Jump to content

Edit History

MK_Regular

MK_Regular

Quote

Some of the game mechanics are broken, or partially broken.  For example, drones/helis/gunships/bunkers/etc count as misses when you shoot them, and the damage you do to them doesn't (uniformly?) count in your damage total.  That's stupid, because you have to shoot them to succeed.  Doing something that's required in order to successfully complete a mission should never be bad for your stats!  That just encourages people to not do those things, and that's bad for a team-based game mode.

I can see where you're coming from, but I can understand why the devs made this decision. Think of the gunship in BSI3, with it's 100k (ish?) HP. If you're in any vehicle that doesn't have an autocannon (MBT, LT, gun TD, etc...), you will struggle to shoot it down in anything resembling a reasonable amount of time. However, if you DO have an autocannon, you can just right click on it and hold down LMB to farm damage on it until your team pumps enough lead into it. If the damage dealt to the gunship counted towards the players' results, you would never hear the end of the complaints from the MBT, LT, and TD players that only managed to do 10-15k damage while the AFV (or termi, or T-15) on their team farmed 40k damage for virtually no additional effort. This is one of the more extreme cases though.

A slightly less extreme case would be the bunkers. These babies only have 2-3k health, and can be taken out by most vehicles in a semi-reasonable amount of time. Extreme autocannon DPM is still an issue here, but it is less extreme than with the gunship (seriously, aircraft are nowhere near as durable as that thing). The kicker with this one is that the very concept of what the target is (it's a block of concrete that is supposed to resist incoming fire) should actually solve this issue. Giving the bunkers a non-zero armour value (armour angling can potentially be ignored here) of ~300mm (this might need to be made tier dependent) should prevent them from getting shredded by autocannons and instead force players to use larger ammunition (large caliber guns, ATGMs, anti-tank or mortar squads, etc...) to deal with them. This should have the effect of making the ttk for bunkers more even between different classes of vehicles and could serve as the starting point for making damage to bunkers (or other such armoured [non tank] enemies) count towards the player's damage total.

Edit: another option would be to give [non tank] enemies a scaling weakness/resistance to smaller/larger ammunition (e.g. shots above a certain caliber deal double damage, shots below a certain caliber deal half damage, etc...).

Quote

Primaries and Secondaries should provide some small reward to the player who completes them, not just a generic boost to the entire team, and that small reward should vary based on your vehicle type.  Capturing objectives (as Primaries) should reward the vehicles that sit there to do the capture.  Right now it's more rewarding to rush off and find more enemies to kill than it is to capture points, so greedy players ignore the primary objectives.  On the flip side, MBTs should not be wandering around completing secondaries - they need to be up front engaging the enemy - so any reward they receive for secondaries should be minimal.  However it makes perfect sense for LTs and AFVs to complete secondaries, so they should get a nice little bonus for doing so.

You don't necessarily need to give individual bonuses for completing primary or secondary objectives, but a reward system that encourages players to use their vehicle to its strengths discourages playing it in a way that the strengths don't matter would be a good thing. I'd suggest that each stat or checkbox that is used to calculate XP and credits earned should have a modifier based on the class of vehicle (or in some cases the specific vehicle cough Terminator cough T-15 cough) that the player is using:

  • Completing primary objectives (small bonus for MBTs as this usually requires capturing or defending certain locations)
  • Completing secondary objectives (medium-to-large bonus for AFVs and LTs)
  • Dealing damage at close range (small-to-medium bonus for MBTs)
  • Dealing damage at long range (small-to-medium bonus for TDs)
  • etc...

There is also the possibility of certain classes of vehicles (or individual vehicles) having substandard modifiers as a way to discourage players from performing certain actions. The player would still earn some XP and credits for doing these things, but it would not be efficient to earn rewards. This seems more like a way to give players a gentle nudge in the direction of the way the game is intended to be played (yes, I'm looking at you MBT sniping from the back and not moving the entire game) rather than a way to properly balance rewards (which should probably be balanced based on how a player of at least average competence would be expected to perform if they play their vehicle as intended by the devs).

With this in mind, some metrics should only have very small bonuses because there is mostly only a single class that can reliably perform that action (e.g. deflecting incoming fire in a MBT, designating targets in an AFV, etc...) or the action is extremely easy to farm (e.g. deflecting incoming fire in a MBT), however that's not to say hat such actions would need to give minimal rewards. Using deflecting incoming fire as an example, deflecting autocannon fire is trivial in a MBT but significantly more difficult for other classes of vehicle, while deflecting large-caliber rounds in a MBT takes a bit more knowledge and effort (but is still comparatively easy) but is quite rare to see in a vehicle of another class. As such I would argue that in a hypothetical PvE economy rebalance, the reward modifier for deflecting large-caliber (>80mm) rounds should be the same for all vehicle classes, the modifier for deflecting small-caliber (>80mm) rounds for AFVs, LTs, and TDs (and SPGs, not that they can actually mange this with any real success) should be the same as the modifier for large-caliber rounds, and the modifier for deflecting small-caliber rounds in a MBT or heavy TD (termi, T-15, etc...) should be significantly smaller than the large-caliber modifier.

MK_Regular

MK_Regular

Quote

Some of the game mechanics are broken, or partially broken.  For example, drones/helis/gunships/bunkers/etc count as misses when you shoot them, and the damage you do to them doesn't (uniformly?) count in your damage total.  That's stupid, because you have to shoot them to succeed.  Doing something that's required in order to successfully complete a mission should never be bad for your stats!  That just encourages people to not do those things, and that's bad for a team-based game mode.

I can see where you're coming from, but I can understand why the devs made this decision. Think of the gunship in BSI3, with it's 100k (ish?) HP. If you're in any vehicle that doesn't have an autocannon (MBT, LT, gun TD, etc...), you will struggle to shoot it down in anything resembling a reasonable amount of time. However, if you DO have an autocannon, you can just right click on it and hold down LMB to farm damage on it until your team pumps enough lead into it. If the damage dealt to the gunship counted towards the players' results, you would never hear the end of the complaints from the MBT, LT, and TD players that only managed to do 10-15k damage while the AFV (or termi, or T-15) on their team farmed 40k damage for virtually no additional effort. This is one of the more extreme cases though.

A slightly less extreme case would be the bunkers. These babies only have 2-3k health, and can be taken out by most vehicles in a semi-reasonable amount of time. Extreme autocannon DPM is still an issue here, but it is less extreme than with the gunship (seriously, aircraft are nowhere near as durable as that thing). The kicker with this one is that the very concept of what the target is (it's a block of concrete that is supposed to resist incoming fire) should actually solve this issue. Giving the bunkers a non-zero armour value (armour angling can potentially be ignored here) of ~300mm (this might need to be made tier dependent) should prevent them from getting shredded by autocannons and instead force players to use larger ammunition (large caliber guns, ATGMs, anti-tank or mortar squads, etc...) to deal with them. This should have the effect of making the ttk for bunkers more even between different classes of vehicles and could serve as the starting point for making damage to bunkers (or other such armoured [non tank] enemies) count towards the player's damage total.

Quote

Primaries and Secondaries should provide some small reward to the player who completes them, not just a generic boost to the entire team, and that small reward should vary based on your vehicle type.  Capturing objectives (as Primaries) should reward the vehicles that sit there to do the capture.  Right now it's more rewarding to rush off and find more enemies to kill than it is to capture points, so greedy players ignore the primary objectives.  On the flip side, MBTs should not be wandering around completing secondaries - they need to be up front engaging the enemy - so any reward they receive for secondaries should be minimal.  However it makes perfect sense for LTs and AFVs to complete secondaries, so they should get a nice little bonus for doing so.

You don't necessarily need to give individual bonuses for completing primary or secondary objectives, but a reward system that encourages players to use their vehicle to its strengths discourages playing it in a way that the strengths don't matter would be a good thing. I'd suggest that each stat or checkbox that is used to calculate XP and credits earned should have a modifier based on the class of vehicle (or in some cases the specific vehicle cough Terminator cough T-15 cough) that the player is using:

  • Completing primary objectives (small bonus for MBTs as this usually requires capturing or defending certain locations)
  • Completing secondary objectives (medium-to-large bonus for AFVs and LTs)
  • Dealing damage at close range (small-to-medium bonus for MBTs)
  • Dealing damage at long range (small-to-medium bonus for TDs)
  • etc...

There is also the possibility of certain classes of vehicles (or individual vehicles) having substandard modifiers as a way to discourage players from performing certain actions. The player would still earn some XP and credits for doing these things, but it would not be efficient to earn rewards. This seems more like a way to give players a gentle nudge in the direction of the way the game is intended to be played (yes, I'm looking at you MBT sniping from the back and not moving the entire game) rather than a way to properly balance rewards (which should probably be balanced based on how a player of at least average competence would be expected to perform if they play their vehicle as intended by the devs).

With this in mind, some metrics should only have very small bonuses because there is mostly only a single class that can reliably perform that action (e.g. deflecting incoming fire in a MBT, designating targets in an AFV, etc...) or the action is extremely easy to farm (e.g. deflecting incoming fire in a MBT), however that's not to say hat such actions would need to give minimal rewards. Using deflecting incoming fire as an example, deflecting autocannon fire is trivial in a MBT but significantly more difficult for other classes of vehicle, while deflecting large-caliber rounds in a MBT takes a bit more knowledge and effort (but is still comparatively easy) but is quite rare to see in a vehicle of another class. As such I would argue that in a hypothetical PvE economy rebalance, the reward modifier for deflecting large-caliber (>80mm) rounds should be the same for all vehicle classes, the modifier for deflecting small-caliber (>80mm) rounds for AFVs, LTs, and TDs (and SPGs, not that they can actually mange this with any real success) should be the same as the modifier for large-caliber rounds, and the modifier for deflecting small-caliber rounds in a MBT or heavy TD (termi, T-15, etc...) should be significantly smaller than the large-caliber modifier.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...