DUST Search - Should single operator vehicles require multiple AV to counter ?

Shokhann Echo wrote:

Iron Wolf Saber wrote:

Well signature radius could be a tool as well into the combat endurance and engagement time. Ie activating afterburners or sensors makes you easier to hit/lock by others. Increasing your signature radius to gain an advantage carries the risk of greatly lowering your window as a pilot. This is how it works in the real world most often.

During Gulf War 1, there was only 1 incident of a old world russian tank mission killing an abrams. The only reason why this tank got the lucky hit was it was offline at the time and was not generating any sensory noise whatsoever during a night attack. The gunnery crew loaded the gun, eyeballed the target and fired, striking the abrams to the side forcing the crew to abandon the vehicle. The abrams and crew was later recovered and repaired to full service, the offending tank and mostly every other tank in the division it belonged to got just simply annihilated. This is the only ground to ground vehicle incident and example I can remember. Sub to surface, sub to sub, Air to air and air to ground has far many more examples I could use.

this isn't real life, or earth.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 7329	Posted - 2013.08.15 20:47:00 - [1] - Quote I think we are better off trying to balance around vehicles with the concept of time of engagement window. Heavier the vehicle the longer the window when it likes it or not. Smaller vehicles have higher dictation of their own engagement window. However dedicated anti-vehicle infantry should always be allowed to FORCE widening the window. Half-arsed AV guys not so much but they can still contribute to the damage. If the forced window is much longer than the pilot intended for then the vehicle would perish. So engaging and disengaging becomes an art form where the most amount of stressor of the opportunity to fight is going to be imposed by other vehicles. There are tools in doing this, for example capacitor can be one thing, as long as the capacitor is all happy the HAV operator can keep his armor repper running indefinitely while becoming a slow moving all of death, however soon as he tries to over exert attacking and using speed he starts to overdrain and tax his capacitor to the point that his weapon may stop firing and the overdrive disegages and the armor repair unit offlines as well. The infantry can then throw down webifier grenades or EMP or cap drainers and the tank becomes really screwed. While all said equipment cannot be really carried by one person, one person with a great window of attack can and will still severely damage and kill the vehicle. Ammo is another tool that can be used for window of engagement, very powerful weapons may have limited ammo so shots have to count. Modules could also be ammoed such as a ninite resistance coater or counter explosive armor or chaff. Without an ammo depot you can purposely exhaust a tank out of its ammo options forcing it to retreat and if caught by another vehicle fully stocked it will be in serious trouble.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 7335	Posted - 2013.08.15 21:55:00 - [2] - Quote Needless Sacermendor wrote: It's taken a while but I think I'm understanding your post ... am I right in thinking the highlighted part means HAVs would not be killing infantry so much but destroying installations and structures and other vehicles ? Also should this in the last paragraph not be a longer window not a shorter one ... "giving vehicles to invincibly laugh off damage they eat in window far shorter than their engagement time" Sorry didn't do a full pass on my post. Yes HAVs should be primarily anti-vehicle and anti-structure, anti-infantry and heavy squad support roles should be also possible still but I want it to be more equated to the HMG vs Forge sort of thinking, if they fit for anti-infantry then by no means they should be anywhere good at the other role. While it won't stop a blaster from killing tanks ultimately nor railguns killing infantry the wrong play style can be discouraged in other ways such as limited rail gun ammo that is better spent on real targets of threat. Trade one advantage for a disadvantage if you will. In this case a blaster would be an excellent anti-infantry weapon while the railgun would be more preferable for destroying other HAVs. Back in the old beta test phases, there was tanks that with minimal 5 second down time allowed for about 2 minutes of undeterred engagement. There was even a time it was perpetually always engaged that there was no way to get the tanks to disengage and they were constantly engaging infantry much longer and harder than any other drop suit could ever do. On average a single drop suit loadout has about... oh 3 minutes total combat endurance about... 30 seconds of engagement time and near portional down time minus all the caveats of suit types and weapon and module selection. Vehicles nearly simply ignored these time frames once upon a time which made for a bad infantry game (fun vehicle game though)
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 7338	Posted - 2013.08.15 22:00:00 - [3] - Quote Xender17 wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Stuff Nobody wants to be forced to be an active type player. Not the point the point is that risk/reward ratio should be managed far better and using combat endurance, and window of engagement tug of war are excellent ways of distributing the risks and rewards. Take a sniper for example, many would say this is low risk, this is particularly true, but when someone wants to make it high risk they're going to do so in a real short and easy manner. A higher risk would be the front line assault soldier, sure he may have more opportunities to get killed but he has just as much opportunities to be killing. The tools for the whole idea has to be intuitive though, less cumbersome and reasonable 'expectations' for example a decent fit should not cap out in 2 seconds in full 'beast mode' as one person would put it. However having one stay in beast mode for... 5 minutes is a bit absurd. Countermeasures are an excellent way of allowing a pilot to expand his window of engagement, AV's main goals is to exhaust that timer as quickly as possible to force the vehicle to retreat or die.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 7350	Posted - 2013.08.16 02:45:00 - [4] - Quote Well signature radius could be a tool as well into the combat endurance and engagement time. Ie activating afterburners or sensors makes you easier to hit/lock by others. Increasing your signature radius to gain an advantage carries the risk of greatly lowering your window as a pilot. This is how it works in the real world most often. During Gulf War 1, there was only 1 incident of a old world russian tank mission killing an abrams. The only reason why this tank got the lucky hit was it was offline at the time and was not generating any sensory noise whatsoever during a night attack. The gunnery crew loaded the gun, eyeballed the target and fired, striking the abrams to the side forcing the crew to abandon the vehicle. The abrams and crew was later recovered and repaired to full service, the offending tank and mostly every other tank in the division it belonged to got just simply annihilated. This is the only ground to ground vehicle incident and example I can remember. Sub to surface, sub to sub, Air to air and air to ground has far many more examples I could use.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 7350	Posted - 2013.08.16 02:54:00 - [5] - Quote Shokhann Echo wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Well signature radius could be a tool as well into the combat endurance and engagement time. Ie activating afterburners or sensors makes you easier to hit/lock by others. Increasing your signature radius to gain an advantage carries the risk of greatly lowering your window as a pilot. This is how it works in the real world most often. During Gulf War 1, there was only 1 incident of a old world russian tank mission killing an abrams. The only reason why this tank got the lucky hit was it was offline at the time and was not generating any sensory noise whatsoever during a night attack. The gunnery crew loaded the gun, eyeballed the target and fired, striking the abrams to the side forcing the crew to abandon the vehicle. The abrams and crew was later recovered and repaired to full service, the offending tank and mostly every other tank in the division it belonged to got just simply annihilated. This is the only ground to ground vehicle incident and example I can remember. Sub to surface, sub to sub, Air to air and air to ground has far many more examples I could use. this isn't real life, or earth. No no no, Real Life is great for inspiration of game mechanics, specifically not good for balance however. Sensors generally work in two modes. Passive and Active. Passives just soak up the local surroundings and use that to feed you information. Example on human body is your ears. Your ears are unable to do anything but passively listen. Active sensors use a method to reach out and measures what that reach did. Shouting for someone however gives your own position away to anyone else running passive. This has been oftenly used in cat and mouse like games in just about every sort of modern warfare, including navy warfare which is the most mindful of science fiction needs of a 360 x 360 spherical battlefield. What if you can break a missile lock by simply turning off your tacnet? Throw an active scanner decoy onto the field that takes the heat while helping you out? Forcing a HAV's shielding to reverberate to make it loud enough on sensors that an eve online ship pilot can pick up and send a single shell down onto that target where previously the eve pilot was blind to that tank being there because of the topside paint.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 7350	Posted - 2013.08.16 02:57:00 - [6] - Quote Our Deepest Regret wrote: I say, divide tanks between high attack and high defense models. Give unlimited ammo and higher speed to the damage models, and let the slower defensive models have better armor, resistances, and health. Why should I, a defensive oriented player, have to suffer because other players were overpowered in the past? People who want to play a protective role in this game deserve better options. My point is that the HAVs should have the strongest combat endurance and widest window capabilities, with proper infantry escort the hostile AVs would have a very hard time forcing that window wider. A nearby logi could de-arm the web mines, assault players killing AV armed players. That the only things tanks would be really vulnerable to is getting caught alone or during its cool off period while it recharges and restocks.