elements is absolutely a good thing to have. Dont think I'm saying otherwise. But there needs to be more to it than that. If anything it helps? "Well MTACs are kinda UP against infantry this balance cycle, but they still cover rough terrain nobody's business. We just need to change up our MTAC strategy to deal with it for the time being and focus more on taking advantage of its other strengths." So even if a role seems weak against its predator that patch cycle, you don't feel like you're totally screwed because you still have other useful things you can do.
Rogue Clones
#22 Posted: 2017.01.10 09:12
MEGA MAN7 wrote:
Talos Vagheitan wrote:

No... dropsuits are not mechs... no... just no
What are they then? I would categorize them as mechanized exoskeletons or mechanized armorsuits then.

I agree with you. Mechs are mechanised suits. How is that not the same thing as the powered suits we call "dropsuits"?
Rogue Clones
#23 Posted: 2017.01.10 09:16  |  Edited by: Alena Asakura
DeadlyAztec11 wrote:
MEGA MAN7 wrote:
Talos Vagheitan wrote:

No... dropsuits are not mechs... no... just no
What are they then? I would categorize them as mechanized exoskeletons or mechanized armorsuits then.

Wikipedia article on Mecha wrote:
While the distinction is often hazy, mecha typically does not refer to form-fitting powered armor such as Iron Man's suit. They are usually much larger than the wearer, like Iron Man's enemy the Iron Monger, and possess a cockpit from which they are operated.

OK, so Commandos and Sentinels probably fit the definition then. They're much larger than the wearer. I know what the OP is on about - they want those huge machines that the Japanese seem to like. Yes, they're mechanised suits, too. The definition fits for both. If you want to make a distinction, that's fine, but it's just a matter of size, surely?

There is the issue of a cockpit - that would make for truly huge mechs. I guess I have to say I still think of that as a matter of scale - past a point, putting the wearer's legs into the legs of the mechs is probably ridiculous. But I still think it's down to a matter of scale.
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
#24 Posted: 2017.01.10 09:22
Wait, people still post here? lol, I guess the cancer never really lets go, huh?

Alena Asakura wrote:
DeadlyAztec11 wrote:
MEGA MAN7 wrote:
Talos Vagheitan wrote:

No... dropsuits are not mechs... no... just no
What are they then? I would categorize them as mechanized exoskeletons or mechanized armorsuits then.

Wikipedia article on Mecha wrote:
While the distinction is often hazy, mecha typically does not refer to form-fitting powered armor such as Iron Man's suit. They are usually much larger than the wearer, like Iron Man's enemy the Iron Monger, and possess a cockpit from which they are operated.

OK, so Commandos and Sentinels probably fit the definition then. They're much larger than the wearer. I know what the OP is on about - they want those huge machines that the Japanese seem to like. Yes, they're mechanised suits, too. The definition fits for both. If you want to make a distinction, that's fine, but it's just a matter of size, surely?

There is the issue of a cockpit - that would make for truly huge mechs. I guess I have to say I still think of that as a matter of scale - past a point, putting the wearer's legs into the legs of the mechs is probably ridiculous. But I still think it's down to a matter of scale.


No, mechs are not suits of armor. That's as silly as calling a tank a suit of armor, when combat-based mechs are generally just walking tanks.
#25 Posted: 2017.01.10 11:21
Pokey Dravon wrote:
And who knows, I may be alone in this, but I need more than that. Things should exist more more than just "Oh I use thing A to kill thing B and that's it". And I guess i get frustrated when people are looking for excuses to put Titans in the game instead of focusing on the meaningful gameplay first, and then figuring out what gun/vehicle/equipment/lizard works best for that role.

If you came to me and said:

"Ok so we need to get inside this base, but we need something to hack the main reactor to blow it up. But the outer wall has a hardened wall that you have to get past first, but to do that you need to clear the enemy out of an elevated position so you can get close enough to break through the gate. But the road to the gate has obstructions that cant and be destroyed and hinder large ground objects"

and I would say "Ok, so how do you you think a team should pull all of that off? What tools would they use?"

and you replied "Well....the infantry cant approach right away because of the enemie stationed at the gate, and we can't just drive a tank up because the obstructions were in the way. What if you used an MTAC which is a vehicle that can walk over the obstructions and take out the infantry posted above the door. The MTAC and infantry dont have the firepower to take out the gate, but the infantry could then hack the console controlling the obstructions while the MTAC defends them from other infantry, which would allow the HAV to roll up within firing range of the gate. The infantry would need to also defend the MTAC from enemy HAVs while all of this is happening since the MTACs are weak to HAVs. Once the HAV breaks down the gate, the infantry can slip inside and hack another terminal to let their HAVs and MTACs in to cover them and each other while the infantry make the final push for the reactor core to hack and destroy it."

I would buy you a ******* drink, because that would be epic. And what's important there is that it doesnt REALLY matter what the tool is, just that it performs the function the scenario dictates. You could replace every instance of MTAC with "T-Rex's with Lasers mounted to their backs" and it would still work. It would look ridiculous/awesome, but it would still work. And that's the point Im trying to make with putting Function before Form.


Ultimately I agree with you, I don't want something to completely change the way the game is played without balancing the current mess since the current vehicle-installation-AV meta is completely out of wack. In my opinion things were best in open beta.

Put your flags up in the sky. And wave them side to side. Show the world where you're from. Show the world we are one.

#26 Posted: 2017.01.10 11:25
Godin Thekiller wrote:
Wait, people still post here? lol, I guess the cancer never really lets go, huh?


Oh my Quafe! Godin returns! The merc with the voice is back in the star sector!

Put your flags up in the sky. And wave them side to side. Show the world where you're from. Show the world we are one.

Night Theifs
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#27 Posted: 2017.01.10 16:52
Talos Vagheitan wrote:
Universes with Mechs tend to contain nothing but Mechs... but could they exist alongside the rest of Dust? Or is it just too silly to have walking tanks stomping around the map...

Would lore or gameplay be the biggest problem?

Hmm....


I do, in fact.

On a few occasions I even proposed a system similar to Tech-III in EVE and Armored Core where you use different components to custom build a design that fits your needs.

The idea is you would have Tech-I (general purpose) and Tech-II (specialized) vehicles just like Dust 514 did, but then have Tech-III which allows you to customize your general purpose walker.

Amidst the blue skies

A link from past to future

The sheltering wings of the protector

Solo Zen
#28 Posted: 2017.01.12 12:34  |  Edited by: Clone D
Actually, I just thought of a reason to use a mech. If I were fighting a battle on one of the ancient pyramids, or on mostly vertical terrain, then I would prefer a mech. In that sense VTOL and flight would be a beneficial addition.

In close combat, the mech would seem to have a maneuverability advantage over the HAV, including the ability to step over it or on top of it, easily moving out of the targeting area.

But beyond close combat range, I'd say that the HAV would have the advantage due to minimal resources being devoted to mobility, allowing more resources for firepower.
Penumbra or something
#29 Posted: 2017.01.13 04:45
Pokey Dravon wrote:
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:
DeadlyAztec11 wrote:
Pokey Dravon wrote:
Function before Form.

Give me a mechanic or purpose that needs to be fulfilled that would only make sense if that mechanic or purpose was being fulfilled by a mech/MTAC.


I'm not necessarily pro-mech, but I'll play the Devil's advocate for the sake of the discussion.

I imagine the mech to be a larger and more menacing vehicle which would do more things than an HAV. Not only would it have offensive capabilities, but it would be very mobile. It would be a moving spawn point and would have massive health. It would have the capability to have both anti air, anti personnel and anti ground vehicle. The real downside would be the massive cost and how large of a target it would be.

If you brought out a mech and thought it would win you the game then the enemy team could bring out HAV's, turrets and anti MANPADS suddenly your giant mech is disintegrating on the ground and the battle just hot a lot costlier.

But mechs have a 1-man crew. IMO, the more crew members a vehicle can have, the more effective it should be with all of them.

Honestly, mechs are a bad idea in general because vehicles are a force multiplier- any vehicle that can be effective with a single crew member is inherently OP because there's no downside to using them.
If you have 7 people in a dropship, that's 7 people that could be fighting elsewhere. However, the dropship can potentially make those 7 people far more effective if they're coordinated.
That wasn't the case with HAVs- an HAV could be effective with 1 person, and it made that 1 person far more effective with no need for coordination of any kind. That's why HAVs were so much better than any other vehicle.

So, my main point: single-person vehicles (or vehicles which a single person can be effective in) must not be added unless they have a glaring weakness to counteract how much more effective they make a player.
My idea: make an incredibly weak "pilot suit" which is required to operate single-person vehicles, and make some vehicles much more vulnerable to AV than vehicles that need actual crews. I'm saying make the pilot suit extremely weak so we don't have the pilot jumping out and gunning down AVers like they did sometimes in Dust.


See and this is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. This argument of "Oh well it should need this many people to do this but if the other thing has only this many people then it needs to be this but not too much of that so make the other thing weak and require only one person."

As soon as you lock yourself into a system where elements more or less have a singlular purpose of "Kill A, Be killed by B" the balance conversation will immediate degrade into something like this. We've seen it a million times throughout Dust's life and as you know.....the **** never worked right. When the only metric to measure something is its ability to kill and be killed by other elements (which are also as equally shallow), you're going to end up with a shallow gameplay and a endless balance problems, especially when dealing with something with the potential of being a really interesting support/utility element in the game design.

Having strengths and weaknesses to other elements is absolutely a good thing to have. Dont think I'm saying otherwise. But there needs to be more to it than that. If anything it helps? "Well MTACs are kinda UP against infantry this balance cycle, but they still cover rough terrain nobody's business. We just need to change up our MTAC strategy to deal with it for the time being and focus more on taking advantage of its other strengths." So even if a role seems weak against its predator that patch cycle, you don't feel like you're totally screwed because you still have other useful things you can do.

You know what really kills gameplay?

When 1 vehicle is clearly better than all the others.
In Dust, HAVs did absolutely everything, while LAVs and dropships were glorified taxis, whose turrets were ignored because it wasn't worth it to man them.
The1 Dark8 Emperium7
#30 Posted: 2017.01.13 05:24
Talos Vagheitan wrote:
Universes with Mechs tend to contain nothing but Mechs... but could they exist alongside the rest of Dust? Or is it just too silly to have walking tanks stomping around the map...

Would lore or gameplay be the biggest problem?

Hmm....




the lore could be worked around. Game play is much harder. how big are they, how fast, what type of weapons, range os its weapons, how much ehp it has, how many people can get in, can they use weapons/turrets, etc...

then how would it deal against lav or dropships? the big problem is could it handle itself against a HAV? using an old fit of mine I could do 12,000-14,000 damage not counting against shields, armor or weak spots.

what to skill into next?

The1 Dark8 Emperium7
#31 Posted: 2017.01.13 05:28  |  Edited by: jace silencerww
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:
Pokey Dravon wrote:
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:
DeadlyAztec11 wrote:
Pokey Dravon wrote:
Function before Form.

Give me a mechanic or purpose that needs to be fulfilled that would only make sense if that mechanic or purpose was being fulfilled by a mech/MTAC.


I'm not necessarily pro-mech, but I'll play the Devil's advocate for the sake of the discussion.

I imagine the mech to be a larger and more menacing vehicle which would do more things than an HAV. Not only would it have offensive capabilities, but it would be very mobile. It would be a moving spawn point and would have massive health. It would have the capability to have both anti air, anti personnel and anti ground vehicle. The real downside would be the massive cost and how large of a target it would be.

If you brought out a mech and thought it would win you the game then the enemy team could bring out HAV's, turrets and anti MANPADS suddenly your giant mech is disintegrating on the ground and the battle just hot a lot costlier.

But mechs have a 1-man crew. IMO, the more crew members a vehicle can have, the more effective it should be with all of them.

Honestly, mechs are a bad idea in general because vehicles are a force multiplier- any vehicle that can be effective with a single crew member is inherently OP because there's no downside to using them.
If you have 7 people in a dropship, that's 7 people that could be fighting elsewhere. However, the dropship can potentially make those 7 people far more effective if they're coordinated.
That wasn't the case with HAVs- an HAV could be effective with 1 person, and it made that 1 person far more effective with no need for coordination of any kind. That's why HAVs were so much better than any other vehicle.

So, my main point: single-person vehicles (or vehicles which a single person can be effective in) must not be added unless they have a glaring weakness to counteract how much more effective they make a player.
My idea: make an incredibly weak "pilot suit" which is required to operate single-person vehicles, and make some vehicles much more vulnerable to AV than vehicles that need actual crews. I'm saying make the pilot suit extremely weak so we don't have the pilot jumping out and gunning down AVers like they did sometimes in Dust.


See and this is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. This argument of "Oh well it should need this many people to do this but if the other thing has only this many people then it needs to be this but not too much of that so make the other thing weak and require only one person."

As soon as you lock yourself into a system where elements more or less have a singlular purpose of "Kill A, Be killed by B" the balance conversation will immediate degrade into something like this. We've seen it a million times throughout Dust's life and as you know.....the **** never worked right. When the only metric to measure something is its ability to kill and be killed by other elements (which are also as equally shallow), you're going to end up with a shallow gameplay and a endless balance problems, especially when dealing with something with the potential of being a really interesting support/utility element in the game design.

Having strengths and weaknesses to other elements is absolutely a good thing to have. Dont think I'm saying otherwise. But there needs to be more to it than that. If anything it helps? "Well MTACs are kinda UP against infantry this balance cycle, but they still cover rough terrain nobody's business. We just need to change up our MTAC strategy to deal with it for the time being and focus more on taking advantage of its other strengths." So even if a role seems weak against its predator that patch cycle, you don't feel like you're totally screwed because you still have other useful things you can do.

You know what really kills gameplay?

When 1 vehicle is clearly better than all the others.
In Dust, HAVs did absolutely everything, while LAVs and dropships were glorified taxis, whose turrets were ignored because it wasn't worth it to man them.


you must not have went against an ADS with a good gunner. they could rule the whole battlefield. the only way to shut them down was 3-4 forge gunners but then a great ads gunner would jump out, kill the forge gunner and wait for the ADS to pick him back up. Hav were not as hard to kill as you think , use a plc, jump mods and proto av grenades could kill tanks fast and even faster using kubos plc.

what to skill into next?

Kirkinen Risk Control
Caldari State
#32 Posted: 2017.01.15 02:31
To OPs question, maybe. Obviously they work for the lore people, and at face value pretty much everyone else.

Unfortunately, just like everything else in Dust, balance is the issue. I'll go ahead and take another bunch of swings at the horse carcass.

To touch on what has been spoken about already, I would agree that mechs (or MTACs, whatever, I'm gonna keep saying mechs) would need to have a purpose. I would also agree that ISK is not a good tool for balance. It may help a bit with the general population but blue donuts, ISK farms, and any new forms of financial tomfoolery (of which there is guaranteed to be at least some) would throw this out of whack pretty quick, and in the favor of the games elites.

Now to the meat of the topic.

First off, something to consider. Let's say you have 2 HAVs, 1 ADS, 1 LAV, and 1 MTAC fielded by one side. At the minimum that's 5 players (obviously). At rough maximum (while still keeping the ADS on the low end at 2) you are talking about 11 people (that's 3 per HAV, 2 in the ADS, 2 in the LAV, and 1 in the MTAC). That's 11 players on one side tied up in vehicles. To make that number of people in vehicles not ridiculous I'd say you need at the very least another 11 people in an infantry role to avoid matches devolving into vehicle only. So that becomes a minimum of 22vs22 battles, and I think I'm well onto the light end in terms of what we want for vehicle numbers in battle. And if the idea was to keep vehicles severely limited per match to address this, I'd say don't bother with vehicles.

As we know, Nova will be small to start, and focused on not vehicles. I personally don't see Nova incorporating vehicles (not like a lot of us want) any time soon, if ever. But that's a topic for another time.

Ok, to the meat of the topic for real this time.

Balancing vehicles. How the f*ck do you achieve balance with vehicles. I think there are a few things to consider.

First, what kind of game will Nova be in regards to ability to lone wolf. This topic was rarely directly discussed, but should an online squad shooter require precision teamwork (headset and near regular squad mates) for everything to work as intended, or can you still maintain some kind of balance with people running solo against squads.

For most of Dusts time, it seemed the unspoken rule was it was a team game, and when opposing sides attempted to operate more or less as was intended, you got some really good matches. As team play degenerated so did balance, or so it felt. And as we know the standard operating procedure for Scotty was 1 side of nearly 1 Corp vs a side of solo randoms. A match making issue, sure, but it raises the question of over how much of the spectrum of solo/squad can balance be realistically expected to hold? In a 1v1 straight tank battle, will the tank with 3 familiar squad members always be victorious against the solo tanker, or will the balance be so that a lone wolf tanker can make up for the disadvantage in numbers with equipment?

Is Nova a team game or not? Obviously solo players can always have a go, but how much do you alter the balance of the game to cater to solo players? There were some great threads in 2013 dealing with the idea that tanks should REQUIRE more than 1 person to function (of which Godin was a part of, good to see you by the way Godin), and while I don't know if I'd go as far as agreeing with that, I'd say that if a HAV absolutely required 3 people to function (driver, gunner, EO or commander or something) it should be a f*cking monster, and said level of team play would provide for realistic and effective counters. If 1 dude can tank, everything needs to be watered down accordingly, and you start to have a lot less wiggle room when it comes time to balance what was a massive pile of vehicles and equipment. I'm not saying one way is better than the other, but CCP needs to know WHO THEY ARE MAKING THE GAME FOR when they attempt to balance.

Now, aside from conceptual sh*t, how do you balance vehicles. I've said this a few times before, not with straight damage, that simply doesn't work. A single vehicle health pool, and a vehicle that operates perfectly up until it explodes doesn't work. At least not with a game on the scale of what Dust was going for. Break vehicles down into something like Turret/Chassis/Propulsion (a la Front Mission 4). Split up overall vehicle HP how ever you want, it doesn't matter. This gives you some breathing room while balancing. Now, instead of having to make the threat be that one guy on foot will destroy your infinitely more expensive HAV, the threat can be that specialized AV may knock out your propulsion, or your turret making you extremely vulnerable to more powerful, harder to use AV, or other vehicles.

On top of the breakup of vehicle HP, I think the performance of damaged sections should degrade in relation to the sections health. For example, a heavily damaged propulsion section would result in reduced top speed, acceleration, turning, or any combination of factors like that (the thought of performing tree top gun runs in an armored Grims with a sputtering engine gets me hard). A damaged turret might lose accuracy, range, or turret rotation speed.

I feel this would address the AV/Vehicle dynamic, which was by far the most broken aspect of balance in Dust. It also allows for growth and diversity on the balance front, and I don't feel like it would be all that hard to incorporate.

Finally, I'd say maps need to be used to corral/direct vehicle use. I don't want to say there should be large sections of the map inaccessible to vehicles, but on the flip side are things working as intended when a HAV rolls through a street 1 inch wider than the HAV, deep into a fortification, sticks it's turret in a window and wipes out 2 or 3 guys? Is it OK that I can wiggle my dropship into an enclosed warehouse and open up on packs of people spawning at the last available letter held by their side?
Kirkinen Risk Control
Caldari State
#33 Posted: 2017.01.15 02:32  |  Edited by: Glass Bowtie
**continued**

I'm personally fine to a point with freedom of vehicle movement, but I will say that during the periods that vehicles were powerful, they were literally everywhere. ADSs raining down from the sky, tanks in every conceivable spot on the map. It got a bit out of hand at times. Again, I'm not saying tanks should not be able to enter cities, but they need to be heavily deterred from doing so. I don't really know how to achieve this, but looking at the function over form idea spoken of by Pokey and McBob, having something for vehicles to do aside from blob with the infantry from objective to objective would help.

So yeah. CCP has a mind boggling mountain of work to do before they can entertain the thought of MTACs in Nova. And before they even start that work they need to have answered the question I keep saying they need to ask themselves, the question I don't think they have the answer to.

What kind of game am I making, and who am I making it for.

That would be my sig if I wasn't lazy.

Edit: I also agree with McBob on the pilot suits. We were suppose to get them anyway, I see nothing wrong with locking a clone into vehicle specialization until death or suit switch at a depot.
OSG Planetary Operations
#34 Posted: 2017.01.15 03:06
McBob, I agree that vehicles had serious issues and I beleive the core problem was directly tied to the issues I was describing: Putting multiple vehicles in without a clear purpose for their existence. Leading to a shallow experience riddled with balance issues.
#35 Posted: 2017.01.15 03:14
jace silencerww wrote:

you must not have went against an ADS with a good gunner. they could rule the whole battlefield. the only way to shut them down was 3-4 forge gunners but then a great ads gunner would jump out, kill the forge gunner and wait for the ADS to pick him back up. Hav were not as hard to kill as you think , use a plc, jump mods and proto av grenades could kill tanks fast and even faster using kubos plc.

That's ridiculous. Vehicles were only a force multiplier. The reason they were so impactful was because they were paired with equally good infantry. Just like how in real life vehicles without infantry support are taken out easily, it is the same within the game. And saying that you need an officer weapon to compete in AV is ludicrous.

Put your flags up in the sky. And wave them side to side. Show the world where you're from. Show the world we are one.

#36 Posted: 2017.01.15 14:28
Even theory crafting in DUST is depressing as ****....

Rage flavored bitter berry

#BUS514

#37 Posted: 2017.01.16 01:14
lol.
Cry

kitten bacon taco (nom)

Bacon with a bottle of Quafe
#38 Posted: 2017.01.16 03:43
Aeon Amadi wrote:
Pokey Dravon wrote:
DeadlyAztec11 wrote:
Pokey Dravon wrote:
Function before Form.

Give me a mechanic or purpose that needs to be fulfilled that would only make sense if that mechanic or purpose was being fulfilled by a mech/MTAC.


I'm not necessarily pro-mech, but I'll play the Devil's advocate for the sake of the discussion.

I imagine the mech to be a larger and more menacing vehicle which would do more things than an HAV. Not only would it have offensive capabilities, but it would be very mobile. It would be a moving spawn point and would have massive health. It would have the capability to have both anti air, anti personnel and anti ground vehicle. The real downside would be the massive cost and how large of a target it would be.

If you brought out a mech and thought it would win you the game then the enemy team could bring out HAV's, turrets and anti MANPADS suddenly your giant mech is disintegrating on the ground and the battle just hot a lot costlier.


Balancing with ISK doesnt work. What you described was basically "It's does basically everything but that's OK because it's it's expensive" which is....Something I've heard before and it didn't end well for anyone.

The conversation should never be "We want mechs, let's think of a role for them to fill". It should be the other way around "So the game design requires a role with these functions....What should that element of gameplay look like?"


A while back on Discord we came up with the 'Pokemon Method' in that Fire > Plant > Water > Fire could work for Dust 514 (or Nova). In that case, it was Infantry > Tanks > MTACs > Infantry. MTACs in that design would be very anti-infantry bias with strong resistances toward small arms but highly susceptible to Tanks with their larger guns.

Infantry > Tanks

Haha, yeah. Okay.

I see what you're trying to do, though, and I like the idea, but it would need to be well thought out in order to work.

Scouts United

Gk.0s & Quafes all day.

Bacon with a bottle of Quafe
#39 Posted: 2017.01.16 03:54
Pokey Dravon wrote:
Function before Form.

Give me a mechanic or purpose that needs to be fulfilled that would only make sense if that mechanic or purpose was being fulfilled by a mech/MTAC.


Your going about it the wrong way. You think of a feature for the game first, then think about how it fits into the universe. Otherwise, one could argue about plenty of things in ANY game including eve on "Why would they have X if they have Y?"

Anywho, mecha would be fun to use. They might be sort of a scout vehicle (good mobility, decent attack power, low eHP in comparison to other vehicles). A HAV would be a Sentinel.

Also, I found it kind of dumb to have vehicle repair tools because you can call one in and send the other back, and you can't keep up with a vehicle to actively repair under attack. Give MTACs a support role to both infantry and vehicles. To support infantry, they could be fitted with a HMG with very low heat, but has terrible accuracy. In other words, keep the pressure up on enemies, but not become an unstoppable death machine upon deployment. Alternatively, they could be logistics and have vehicle repair tools similar to the focused where they could only focus on 1 or 2 targets, but repair at a decent rate, while logi vehicles would be the one that has plenty of beams, but poor repair rate.

Sorry for the wall of text.

Scouts United

Gk.0s & Quafes all day.

#40 Posted: 2017.01.16 03:55
Joel II X wrote:
Aeon Amadi wrote:
Pokey Dravon wrote:
DeadlyAztec11 wrote:
Pokey Dravon wrote:
Function before Form.

Give me a mechanic or purpose that needs to be fulfilled that would only make sense if that mechanic or purpose was being fulfilled by a mech/MTAC.


I'm not necessarily pro-mech, but I'll play the Devil's advocate for the sake of the discussion.

I imagine the mech to be a larger and more menacing vehicle which would do more things than an HAV. Not only would it have offensive capabilities, but it would be very mobile. It would be a moving spawn point and would have massive health. It would have the capability to have both anti air, anti personnel and anti ground vehicle. The real downside would be the massive cost and how large of a target it would be.

If you brought out a mech and thought it would win you the game then the enemy team could bring out HAV's, turrets and anti MANPADS suddenly your giant mech is disintegrating on the ground and the battle just hot a lot costlier.


Balancing with ISK doesnt work. What you described was basically "It's does basically everything but that's OK because it's it's expensive" which is....Something I've heard before and it didn't end well for anyone.

The conversation should never be "We want mechs, let's think of a role for them to fill". It should be the other way around "So the game design requires a role with these functions....What should that element of gameplay look like?"


A while back on Discord we came up with the 'Pokemon Method' in that Fire > Plant > Water > Fire could work for Dust 514 (or Nova). In that case, it was Infantry > Tanks > MTACs > Infantry. MTACs in that design would be very anti-infantry bias with strong resistances toward small arms but highly susceptible to Tanks with their larger guns.

Infantry > Tanks

Haha, yeah. Okay.

I see what you're trying to do, though, and I like the idea, but it would need to be well thought out in order to work.


I amend you to the latter part of Saving Private Ryan for more details.

On a side note, before anyone says "but real life =\= games", that is correct, and it goes both ways. A tank does not necessarily have to be immune to infantry armaments in a video game due to an appeal to its genetic design of being a tank. That said, I've never heard a complaint in the entirety of the Battlefield franchise where infantry commonly kill tanks.

(Former) CPM2 Representative for Dust 514 and Project Nova

3 PagesPrevious page123Next page
Forum Jump