|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Obodiah Garro
Tech Guard
General Tso's Alliance
244
   |
Posted - 2013.08.28 23:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
HAV atm have no clear mission in the game. They are a crutch, an extra 7k ehp for a lone soldier to roll around and shoot at infantry while still protected by whatever dropsuit they use.
Its hard to balance HAV ehp against AV because all AV are situational, there are no omni damage weapons that deal with the different types of HAV that are present.
Straight up, get rid of HAV or buff them and make the gunner and pilot seperate. Making AV work in groups against a HAV is only credible if it takes a group to operate a game changer like a HAV in the first place.
Otherwise, let single AV destroy HAV, the AV runner needs to take the risk to be inefficient against the primary threat (infantry) while at the same time the HAV pilot effectively has a second life (his dropsuit). |
Obodiah Garro
Tech Guard
General Tso's Alliance
246
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 00:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:
that actually counters all meaning for the personal vehicle investment in the game.
I did NOT skill into tanks for someone else to use the main aspects of it.
that thinking only comes from regular FPS games, in regular FPS games, there is no personal investment towards anything, in this game its towards EVERYTHING.
I would understand a single AVer destroying a tank by himself if the weapon or dropsuit hes using was the size of a vehicle.
What is the main aspect of a HAV then? Aside from your personal murder wagon?
Single AVs have been destroying tanks since tanks were invented I dont see the difference in this game, however if they change the fundamentals of HAV operation to make it more of a squad/tandem design, then yea that would warrant a greater response from the opposing team.
1 trooper rolling about in a HAV himself? Gtfo lol, let that thing die to solitary FG and SL all day long.
|
Obodiah Garro
Tech Guard
General Tso's Alliance
256
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 03:11:00 -
[3] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:
this is where it all differs.
it comes down to a simple question...
Why should you decide how HAVs work when you do not have anything invested in them, why not let the drivers decide what their purpose is? why are you the only opinion that should matter when deciding the fate of other styles that you do not even use?
Am not speaking from any bias but from a perspective of achieving balance. For instance all my SP invested in SL would be a waste if there was no vehicles to shoot at. On the other hand why would a HAV pilot want to give away any of his advantage?
I enjoy shooting HAV/LAV/DS but I do need targets, I dont think what I said was so unreasonable a suggestion than say, HAV pilots wanting to be in a position where 1 player necessitates a response from more than 1 other on the opposing team.
Its not even the players fault that there are so many HAV/AV hate threads going about, CCP released PRO AV and not their counterparts, am in favour of losing PRO AV if CCP have a plan to balance vehicles on the whole at STD level, the problem isnt just with dealing with HAV though, AV runners need to deal with all vehicles and if HAV are slow then **** man, thats your problem. However it becomes everybodies problem if HAV become powerful to the extent that it breaks the game. Why would people log in to the threat of getting stomped by HAV if the game itself forces people to spec into FG/SL to take out errant HAV or otherwise just be murdered?
I cant speak of the effectiveness of STD FG against your HAV but am damn sure if your a good pilot then STD SL wont be causing you greif if its comming from 1 red. **** needs to be balanced. |
Obodiah Garro
Tech Guard
General Tso's Alliance
257
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 03:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:
and that's where it needs to start.. vehicles are not dropsuits and shouldn't be balanced as such, they are entirely different from vehicles, it needs to be separated from infantry balances entirely if anything were to be done properly.
So then as a HAV pilot what do you consider a balanced AV response to the threat you bring to the battlefield? In your opinion what is the fair equaliser to HAV in terms of manpower the other team needs to bring in?
|
Obodiah Garro
Tech Guard
General Tso's Alliance
262
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 04:08:00 -
[5] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:
in my version of balance, all the enemy team would need to compete against a tank would be 3 proto AVers. and I know what your going to say "well if that's the case, then 4 tanks will equal 12 AVers and the whole team will have to bring out AV", to that I say, no your wrong... if it only takes 3 people to kill a single tank, then those 3 people would be all you need to deal with the other tanks on the enemy team..
I can agree that small AV runner squads is probably the most preferable outcome for taking out enemy tanks, however in a setting with 32 max players that just wouldnt work. Your suggestion would require 3 people who are working together to be available to run AV given the situation of HAV on the field, thats surprisingly hard to pull off in public games.
Not everyone is equipped to be good AV, fewer yet will be squadded up ready to react, and if am wrong, there still is the problem of a multiple HAV encounter. By your math currently 1 AV runner could take out a tank and sweep around taking out HAV as they see fit. As someone who has smoked 100s of HAV I can tell you that isnt the case. Especially the likes of red line HAV or logi boosted HAV it just isnt going to happen. Already it takes 3 AV runners deal with a HAV if the pilot has the appropiate support.
Actually like your idea but I think the player count makes it impossible to have such a scenario plausible, having good AV on hand is up to luck, 1 player can call down a HAV anytime he likes though.
The reason why I think it would be a good idea to have a pilot drive and a gunner shoot in HAV is simply that, HAV should be a force multiplier purely on the basis that it is a balanced 1.
There is nothing worst than trying to take down a good HAV pilot than getting AR in the face or sniped or dealing with all other battlefield concerns whilst the HAV pilot just needs to worry about me.
Probably best to pick up on this thread again after 1.5 to see how truly balanced (or ******) we are after the changes. At present I cannot accept 1 HAV pilot should reign terror with his only downside being to replace his HAV with isk and the other teams downside is to get their **** together and play better or be whelped.
|
Obodiah Garro
Tech Guard
General Tso's Alliance
265
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 04:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
Charlotte O'Dell wrote:I want them to be used to absolutely wreck fortified positions. For 10-30 seconds (shields) or 30-60 seconds (armor), tanks need to be nearly unstoppable. However, when their modules wear off or capacitor depletes, they should be as weak as militia dropsuits against a mass driver.
Then a tank can be a tank in the hands of a good driver, but in the hands of an idiot, wont last a minute.
This is what they are aiming at with 1.5 BUT
Give HAV a damn role, give us fortications that can only be destroyed by them, or let them kill NULL cannons or something, give them a damn role because vs infantry they will fail, after the bastards killed my uncle Skippy I vowed to destroy each and everyone of those sons a bitches with my milita swarm launcher! |
|
|
| |
|