|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
R F Gyro
Circle of Huskarl
Minmatar Republic
472
   |
Posted - 2013.08.24 10:10:00 -
[1] - Quote
The fundamental problem here is that tankers believe one player in a tank should be more powerful than one infantry player, but the infantry players don't agree. We can talk about ISK and SP. proto and non-proto, engagement ranges etc. as much as we want, but until we address that core issue we're unlikely to come to any agreement.
It isn't like we don't have a simple solution even: make HAVs require three players to operate effectively, then make them three times as effective as one infantry player.
How do we make tanks need 3 players to operate? Player 1 (driver) drives the tank, has the front small gun and limited field of view; player 2 (gunner) has the main gun, and also a limited field of view; player 3 (commander) has the top small gun and the external view.
|
R F Gyro
Circle of Huskarl
Minmatar Republic
473
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 11:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
Chances Ghost wrote:that may balance them against infantry in general or rather justify their increased effectivness against infantry.
but where do you stand on Anti vehicle
should the ultimate anti tank power reside in tanks or infantry? would you strive to achieve a balance between the two?
I'd like to strike a balance. I'd like to see dedicated tank killer vehicles, for example: like a HAV but with a big railgun damage bonus, but really weak defenses. But I also like the idea that infantry can hold their own against tanks, as well as tank vs tank combat.
|
R F Gyro
Circle of Huskarl
Minmatar Republic
473
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 11:28:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ninjanomyx wrote:Ahem.....even the Battlefield Series (And many others.....) have Tank Operators control both Mobility & Weaponry. This is completely ILLOGICAL as nobody in their right mind would PAY to Gimp their Gameplay Experience. Sure....sounds delightful to pay 10-18x the ISK in order to hope 3 Friends are on, who are both Spec'd into Tank themselves, & are willing to spend time attached @ the hip..... And it's just SUPER to want to invest excessive amounts of SP in order to Chauffeur your buddies around (Should they be on....) while they have all the FUN shooting @ S**T. You Dead-Set CoDboitards need to get the hell back where you belong.....on CoD. F**K.....even CoD: W@W had Tanks, & guess what??? Driver SHOOTS!!!! *GASP* You are even Irrelevant in your own Element  I'd share my Unbiased Alternatives.....but a Logical Discussion may not be had as long as these CoDboitards lurk about, shooting everything down @ every opportunity so as to further Skew the Demographic until ALL Vehicles & Non-AR Weapon Systems are Deleted from Tranquility (LOL @ Irony of Server Name.....) 
Wow, you are angry.
You also seem to be making some fairly massive assumptions about what I want the game to be like, assumptions which are very probably incorrect. The assumption that I've ever played CoD or WoW is incorrect at the very least.
If you feel capable of discussing this properly I'm more than happy to do so. Just ask a sensible question in a reasonable manner without insults and I'll answer as well as I can. |
R F Gyro
Circle of Huskarl
Minmatar Republic
473
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 15:32:00 -
[4] - Quote
Chances Ghost wrote:
balance between the two would be a good direction, offers the most flexability in overall stratagy and makes HAVs non manditory for anti - HAV duity.
i do think it should take more than 1 invisable guy sitting on a nanohive on a tower though...
back in the day a solo AVer surprised you can caused retreat.
2 avers meant trouble if you diddnt have someone in your tank to gun them down
3 meant death in most cases
all of this of course was dependant on the skill of the player.
1 good aver could absolutly mess up the tank, 2 good avers meant certain death, only the best driver would survive.
as for the driver not controlling the main turret, thats probably a stretch beyond what most tankers are willing to tolerate. BUT redusing large turret effectivness against infantry and increasing small turrets effectivness against infantry would largly acomplish the same thing
that way a solo tanker could deal with other tanks, and provide some anti -infantry support but wouldnt really be ideal for the job
but a tanker with a full tank (3 man) would be quite effective against infantry and acomplish the notion of having 3 people in tanks to fully operate them
what do you think? a nerf to large turrets anti infantry abilitys and a buff to small turret Anti infantry in exchange for some extra survivability?
would that change be enough to encourage people to fill a tank rather then kick blueberrys out as a liability?
woudl that change be enough to justify an increase in survivability and increase the amount of tank on tank AV action?
most importantly would it match the idea of balance you wanted to achieve?
Wouldn't that lead to a simple standoff? The tank can't kill the AV infantry, the infantry can't kill the tank?
I agree with you that tankers probably won't agree to a separation of main gun from driver. That is probably why CCP aren't implementing it, but it is also why I truly believe the AV vs Tanks argument will never be settled.
For the record, I don't think that one AV guy should be able to kill a tank (assuming reasonably matched in terms of player skill). I don't think invisible swarms are a good thing. I think rendering limits need to be fixed. I think a large turret should do really nasty things to someone hiding in a tower. In fact I agree with most of what the HAV drivers are asking for, I just believe that in order to justify this they have to give up the solo tank operator capability. |
|
|
| |
|