Other > Suggestions

PvP balancing, part 0., part 1., PvP Constitution

<< < (6/6)

FischiPiSti:
First step in tacticalishness™ is AP regeneration. Switching weapons->Big penalty leading to death in RT.
http://fodev.net/forum/index.php?topic=4416.0

Midnight:
Yeah and in tactics, changing stance cost APs and take time, that would simply lead to snipers crouching and killing from long range everybody trying to change stance. (that was the case in tactics)
Combat are too short against powerbuild to let this be of any use and in the case of hard balanced combat, don't think you can afford to loose 2 AP to change stance.
In tactics not everyone add 150% like it's the case in FOnline, that would be really terrible to balance this, and could lead to nonsense like someone unable to shoot a guy crouching sneaking right next to him :/

avv:

--- Quote from: Midnight on May 21, 2010, 04:42:06 pm ---Yeah and in tactics, changing stance cost APs and take time, that would simply lead to snipers crouching and killing from long range everybody trying to change stance. (that was the case in tactics)
Combat are too short against powerbuild to let this be of any use and in the case of hard balanced combat, don't think you can afford to loose 2 AP to change stance.
In tactics not everyone add 150% like it's the case in FOnline, that would be really terrible to balance this, and could lead to nonsense like someone unable to shoot a guy crouching sneaking right next to him :/

--- End quote ---

Yeah in tactics snipers were pretty strong. But that was because every char had 360 degree vision and instantaneous reaction in overwatch mode.

Besides, stances aren't absolutely must if more strategy ir required.

pagemaster:
It seems to me like classes already do exist in FOnline, in terms of combat specific classes. You have disablers (snipers, missile launchers) and damage dealing characters (Mini-Guns). The disablers try to knock other characters down, cripple them, or deal critical damage, and in essence, play on chance.

Perhaps trying to differentiate the different weapons classes to play to strengths already inherent in these classes, and also trying to work within the two naturally occurring combat classes (disabler/damage dealer) would make it much easier to balance the game.

For instance, big guns have always had good area of effect. Perhaps their current problem is that mini-guns don't have enough spread to play to this strength, and instead deal such concentrated damage that they become the end all and be all of damage dealing weapons. Then, small guns can compete with mini-guns not by doing comparable total damage, but instead allowing a more concentrated application of damage. This would also make battles last longer, because as is, the reason they're short is insta-kills from mini-gunners.

I don't know where energy weapons would play into all of this, though. Melee and unarmed are a challenge because of the limitations of the game's engine, from what I can tell (no running to perform an action, etc.), but they're actually fairly well defined in terms of the two natural weapons classes (melee more easily deals damage, unarmed is better for crits).

Also, perhaps part of the answer to reducing the amount of alt-ing that occurs is to more substantially limit the benefit of pumping all of your points into your weapons skill. This might make the game more chance based by doing things like increasing the importance of AC (just an example, since it depends on how you enforce the limit), but that wouldn't effect big gunners if they're more splashy.

 I'm not trying to make specific suggestions though. I guess I'm trying to point out what classes already exist, but need more definition, and how you could play off of mechanics that people are already trying to use in order to re-balance things.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page