CELESTA AUNGM
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
30
   |
Posted - 2013.10.29 18:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
I am a dropship operator. So let me say first THANK GOD this isn't another DS thread!!
Thank you Ulysses for starting a really valuable discussion.
I turret on HAVs from time to time, and I think they will become the most important vehicle in any match that exceeds the headcount we're working with in the current Dust.
I think the only obstacle toward perceiving the "role" (or maybe we should just say "purpose" or "usefullness") for the HAV that hasn't been mentioned is the the last words I typed "...we're working with in the CURRENT Dust".
We're out of Beta, but we're still in sort of a LAB-version of the full-blown game, so the "maps" we're trying to run these devices in are still the size I laughingly call "goldfish bowls".
CCP states they want every weapon in the game to have one adversary-accessible weakness. But the fishbowl size arena means no matter how fast/powerful your beast is, your weakness/nemesis is OH CRAP-- RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER, instead of two acres away where we have time to tactically address each other (Ulysses I think you can confirm for us that real-world tank commanders prefer to 'choose the distance' in engagements, so they don't get fried by sheer luck)
So everyone, for the time being, it will be a painful torture to get these HAVs to better emulate the real "Tank" in their damage/survivability.
Maybe the same goes for "Role" too.
In EVE, ccp seemed to have (maybe it took 10 years to get like this) produce vehicles that don't really have roles. They make a vehicle with a function or use (space carrier, dock station, ore refiner, battleship), and leave the "role" to be decided by the PLAYER in the way she uses the vehicle (fleet commander w/space carrier, precious metals trader w/dock station, wornhole explorer w/ore refiner, ambush-pirate w/battleship). Maybe having the HAV as a snap together lego collection with different "potentials" is meant to let US define the "role" we want.
Clone117's post comments are my favorites, because you can see some of that "role" choosing starting to form: player who likes the heavy blaster is heading to be an infantry-sweeper driver---player who fits extra defense modules and beefy small-turrets is creating a true "Abrams-frontliner tank" role---player who fits low shield/armor with a proto-railgun and triple-damage mods doesn't want to be up front, but do "Self-propelled howitzer"-type surgical support from the back ridge---player who mounts missile head on a light frame wants to be a "bradley fighting vehicle" charging forth beside the infantry.
But until we get the more spacious real estate (which I think was CCP's mindset when they made such one-shot/one-kill devices) no one will have the room to even try out these Abrams/Howitzer/Bradley concepts.
I THINK we can START roles out of the stuff CCP has currently given us, but I think the "role" is meant to be up to us, and something we choose to define OUR function on the field, not the vehicle's marketplace-sellable function.
|