Tanker......swap the T for a W and you have found the core of the issue.

You say all that but most tankers hate infantry, hate anyone that isnt them even looking at their vehicle, and have a care bear non aggression pact with other tank drivers so even if you do see them on the field they ignore each other for easy kills

You want to play against just tanks and not worry about infantry AV then world of tanks is just over there

And that whole "we want a place" is bullshit since the place tanks are now is the same place tanks are in the real world, heavy fire support
It is not some end all be all rolling wall of steel and death that needs another juggernaut to stop it, militaries have been finding ways for a man on foot to bust them apart solo ever since they rolled onto the battlefield

Now if you want to talk about buffing tanks by giving them defensive systems in line with what we have now then Im all for that, giving them a TROPHY system that draws off X amount of swarms from a cluster fired at them or a Nakidka camo kit to make it more difficult to acquire a lock then Im all for that but crying and demanding nerfs is idiotic

You can't argue logic against radical, feverish hatred of something.

One big problem is that tanks tanking ability scales up so much with skills and equipment, this should be normalized and then they can make their killing ability scale more instead.

Tanks regenerative ability should be kept low and buffer high so AVers can force tanks to leave but not kill them so easily.

Also infantry has the ability to hide and shoot AV from protected places, this isnt something tanks can do very good and thats enough reason in its own to make them more survivable.

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLL

PRO swarms will be able to do 7000 damage in just a few seconds when 1.4 hits.

High buffer? You're talking about no less than 50%. Can't have that, because that's overpowered.

so you diddnt read the post

thats cool


right now a single AV infantry renders tanks obsolete, hence why you see nonagression pactsand the like.

also not once did you meantion what kind of tank gameplay you want to see and how you want to get there.


second this ISNT THE REAL WORLD, you cant draw parralels to the real world outside of tactics that may or may not transfer.

its a game and it works like a game.

so what role do you want tanks to have

what gameplkay do you see coming out of that

and how do you want to get there

answer those questions or every single opinion you have on balance is just plain irrelevant.


you think tanks are in a good place right now? where the only reason people use them is because they want to, and they arnt viable in competitive play even a little bit?

meaning if you diddnt have tankers that just plain like tanks no matter how bad they are you wouldnt have any tanks ont he field right now

meaning no reason for infantry AV to exsist.


essentially in the current game neatiher tanks nor infantry AV needs to exsist to obtain the game level of gameplay we have now meaning both are worthless

Here's a radical idea: Get the devs to buff the vehicle engineering skill back to 5% per level and focus on matchmaking to help new players instead of punishing veterans that invested their time/SP/ISK into their trade.

Whine more, the "This isnt the real world" excuse wears real thin when you have plenty of tankers cry "But its a tank, it should tank damage"

And if you cant suss out that my saying the tanks role is "heavy fire support" is somehow not me saying how I think tank gameplay should be and how suggesting certain buffs is not me saying how I think we should get there then your comprehension ability is terrible and you have no place attempting to tell people how relevant their opinions on a subject are

Even more so since so far you are doing what many other tankers have done, make a long winded statement when the core idea is "nerf this so I dont die" and getting salty when a post that you glossed over disagrees with you and then attempting to railroad the conversation, it betrays that you have no real interest in actually discussing the manner
Oh and try not double spacing every line, it adds to the page length unnecessarily and is a lame way to extend the length of your post
If I were going to play armchair psychologist I would say you do it in an attempt to overwhelm and frighten people off

before posting answer 2 questions

1:what kind of tank/av/infantry gameplay do you want to see
1:one suggestion on how to achieve that vision of balance


seriously DO IT

in simple terms, what EXACTLY do you believe they should be capable of, and how EXACTLY do you think they should acomplish this task, what changes should or shouldnt be made to create what you want.
you have brought nothing to the discussion while telling me im doing the same.

currently both tanks and infantry AV are irrelevant, one exsists simply to torture those who willingly spec into and role with other not because of its power but because they just like tanks.

DO YOU BELIEVE that infantry should be the dominate anti- vehicle force, and WHY, and what effect will this have on the game.

its simple to actually participate in the thread rather then tear it down for exsisting, im simply asking for your opinion on the topic and a discussion on it

what your giving me is your opinion on the threads exsistance and telling me it shouldnt be said

I did do that and you not comprehending that, willingly I presume, and bringing it up again with much added fluff retreading what you have already said tells me that you have no good response and are stalling for time

1/10 try again

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.

before posting answer 2 questions

1:what kind of tank/av/infantry gameplay do you want to see
1:one suggestion on how to achieve that vision of balance

If you do the above, nothing would need to be changed and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Infantry players don't give a crap about pilots and pilots have a chip on their shoulders against infantry. This topic is going to wind up going 10+ pages of back and forth valid points from both sides that will eventually degrade into who has the best insults to exert their e-peen. The end result will be another topic being ignored and the devs will continue on trying to re-balance two game mechanics around a nerf that shouldn't have happened in the first place if they had taken the advice of the majority of the community and made matchmaking a top priority. What you say doesn't matter as much as what I have to say, but in the end, unwarranted self importance while standing on a virtual soap box will amount to nothing while the elephant in the room continues to be ignored. I've given you a valid fact that I've been stating on these god forsaken forums since the day it happened, and again it seems like I'll go ignored because everything we say on here doesn't matter when the developers are going to pick and choose the topics they want to read whether the CPM brings it to their attention or not. The sooner you realize this harsh truth, the better.

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.

the problem wiht it i believe is that it wont actually fix the problem

you may have more survivable tanks yes, but anti tank will still be infantry dominant, basically rendering tanks obsolete no matter how survivable they are,

the previous tanks back in chromosome were in their infancy, nobody really knew what was up and tehre were alot of bugs hidden around

tanks were doing roughly 2x the damage they are now due to a bug in the way passive skills stacked.

there were next to no players speced into proto AV as well so the tanks wernt really being attacked all that agressivly by individual players and most tank deaths were being caused by other tanks.

thats no longer the case, and now that infantry are the kings of anti-vehicle i dont think a simple increase in powergrid (and therefor survivability and extreme fit variety) is going to be enough to justify their exsistance on a competitive level

Old swarms patch

New swarms patch

Look at the pic http://i.imgur.com/tLiMw1K.png?1

Current Swarm Launcher Timeline

1.2 seconds: 1st volley launched (1.2 second lock-on time)
3.2 seconds: Fire interval delay finished
4.4 seconds: 2nd volley launched
6.4 seconds: Fire interval delay finished
7.6 seconds: 3rd volley launched
9.6 seconds: Fire interval delay finished
10.8 seconds: 4th volley launched (SL Operation 5 increases clip size to 4)
15.3 seconds: Finished reloading (4.5 second reload time)
16.5 seconds: 5th volley launched
18.5 seconds: Fire interval delay finished
19.7 seconds: 6th volley launched

Uprising 1.4 Swarm Launcher Timeline

1.05 seconds: 1st volley launched (1.05 second lock-on time with 25% reduction from SL Operation 5)
1.35 seconds: Fire interval delay finished
2.4 seconds: 2nd volley launched
2.7 seconds: Fire interval delay finished
3.75 seconds: 3rd volley launched
8.25 seconds: Finished reloading (SL Operation no longer increases clip size, 4.5 second reload time)
9.3 seconds: 4th volley launched
9.6 seconds: Fire interval delay finished
10.65 seconds: 5th volley launched
10.95 seconds: Fire interval delay finished
12 seconds: 6th volley launched

Old swarms patch

New swarms patch

Look at the pic http://i.imgur.com/tLiMw1K.png?1

Dead link, but while you're here, would you mind helping me settle a point with the OP? If you logged in today after downtime and found out that the vehicle engineering skill got buffed from 1% per level to 5% per level, how would that change how you fit your tank?

Dead link, but while you're here, would you mind helping me settle a point with the OP? If you logged in today after downtime and found out that the vehicle engineering skill got buffed from 1% per level to 5% per level, how would that change how you fit your tank?

it woudl change how we fit tanks, but it wouldnt change the overall outcome

infantry would still be kings of AV, and tanks still wouldnt be viable in competitive play.

that is of course my opinion, and i could very well be wrong on that account.

i definatly think it would be a step in the right direction though, and i good buff to start from. just not sure about that being the only change thats needed

Dude think about it with a base of +20% and 2 local power upgrades you gould fit 2 heavy shield boosters and 1 heavy extender allong with hardiners ohh yea. Or even 2 heavy extenders and a good heavy booster with hardners boom.

thats what we used to do back in the day

either that or
heavy extender
heavy extender/booster
3 resist

2x/3x damage mods

Dead link, but while you're here, would you mind helping me settle a point with the OP? If you logged in today after downtime and found out that the vehicle engineering skill got buffed from 1% per level to 5% per level, how would that change how you fit your tank?

I run laser rifles and am usally in high places so blaster tanks usally don't pick on me rail tanks make me paranoid :) but any ways
What I want tank gameplay to be like:
I will list how well all tier tanks should do against av in general from my point of view.

Militia - at max be able to attain 3-5 infantry kills maybe 1 other tank

Standard madragars/gunlogi's - 10-15 infantry kills 1-2 enemy tanks (depending on how built)

advanced enforcer class - 15-20 infantry kills 3-4 enemy tanks(to be honest I think Soma's are more scary then enforcers.

Proto tanks - 20-30 infantry kills 5 enemy tank take downs I miss being scared but to make proto tanks not be abused like 5 in 1 ambush have it so you can only bring maybe one or two into the field have it cost about a flat 3.5 million isk 4 just the tank

I miss the old days of holy crap enemy tank! now when someone brings out an enforcer I hear my whole squad go who can blow it up fastest wins! I want to be scared again but I think have 4 or 5 , 5 million dollar tanks on the field never being destroyed was a bit over kill.

I have no idea

It might not change much because i use a 15% mod as it is now so 5% might not change much overall except for a few fits

You'd essentially have the same PG you had back in Chrome if that helps.

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?

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.....)

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.

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?

alot of angry discussion has been going around about tank vs AV balance and alot of flame wars have been started as a result.

Balance

the core of it seems to stem from everyones definition of "Balance"

they try to use metrics like 1v1, and justify things with ISK cost or SP cost or other factors that really dont belong in the discussion.
You are disregarding major flaw in AV vs HAVs by saying it doesn't belong in any discussions.

let me explain something about balance in a video game, or any game for that matter.


something is balanced when it creates the type of gameplay you want to see in the game. thats it, thats all there is to it.
so something that completly dominates absolutly everything would be perfectly balanced in a game where that was the intended result.

imbalance is when gameplay isnt happening how you want it to and its creating circumstances that invalidate other areas of the game.

in terms of tank vs AV in Dust 514 we have to ask ourselves what we cant tank gameplay to be like and how do we get there.


The gameplay we want to see?

Naturally this means that any discussion about balancing these two things HAS to include discussion about what you want tank VS AV gameplay to look like and how you want that to interact with Infantry VS Infantry gameplay and every other interaction.


this isnt happening in any tank VS AV disscussion on the forum so lets bring it here

well what DO we want it to look like

well its a givin that we want vehicles to have a place in the game we want them to have a reason to be on the field and we want them to be useful.

currently they dont, infantry hold ALL the power and it renders tanks without a role. infantry are better at killing other infantry, and infantry are better at killing tanks, with a few exceptions.

the only advantage to a tank is that it takes specific AV weaponry to do damage to you making it easyer for you to engage infantry while remaining safe from their fire.
4 of 5 weapons do major damage to it. SLs, FGs, AVnades and Flux nades. The 5th is the PC however no where in the weapons description does talk about anything remotely AV.


The Current Problem

the current problem is the AV dominance is in the hands of infantry, which means infantry are more effective at the anti tank role than tanks are.

this creates a situation where tanks are in a role where they are slightly more effective against infantry in exchange for infantry being able to wipe them off the face of the each on a whim.
AV grenades man.

how can we fix this?

that depends on what kind of gameplay you want to see?

currently theres no reason in competitive play to bring out a tank, it serves no function in any battle plans other than you really want to use one.

IF we want to see vehicle combat then obviously we need to change some things.

one way to do this would be to make tanks better at taking out tanks then infantry are.
They already are. Madrugars murder every other HAV out there.

this would change it so that the best way to take out a tank would be to use another tank, without a tank you would have to group up a number of infantry and come at the tank in numbers to take it out


this is what most tankers refer to when they say you shouldn't be able to solo a tank as infantry

they arn't trying to make themselves invulnerable, they are just trying to make it so that they fight tanks for vehicle dominance while not rendering infantry AV obsolete.

this change would make infantry AV an AV support role, working WITH the tanks to take out other tanks rather then replacing them as they currently do. this would also change it so that tanks would carry around gunner specfed into AV to give them an edge in tank VS tank wars, creating tank oriented squad gameplay rather then the solo warrior gameplay we see now.



AVers seem to think tankers want to nerf them so that they become invincible, and thats not true, they want to nerf you so that they have a place in the game, and most importantly they want to play with you, be in squads with you, and co-operate with you instead of you not needing tanks at all.

Closing

In short tankers who argue for nerfs to av are doing it to create a place for tanks in he game, they are currently replaced by a single infantry wielding AV and its creating boring/ stale/ and not engaging gameplay.

what tankers want is a role in he game, and most importantly they want a reason to exist, as currently they roll in tanks because they want to rather then it being viable.

TLDR - tankers just want to love AV players and squad with them so stop hating them
What we want are features that have been left out and not being soloed by things we cost in every way 8x more. AV grenades solo tanks so that would make HAV costs 20x more.

before posting answer 2 questions

1:what kind of tank/av/infantry gameplay do you want to see
1:one suggestion on how to achieve that vision of balance

Your idea of balance is correct, but your view of the current problem in-game is not.

My militia HAV (standard railgun) destroys enemy vehicles much more quickly than my advanced infantry AV fits.

vehicles vs AV is indeed broken, but it's not broken the way tankers say.
The main problems:
Broken AV WP mechanics (WP gain is too slow, and it's too easy for an AVer to lose an assist)

Terrible turrets- small turrets are worthless, while large missiles rely on luck to hit infantry.

ISK cost- vehicles are far more expensive than they should be.

Map design- it's nearly impossible for counter-AVers to remove AVers from certain positions

Redline abuse- this is something for both vehicles and AVers. AVers can safely AV from the redline (sometimes shooting dropships with railgun installations). HAVs can snipe even more safely from the redline than infantry snipers. All vehicles can retreat to the redline to safely repair.

Recall abuse- getting shot at by AVers? You can now make your HAV vanish, then call it in on the redline!

Hit marker issues- they're pretty buggy and usually don't show where the vehicle is really coming from.


I'm not going to mention invisible swarms, because it never happened to me- I always see them before they hit, or as least hear them behind me.

Until it takes multiple people to operate a HAV, I believe it shouldn't take multiple people to take down an HAV.

They should however lower the cost of the tanks.

Tanker......swap the T for a W and you have found the core of the issue.

it takes 3 people to operate an HAV fully

theres just no incentive to do so, and usually is a liability more than an advantage.

so you probably mean "some way to force tankers to have gunners"? or at least enough incentive for them to have gunners?

Yes if tanks need multiple people to take down then they should be forced to have multiple people operating it. As it is now I find many tankers complaining about the ISK loss and how because they spent so much ISK they should not be taken down by AV.

You cannot justify wanting to have supremacy over the battlefield just because you paid to do so. That is the very definition of P2W.

Yes I understand that tanks cost a lot (so they should reduce the price). However by making it so that multiple people are required to take down a tank the opposing side loses players to PTFO or to handle the enemy infantry. It becomes on 1-3, where one team now has 13 players facing 15 and has no become disadvantaged through no fault of their own.

I want tanks to completely dominate open battlefields with incredible tank, firepower, and range; their purpose should be anti-infantry support, the main AV method, and destruction of hard targets. However, we should allow tanks a major weakness in their design:

Tankers should be allowed to change where they want their resistance to be strongest over six faces: top, bottom, left, right, front, rear. Let's assume a tank at full proto level has 200dmg pts which equates to a total of 200% damage resistance that can be spread over the six surfaces. This way, a tank could never take damage from the top of front, but would take immediate hull (just like in eve) damage if hit anywhere else. This means that a single landmine could kill a tank, while a 5000 DPS railgun wouldn't scratch it from the front. This created a fun game of guessing what a tank's weak point is based on his behavior and also allows customization and proxy mines.would make a comeback.

That being said, a tank would need huge amounts of armor/ shields to evenly distribute evenly over his tank like a blanket. Even if a tank had 10000 shields, without resistance covering it, a forge gun could rip it off, quite easily, meaning that if a forge gun hits a part of the tank with 10% shield resistance, and tears it all off, then the shield buffer is lost EVERYWHERE, and getting jit by even a small grenade on a resistance-less face would result in a penetration of the hull and destruction.

This means that in an open environment where tanks can position themselves with their strong faces toward the enemy, they are invulnerable, but if they were to come into a city where they can be hit from all 6 angles, the would be almost instantly destroyed by a few guys with AV grenades BC they can't control the flow of battle in such a confined space.

This would also require removal of the redline, though.


I'd also appreciate a skill that allowed scout suits a 10% chance to hijack a vehicle of they got onto the turret so even in the open, infantry have a chance of hijacking vehicles if their own infantry doesn't support them.

This thread also brings up a very very good point- there can be no such thing as balance between vehicles and infantry AV, simply because vehicles aren't infantry AV.

Balance refers to things being equally effective at a given role.
Swarm launcher vs Plasma cannon, or Madrugar vs Gunnlogi would be a balance issue, not Swarm Launcher vs Madrugar.

alot of angry discussion has been going around about tank vs AV balance and alot of flame wars have been started as a result.

Balance

the core of it seems to stem from everyones definition of "Balance"

they try to use metrics like 1v1, and justify things with ISK cost or SP cost or other factors that really dont belong in the discussion.


let me explain something about balance in a video game, or any game for that matter.


something is balanced when it creates the type of gameplay you want to see in the game. thats it, thats all there is to it.
so something that completly dominates absolutly everything would be perfectly balanced in a game where that was the intended result.

imbalance is when gameplay isnt happening how you want it to and its creating circumstances that invalidate other areas of the game.

in terms of tank vs AV in Dust 514 we have to ask ourselves what we cant tank gameplay to be like and how do we get there.


The gameplay we want to see?

Naturally this means that any discussion about balancing these two things HAS to include discussion about what you want tank VS AV gameplay to look like and how you want that to interact with Infantry VS Infantry gameplay and every other interaction.


this isnt happening in any tank VS AV disscussion on the forum so lets bring it here

well what DO we want it to look like

well its a givin that we want vehicles to have a place in the game we want them to have a reason to be on the field and we want them to be useful.

currently they dont, infantry hold ALL the power and it renders tanks without a role. infantry are better at killing other infantry, and infantry are better at killing tanks, with a few exceptions.

the only advantage to a tank is that it takes specific AV weaponry to do damage to you making it easyer for you to engage infantry while remaining safe from their fire.


The Current Problem

the current problem is the AV dominance is in the hands of infantry, wich means infantry are more effective at the anti tank role than tanks are.

this creates a situation where tanks are in a role where they are slightly more effective against infantry in exchange for infantry being able to wipe them off the face of the each on a whim.

accurate problems mentioned in thread
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1216479#post1216479

how can we fix this?

that depends on what kind of gameplay you want to see?

currently theres no reason in competitive play to bring out a tank, it serves no function in any battleplans other than you really want to use one.

IF we want to see vehicle combat then obviously we need to change some things.

one way to do this would be to make tanks better at taking out tanks then infantry are.


this would change it so that the best way to take out a tank would be to use another tank, without a tank you would have to group up a number of infantry and come at the tank in numbers to take it out


this is what most tankers refer to when they say you shouldnt be able to solo a tank as infantry

they arnt trying to make themselves invulnerable, they are just trying to make it so that they fight tanks for vehicle dominance while not rendering infantry AV obsolete.

this change would make infantry AV an AV support role, working WITH the tanks to take out other tanks rather then replacing them as they currently do. this would also change it so that tanks would carry around gunner specfed into AV to give them an edge in tank VS tank wars, creating tank orented squad gameplay rather then the solo warrior gameplay we see now.



AVers seem to think tankers want to nerf them so that they become invincable, and thats not true, they want to nerf you so that they have a place in the game, and most importantly they want to play with you, be in squads with you, and co-operate with you instead of you not needing tanks at all.

Closing

In short tankers who argue for nerfs to av are doing it to create a place for tanks int he game, they are currently replaced by a single infantry wielding AV and its creating boring/ stale/ and unengaging gameplay.

what tankers want is a role int he game, and most importantly they want a reason to exsist, as currently they roll in tanks because they want to rather then it being viable.

TLDR - tankers just want to love AV players and squad with them so stop hating them


before posting answer 2 questions

1:what kind of tank/av/infantry gameplay do you want to see
1:one suggestion on how to achieve that vision of balance


invisable swarm footage for the curious skip to 5:50 and watch for left side impact, no trail, no explosive effect just impact physics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HwiIU6rJCk

if you watch a any vehicle youtube footage with invisable swarms in mind you can spot them everywhere.

I don't really agree with that ... you still have to balance vehicles against infantry and AV infantry in the same way you have to balance infantry Av against regular infantry.

It's unbalanced if AV infantry is gimped to the point it can't withstand a single bullet from an assault rifle ... conversely it's unbalanced if AV infantry isn't gimped at all and can stand toe to toe with regular infantry, as I used to manage with the flaylock :-) ... this is also an issue with the Forge being, in my opinion, a bit too effective against infantry, but that's another debate.

balance is about making the game fun for everyone ... HAV's running the field un-impeded by anything but a stronger HAV as they did back in E3 is unbalanced in the same way the Caldari Logi was unbalanced against other infantry, or Heavies were in Mordus Trials, or Missile Turrets or anything else we've seen.

Basically anything that makes your game fun, makes someone elses game not fun ... THAT is what needs to be balanced, and it's not something I'd want to crunch numbers for when there are so many variables in a game like DUST.

also, if you were to separate the main gunner from the pilot seat, you would remove all incentive and want to skill up into driving it

Again cause some on here would rather not hear it, for the simple fact of "DUST IS NOT A FPS! IT DOESNT HAVE TO FOLLOW ITS RULES!"

There is a reason why in Almost all FPS games, TANKS ARE NOT A PRIMARY ROLE. THEY ALWAYS FALL UNDER "SUPPORT"

You want to see tanks and DS all over the field? LOWER THE PRICE. BUT to those that feel that you need 4 guys to down a tank, come on!

So a scrub that never touched a FPS can jump in a tank and wipe the floor with PLAYERS THAT HAVE PLAYED FPS GAMES? 50-2 for a fairy that never touched a FPS game? NO.

Like the OP says- vehicles vs AV is completely about developer preference. You can't statistically prove one is better than the other, because they're completely different. How vehicles vs AV should work is all your own opinion.

you mean something like this?

the way I would balance things is like this:


1 prototype tank = 3 prototype AV
1 advanced tank = 3 advanced AV
1 standard tank = 3 standard AV

however, if you have blue in your turrets, they will give you an extra survivability only if they have the same skill set as you do, this would also be needing the vehicle lock function we all want, that way if the right people were in the tank, it would be indestructible, but if its only the pilot, the tank would be killable but still do massive amounts of damage, nothing less.

this would greatly encourage the teamwork you want us to use, but it would have to be done right, and by right, I mean the pilot needs to have complete dominance over his own asset, otherwise tanks and vehicles in general would just be like BF.






also:

Pay to Win: Games that let you buy better gear or allow you to make better items then everyone else at a faster rate and then makes the game largely unbalanced even for people who have skill in the game without paying.

I'm glad you're not a dev. It should NEVER take more than one person to take out one other person. Your balancing sounds "fine" with small numbers, but increase the numbers a bit and you can see how unbalanced it is.

1 tank = 3 AV (half a squad to take out on person)
2 tanks = 6 AV (whole squad to take out 2 people)
5 tanks = 15 AV (whole team to take out a single squad)

See the pattern? That's not balance, that's a crutch.

It should take one DEDICATED AVer to take out one dedicated tanker of the same meta level. Not an assault suit with AV grenades, but a fully specced and fitted AVer.

If you notice, it already works out like this if you pit Std AV gear against std tanks. There is no problen between AV and Tanks except for cost and the lack of ADV and PRO HAVs.

I'm glad you're not a dev. It should NEVER take more than one person to take out one other person. Your balancing sounds "fine" with small numbers, but increase the numbers a bit and you can see how unbalanced it is.

1 tank = 3 AV (half a squad to take out on person)
2 tanks = 6 AV (whole squad to take out 2 people)
5 tanks = 15 AV (whole team to take out a single squad)

See the pattern? That's not balance, that's a crutch.

It should take one DEDICATED AVer to take out one dedicated tanker of the same meta level. Not an assault suit with AV grenades, but a fully specced and fitted AVer.

If you notice, it already works out like this if you pit Std AV gear against std tanks. There is no problen between AV and Tanks except for cost and the lack of ADV and PRO HAVs.

with my version of it, if you have more than one tank on the field all you need is 3 AV guys on you team, they would be able to destroy each enemy tank in a 3 man group, your saying that AVers are too unreliable to take down more than one tank so you say it needs a full team...


why in your head does this mean that you need an entire team? in my head all you need is 3 people to kill us off, if 3 av = 1 tank, then those same 3 would be used to kill the others off..

with my version of it, if you have more than one tank on the field all you need is 3 AV guys on you team, they would be able to destroy each enemy tank in a 3 man group, your saying that AVers are too unreliable to take down more than one tank so you say it needs a full team...


why in your head does this mean that you need an entire team? in my head all you need is 3 people to kill us off, if 3 av = 1 tank, then those same 3 would be used to kill the others off..

You realize if you stay in AV you are disadvantaged to infantry on the other team? You'll still be 3 men down in infantry.

That's assuming the three tanks are seperated and can be dealt with individually. What if those tanks stick together? There are tankers that do this now and can completely dominate a match. Nice try grabbing at straws though.

Again cause some on here would rather not hear it, for the simple fact of "DUST IS NOT A FPS! IT DOESNT HAVE TO FOLLOW ITS RULES!"

There is a reason why in Almost all FPS games, TANKS ARE NOT A PRIMARY ROLE. THEY ALWAYS FALL UNDER "SUPPORT"

You want to see tanks and DS all over the field? LOWER THE PRICE. BUT to those that feel that you need 4 guys to down a tank, come on!

So a scrub that never touched a FPS can jump in a tank and wipe the floor with PLAYERS THAT HAVE PLAYED FPS GAMES? 50-2 for a fairy that never touched a FPS game? NO.

easy, just kill one at a time

1.what kind of tank/av/infantry gameplay do you want to see
2.one suggestion on how to achieve that vision of balance

I still like the idea of a vehicle capacitor that modules run from instead of having cooldowns. This way you could run modules like hardeners perpetually, but an Armor Repairer or Shield Booster would take large amounts of energy, and if you didn't keep an eye on it, it could drain your cap and shut down all your modules, leaving you vulnerable.

If necessary, you could give infantry NON-SEEKING/HOMING grenades that drain energy from vehicles in the blast radius, allowing a skilled AV player to get close and attempt to bring down the vehicle's defenses to make it easier to destroy. However, this would still require the player to get close to the vehicle, and actually AIM their throw properly, which also means that HAVs would have additional incentive to use all three of their guns slots, and allow them additional AV defense.

I think vehicle capacitors would drastically improve the game for vehicle operators across the board.

however, if you have blue in your turrets, they will give you an extra survivability only if they have the same skill set as you do, this would also be needing the vehicle lock function we all want, that way if the right people were in the tank, it would be indestructible, but if its only the pilot, the tank would be killable but still do massive amounts of damage, nothing less.

this would greatly encourage the teamwork you want us to use, but it would have to be done right, and by right, I mean the pilot needs to have complete dominance over his own asset, otherwise tanks and vehicles in general would just be like BF.

How come people can use RL examples on how the AR should be balanced, but when HAV come into play that goes out the window? Double standard much?

At the end of the day, everyone wants their time/ISK/SP invested in their role to mean something. (Most) Infantry have that, why not vehicles?

We don't use RL examples for HAV's cause if that was the case, havs drivers would throw more of a fit. lol

In RL it takes one guy to take our a tank. two at most. Tanks in RL play support roles. hence why it's that way in many FPS games.

We don't use RL examples for HAV's cause if that was the case, havs drivers would throw more of a fit. lol

In RL it takes one guy to take our a tank. two at most. Tanks in RL play support roles. hence why it's that way in many FPS games.

In Chrome, tanks were a force multiplier where pilots would throw their money on the field in hopes of turning the tide of a battle. With proper squad support, good gunners, and disorganized opponents they were invincible. Hell, anything can be invincible with proper teamwork. In Uprising, tanks have degraded to a liability and an afterthought. Think about it, when's the last time someone legitimately complained about tanks in Uprising? If people aren't complaining, something is obviously broken. Same with the laser, shotgun, HMG, and even the mass driver in earlier patches. Tanks need to be beefed up to **** people off again or there's no point in having the role at all.

Are you kidding me? Chrome saw the rise of Tank514. Just call in one tank in an Ambush and go 24-0. It wasn't that long ago, not sure why you would think we would have forgotten about this. :|

Also @VoidEcho okay Strawman, have fun with your straw.

How to solve the problem in chronological order: Lower the cost of tanks > bring out matchmaking > bring out proto/adv tanks > ??? > Profit!

There is no way we can pretend to know about AV/Tank balance at this stage because it's idiotic to compare STD Tanks to Proto AV. Believe it or not, compare a STD tank to MLT AV and you would see that it's just as unbalanced in favor of the tank.

You realize if you stay in AV you are disadvantaged to infantry on the other team? You'll still be 3 men down in infantry.

True, but it's not an absolute. I've done an awful lot of successful point defense/delay with a toxin smg.

They are gimped in range and lack of grenades, no argument there.

I think AV infantry are worth about half an AI infantry as long as they choose their battles correctly and don't try to be the superman.

I dunno, it just seems like the crux of the problem stems from Tanks having infinite ammunition. That's the most obvious reason they dominated so hard back in the dark ages. If Blaster tanks were penalized for their killing power by having to constantly resupply, there would never have been a need for AV grenades or overpowered swarm launchers.

Vehicle ammunition supply points would bring some much needed strategy to the tanking role, beyond the universally reviled "Park on a spawn point and squeeze the trigger" or the equally hated "run away when an av sneezes on you." High defense, limited ammo is the way to go. Take away easy gibs on both sides for god's sake.

Are you kidding me? Chrome saw the rise of Tank514. Just call in one tank in an Ambush and go 24-0. It wasn't that long ago, not sure why you would think we would have forgotten about this. :|

Also @VoidEcho okay Strawman, have fun with your straw.

How to solve the problem in chronological order: Lower the cost of tanks > bring out matchmaking > bring out proto/adv tanks > ??? > Profit!

There is no way we can pretend to know about AV/Tank balance at this stage because it's idiotic to compare STD Tanks to Proto AV. Believe it or not, compare a STD tank to MLT AV and you would see that it's just as unbalanced in favor of the tank.