Background Image

UAT - Testing / Playing with Devs

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by jbregg, Mar 30, 2017.

?

Are you interested in testing/playing with the Devs on the latest build?

  1. I'd want to play but not test.

  2. Not interested.

  3. Sign me up!

  4. I would be interested but the time of the test is an issue.

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Anvil The-Forge-Dragon Arkhona Vanguard

    Jbregg plays sudoku on stream =P I too miss the streams. When they stopped it felt like things had gound to a halt even if that wasn't the reality. Didn't care if they had anything new to show, just knew that streams meant I could see the team talk about a topic I cared about, that being EC.
  2. Horus Firskon Cipher

    It seems that the next patch we will wait until the summer.
    LOBOTRONUS likes this.
  3. @jbregg

    In the off chance you guys have the opportunity to finally sort out fortresses, I'm wondering if you're exploring the concept of strategic objectives, objectives one might see on any battlefield from antiquity up until modern day, rather than seeing "spawn point", "king of the hill" as being the sole types objectives in every single match mode?

    I'm referring to the types of objectives that would be commonly found on any battlefield in any era as well as being found in the 40K universe. A strategic objectives that troops would be assigned to locate then carry out a specific action(other than capping spawn points!) such as:

    1. destroying gates(awards attackers 3 minutes per gate)
    2. breaching walls(awards attackers 3 minutes per breach point)
    3. destroying a series enemy AA guns(quad guns) awards X number of minutes
    4. clearing then owning a section of the walls of an enemy stronghold(owning the walls awards attackers 3 minutes per section of the wall) awards 5 minutes
    5. denying the enemy access to their vehicles.(having to actually destroy defender vehicle spawns awarding attackers X number of minutes per vehicle spawn destroyed)
    6. Securing landing pads(this terrain model already exist in some match modes) or establishing secure landing zones so your allies can reinforce closer to the battle or within the enemy back lines. Adding landing pads inside fortresses.

    -Initially during the early phases of the battle each landing pad would off defenders the ability to generate a few additional tickets every 3 to 5 minutes as simulated "waves" of reinforcements land.
    -Attackers could attempt to infiltrate early on during the battle, destroy these pads(12 x meltabombs worth of damage) denying enemy reinforcements.
    -Attackers could also have the option to capture the landing pad or landing zone in order to facilitate attackers "landing"/spawning in waves at the LZ every few minutes.
    -Defenders could effect repairs to the landing pad via in game interaction with this terrain item in order to keep their LZ open.
    -Attackers capturing/owning the landing pad(s) could then spawn troops from these locations in "waves" every couple minutes as Thunderhawks land and drop off attackers.
    -Attackers owning a specific landing pad would have to also defend the landing pad from defender faction counterattack as this objective would be contestable. Destroying the landing pad objective outright denies the ability for either faction to land transports for the duration of the battle and denies defenders the ability to generate reinforcement tickets from this source only.



    Back during Alpha I made this same plea to Brent and company. The screenshot below better reflects what we might see in an actual operation order(condensed down from several different slides into a single powerpoint slide) prior to heading out on a combat mission. Notice the objectives below(in blue) are actual types objectives that would be assigned to various elements of the attacking force on any modern day battlefield or in the 40K univese. Notice that the initial sets of objectives are in fact located at the most critical, initial phases of the battle rather than being found well INSIDE the bloody compound like we find on every single fortress map in EC. Note, you will not find a "spawn point" on any battlefield in any universe.

    [​IMG]

    Phase I of any fortress assault(since we dont have drop pods, air assets or artillery) would be gaining access to the installation. This is where the initial sets of objectives should be located.

    -Objectives A and B are the gates and are the primary objectives during the initial phase of the battle.
    -Objectives C and D are secondary infantry breach points and not required to unlock objectives E, F and G.
    -Phase I consists of : Destroying the main gates, breaching the flanks, securing the walls.
    -With the high ground and outer walls secured, with the flanks secured, then and only then do attackers start working on Phase II of the battle, destroying objectives E, F and G.
    -Phase III is capturing the barracks and securing the central command post(inner sanctum).

    The current broken state of how defender tickets are handled in general, the fact that defender tickets and where defenders spawn are illogically and improperly linked to the status of each gate not withstanding, as far as objective placement and "progressive capture mechanics" what we have right now for Fortress match mode isn't very intuitive and makes for an counter intuitive flow for the fortress battle. The very first objective is placed well inside the installation. This makes zero sense strategically for attackers and in addition this dynamic screws over defenders that are valiantly guarding and holding the outer walls because attackers can just bypass the walls and "ninja" the first objective.

    What's the point of the fortress walls if the entire outer wall can be completely bypassed by attackers and the first objective "ninja capped"? How can attackers deny defenders the ability to spawn atop the outer walls without a single attacker ever setting foot atop the outer wall? Shouldn't attackers have to physically root out every single defender from a section of the outer wall in order to deny defenders access to that section of the outer wall? How does taking down a gate deny defending infantry the ability to spawn from atop the walls? It's all a total mess. Luckily there are a ton of viable alternatives utilizing existing terrain and existing mechanics in order to make fortresses a really awesome experience.
    Firskon and Katon like this.
  4. Konoko Konok0 Arch-Cardinal

    After the update, the first point on the new map became more interesting.
    I was pleased with the secret passage for the Raptors to go point C.

    + The newmap now have minimap.
    20180206204402_1.jpg

    Controversial moment - the map was made more sunny.
    I personally like get darker maps, for example - Torias
  5. Konoko Konok0 Arch-Cardinal

    yes

    I do not know
  6. jbregg jbregg Dev QA

    UAT Update changes to be tested:

    New HTL Map updated: A rework, bridges added, flank routes

    Normal Boltgun tweaks: (in details: Rate of Fire decreased, Damage per shot increased, Spread per shot increased, Hipfire SIPS increased, Recoil increased.)

    Smart Pistols: SIPS decreased

    Blight grenade: LP cost reduced 80 to 50, Blast radius increased

    Lash of Slaanesh: Range increased, Rate of fire decreased, Damage to lower body decreased, recoil increased, Mana cost slightly reduced

    Navigation bugs fixes on Zedek around points B and C

    Medusa: railing added on point C balconny

    Veteran/Heroes: Immune to one shot, they will automatically transition to DBNO state, slower bleed out rate, Poison resist made consistent for all Vets/Heroes

    Autarch: Increased Toughness


    Give us feedback on these changes please! As with everything we do on UAT these are not permanent changes yet. So lets be constructive about them.
    Ivrain, Vaanes, KroozaNob and 3 others like this.
  7. Lady Rheeva Steam Early Access

    Is it just me or does this sound like you are listening to us?
    Not sure if the Lash-change is called for but it doesn't sound awful either, the rest sounds great.

    I'm going to hate the veteran changes, blowing them up with Reaper Launchers has been one of the few joys in my dull and empty life, but I guess its fair and better for the game.

    The balcony where people complained they couldn't get up? I guess thats one way to fix it and not the worst.

    For the records: If the Bolter-changes work out, I'd really love to see a recoil-increase across the board, on all weapons, at least all tactical rifles. Unless you play Ork, there really is no recoil to compensate for.
    The harder it becomes to just fire continuously in full-auto, the better.
    Mainfold likes this.
  8. Proteus Lychoro ProteusVM Forum Beta Tester

    New bolter is fucking fantastic in implementation but I'm not a fan of the 40 dps loss without cqc and 30 dps loss with cqc, the recoil is fucking on point though as is the feel of the weapon. This thing feels like a fucking awesome weapon now, not an assault rifle. But the maths is off, by a lot.

    Change the damage to 60 damage per shot at 210 RPM, this gives us the old bolter's DPS of 210 DPS (still 80 less than big shoota, 40 less than stormbolter, 50 less than shuriken catapult and like 37 less than regular shoota).

    Have CQC barrel apply a damage boost of 7, bringing the damage to 67 at 210 RPM for a DPS of 234.5, a whopping 1.1 DPS more than the old cqc barrel which sat at 233.4 dps.

    I wouldn't make any more adjustments to the recoil unless the recoil dampening mods are changed to percentages, because as far as I know they only reduce it by a few degrees rather than reducing recoil by say, 25% - if they are changed to affect on a percentage basis, then I'd adjust the recoil without dampening mods (grip or barrel) by another 30% increase.

    With the option to decrease it using a grip for 20% or a barrel for 30%. The downside to the recoil decrease from the barrel should reduce the damage over range, reducing the maximum damage past 50m to reflect the lower velocity used to reduce recoil but reduces the lethality of the shot while the downside to the dampening grip should be significantly increased spread in hipfire, not ADS.

    I also want to see the firing sound changed - change it from the one we have now to the one you hear when you're on black and white health, that one sounds so fucking meaty its insane and will fit incredibly well with these new bolter stats.



    Also, make no further adjustments to hipfire - this is perfect. It's made the bolter into a proper battle rifle that, in good hands, will still be a mainline weapon with the option for plasma guns to be used for room clearing if you're not accurate enough to handle the bolter or stormbolter for CQC.
    Vaanes, Aislinn and DemonKingBAAL like this.
  9. Thana Thana Curator

    Then you would be 1 shoting most builds with Burst fire.
  10. Mainfold Mainfold Preacher

    Currently testing the changes, Bolter changes seem nice, but now it's more or less more useful at range than Plasma Guns, meaning Plasma Guns will also need a change to warrant it (even if it's dps is now ever so slightly higher, it's still less useful overall, especially compared to how folks will swap to storm/combi-bolters now).

    There's a bug with Lash of Slaanesh when testing it. At 140 warp charge, when 1 is used, it first goes down to 100 warp charge, then back up to 121, it also bugs out while regenerating warp charge and stops at 139 instead of 140 for some reason
    [​IMG] [​IMG]
    ..but what on earth is the point of reducing it's cost by 1 warp charge? That's pointless lol. The recoil change is also rather pointless, it gives it recoil that matches the return-to-zero to the rate of fire, meaning you automatically get back to zero before the next one is fired... meaning the recoil has no purpose.
    I'd rather suggest doing the following;
    • reduce the rate of fire, but also reduce the cast-time for it (creating "dead time" between lashing), so the actual firing of a lash is more reactionary, but once one is fired off the target has time to react before the next one can be fired (but if the user is smart will use the effective range smartly, and still impact the target again before revenge can be taken)
    • 17 warp charge cost (because 19 from 20 just leaves the user with 7 (from 140) warp charge that can't really be used for anything), might as well have 1 extra shot to fire off
    • leave the range as is on live
    Nurg-nade change, I like it, but 50 still seems a tad too much, but it's sure better than currently on live! So it's appreciated still, new diameter is nice! But, is it possible to change the ground-targeting circle (the red one) to match the size of a given nade's splash-range? It would give an idea of how many targets you can affect
    [​IMG]

    Vets/heroes... what about khorne vets then? They don't get a downed state, so they can still be oneshot (I tested it to verify it).. so this is basically a buff to EVERYONE else, except khorne vets and ork vets in Waaagh. Does seem like it shouldn't be added on the simple principle that it alienates some even further while benefiting everyone else (unless you plan to give khorne-users the extra hp equivalent to the amount the downed state is, to make up for not being able to be downed, you'd have to have that health before killed to be "balanced" in a sense).

    How much toughness on the Autarch? 170+?

    Those map-changes to medusa and zedek are very appreciated :D

Share This Page