DUST Search - The Role of HAVs

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

The Role of HAVs

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ulysses Knapse Condotta Rouvenor Gallente Federation 537	Posted - 2013.10.29 04:16:00 - [1] - Quote HAVs. They are controversial vehicles, indeed. Why? Because they aren't exactly good with balance. Why? Because their roles were not properly defined, that's why. What's their role supposed to be? Apparently, big tanky metal monsters that chew people up on open ground. So, what should their role be? Something akin to Armor in real life, I should say (at least for standard HAVs). Armor in real life has quite a few roles (not all of which I'm able to list): 1. Breaking through enemy defenses. 2. Defending and supporting infantry. 3. Destroying other armored vehicles. Of course, they can be used for other things, but this is basically what it amounts to. As such, HAVs should be designed for fulfilling these roles. They should be reasonably capable of fulfilling other roles, but they shouldn't be quite as good at it. To fulfill these roles, HAVs need: 1. Firepower, to neutralize fortified targets and positions. 2. Durability, both to shield infantry and to endure defensive fire. 3. Mobility, enough to keep up with infantry and move through defensive lines. HAVs DO NOT need: 1. The ability to hit small or fast moving targets with their main guns. (They are for destroying fortifications, not infantry.) 2. The ability to easily repair all damage dealt to them. (That's what retreating is for. They are offensive, not defensive.) All in all, my main qualm is that the role of HAVs is not being thought through properly. Either CCP is trying to give HAVs a role that it's not suited for, or CCP doesn't know what armor is supposed to be. Now, keep in mind, I'm only saying this for standard HAVs, not specialized HAVs. Other types, such as Marauders or Enforcers, don't necessarily have to fill the exact same role as normal HAVs. I will add more posts here as I suggest possible means of "correcting" the role of HAVs. You are also welcome to do so. I'm looking forward to your feedback to my feedback. Humanity is the personification of change.
Godin Thekiller Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 1327	Posted - 2013.10.29 04:27:00 - [2] - Quote You're the one who's mixing the roles. The HAV's we got now does what it's supposed to: decent DPS, decent speed, tank The tech 2 hulls will nerf one of these, buff another, and keep one the same: Marauder- high tank, ** speed, decent DPS. BO- High mobility, DPS, decent tank Enforcer- High DPS, ** tank, decent mobility 'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever!
Ulysses Knapse Condotta Rouvenor Gallente Federation 538	Posted - 2013.10.29 04:30:00 - [3] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: You're the one who's mixing the roles. The HAV's we got now does what it's supposed to: decent DPS, decent speed, tank The tech 2 hulls will nerf one of these, buff another, and keep one the same: Marauder- high tank, ** speed, decent DPS. BO- High mobility, DPS, decent tank Enforcer- High DPS, ** tank, decent mobility This isn't about DPS, speed or tank. This is about how it applies them. Humanity is the personification of change.
Godin Thekiller Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 1328	Posted - 2013.10.29 04:56:00 - [4] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: You're the one who's mixing the roles. The HAV's we got now does what it's supposed to: decent DPS, decent speed, tank The tech 2 hulls will nerf one of these, buff another, and keep one the same: Marauder- high tank, ** speed, decent DPS. BO- High mobility, DPS, decent tank Enforcer- High DPS, ** tank, decent mobility This isn't about DPS, speed or tank. This is about how it applies them. That statement could mean several different things. elaborate. 'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever!
Ulysses Knapse Condotta Rouvenor Gallente Federation 539	Posted - 2013.10.29 05:47:00 - [5] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Ulysses Knapse wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: You're the one who's mixing the roles. The HAV's we got now does what it's supposed to: decent DPS, decent speed, tank The tech 2 hulls will nerf one of these, buff another, and keep one the same: Marauder- high tank, ** speed, decent DPS. BO- High mobility, DPS, decent tank Enforcer- High DPS, ** tank, decent mobility This isn't about DPS, speed or tank. This is about how it applies them. That statement could mean several different things. elaborate. Damage can be applied in different ways, right? I'm currently more concerned with how HAVs apply damage than how much damage they do. I don't want a HAV's main gun to be an assault rifle on steroids, I want it to be at least somewhat similar (not totally, but somewhat) to it's real-life equivalent. Not for physical realism, but for tactical realism. The assault rifle in Dust 514 is tactically similar to assault rifles in real life, as is the shotgun and sniper rifle (although to a slightly lesser degree). 80GJ Blasters are more tactically similar to machine guns than a tank's main gun, which results in HAVs being less tactically similar to modern armor than one would expect. The same thing applies to mobility. Make a HAV too slow, and it no longer acts like armor (though making it too fast would make it overpowered, which is worse). Tanking is complicated. It basically has two factors, yeah? Durability and endurance. Durability is how much damage it can take at once, and endurance is how long it can hold out. Offensive units need more durability to push through defensive lines, whereas defensive units need more endurance so they can't just be whittled away. Modern armor is an offensive weapon, and HAVs are the equivalent of modern armor. Thus, you would logically expect that HAVs would have more durability than endurance. Humanity is the personification of change.
Nova Knife Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 2006	Posted - 2013.10.29 06:02:00 - [6] - Quote The problem is basically that CCP's trying to do pretty much everything, with everything. If you ignore the terrible balance relationship between HAV survivability and AV weapons for a moment, and consider the HAV. Literally every large turrets' damage numbers are balanced around taking out other vehicles, whilst still being able to combat infantry. Those numbers in turn when used against infantry mean that they're pretty much always going to get instablapped by HAV, creating the 'unfun' experience. CCP's all about toting the 'side grade', so why isn't there AV and AP variants of the turrets that allow a pilot to excel in one of the two, and disadvantage themselves against the other? If specialization is indeed the key, then an 'all around' tank should (In equal circumstances, even though those do not exist) be less ideal and lose against an AV spec tank, whereas that AV spec tank will have a harder time killing infantry (Though ideally not impossible) and likewise with an AP spec tank having a hard time killing an AV spec or 'all around' tank in turn. I do not think "HAV" qualifies as a role in and of itself, and that unless CCP allows for an actual specialization, we're always going to be struggling to find a good place for HAV to shine on the grand scheme of balance. If we set aside the 'real life' examples of what tanks do, I think it's safe to assume that in a video game that will always be pretty much completely out the window. In certain competitive environments you might see some pretty amazing and organized infantry + tank maneuvers, but at the end of the day while you should aim for high end play when doing balancing work, if you set that bar at the /very top/ then you uaually fail to account for the daily 'stupid factor' of the majority of people on the internet, which will pretty much break any illusions you had about how people will use your stuff. (Failing to account for stupid and/or player greed has been one of CCP's greatest shortcomings in terms of gameplay design and balance thus far)
Ulysses Knapse Condotta Rouvenor Gallente Federation 539	Posted - 2013.10.29 06:13:00 - [7] - Quote Nova Knife wrote: The problem is basically that CCP's trying to do pretty much everything, with everything. That's too large an issue to tackle in a single thread. I just wanted to focus on HAVs. Humanity is the personification of change.
Vyzion Eyri The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 1609	Posted - 2013.10.29 06:26:00 - [8] - Quote Make large turrets "AV Turrets" and small turrets "AP turrets". These changes are keeping in mind the upcoming turret ammo. What changes for large turrets: -Missiles and railguns lose their splash -Missiles get more missiles per salvo, higher damage per missile -Railguns get longer initial spool time, higher direct damage -Blaster RoF is reduced to 120RPM (2RPS) -Blaster damage is increased accordingly (around 3-4x) to compensate -Blaster should overheat in the same amount of time as currently Mostly these are changes to the blaster, obviously because currently as a large turret it's the most devastating against infantry. With the RoF nerf, infantry should essentially be able to run past a tank without being killed, BUT if they stand still or if the tanker is exceptionally accurate, they're goners because bullets will deal massive damage. And without splash damage, railguns and missiles will lose much of their AP capabilities. Still possible, but difficult. Now, as for AP (small turrets): -Railguns need more splash, more direct/splash damage, slower overheat -Blasters need a tad more range, and slower overheat -Missiles should stay the same but perhaps lower the RoF to make the ammo feel like it lasts longer. Essentially buffing railguns up so they actually have a chance against blasters and missiles in terms of AI. With these changes, instead of small and large turret slots tankers will get two AP and 1 AV turret slot. Make it clear from the outset what the tank driver's role is, and that it is the job of his passengers/crew to support with anti-personnel small turrets. > "I will show you fear in a handful of dust." T.S. Eliot, The Wasteland
Ulysses Knapse Condotta Rouvenor Gallente Federation 540	Posted - 2013.10.29 06:33:00 - [9] - Quote Vyzion Eyri wrote: Make large turrets "AV Turrets" and small turrets "AP turrets". These changes are keeping in mind the upcoming turret ammo. What changes for large turrets: -Missiles and railguns lose their splash -Missiles get more missiles per salvo, higher damage per missile -Railguns get longer initial spool time, higher direct damage -Blaster RoF is reduced to 120RPM (2RPS) -Blaster damage is increased accordingly (around 3-4x) to compensate -Blaster should overheat in the same amount of time as currently Mostly these are changes to the blaster, obviously because currently as a large turret it's the most devastating against infantry. With the RoF nerf, infantry should essentially be able to run past a tank without being killed, BUT if they stand still or if the tanker is exceptionally accurate, they're goners because bullets will deal massive damage. And without splash damage, railguns and missiles will lose much of their AP capabilities. Still possible, but difficult. Now, as for AP (small turrets): -Railguns need more splash, more direct/splash damage, slower overheat -Blasters need a tad more range, and slower overheat -Missiles should stay the same but perhaps lower the RoF to make the ammo feel like it lasts longer. Essentially buffing railguns up so they actually have a chance against blasters and missiles in terms of AI. With these changes, instead of small and large turret slots tankers will get two AP and 1 AV turret slot. Make it clear from the outset what the tank driver's role is, and that it is the job of his passengers/crew to support with anti-personnel small turrets. I can agree with the idea that Large Turrets should be primarily AV and Small Turrets should be primarily AP, but I still think that Small Turrets should be reasonably effective against Light Vehicles. So, would Medium Turrets be middle-ground? Humanity is the personification of change.
Oswald Rehnquist Abandoned Privilege General Tso's Alliance 348	Posted - 2013.10.29 06:36:00 - [10] - Quote Someone phrased this best, but the new roles of HAVs are what was described as 2 min / sporadic battering rams with how active modules are going to change. So HAV pilot main role is essentially going to function as stall breakers.

Ulysses Knapse Condotta Rouvenor Gallente Federation 540	Posted - 2013.10.29 06:39:00 - [11] - Quote Oswald Rehnquist wrote: Someone phrased this best, but the new roles of HAVs are what was described as 2 min / sporadic battering rams with how active modules are going to change. So HAV pilot main role is essentially going to function as stall breakers. Hmm... I want a capacitor system, damnit! Humanity is the personification of change.
Oswald Rehnquist Abandoned Privilege General Tso's Alliance 348	Posted - 2013.10.29 06:43:00 - [12] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: Oswald Rehnquist wrote: Someone phrased this best, but the new roles of HAVs are what was described as 2 min / sporadic battering rams with how active modules are going to change. So HAV pilot main role is essentially going to function as stall breakers. Hmm... I want a capacitor system, damnit! There is nothing preventing another round of vehicles changes but I think after this one the other roles need CCP's attention first though.
Garth Mandra The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 182	Posted - 2013.10.29 06:44:00 - [13] - Quote I agree that HAVs don't seem to have a good role. I'm not sure what that role should be though. As an infantryman I'm not keen on the invincible rolling death machine that a few of the tank players advocate for as it doesn't do anything that infantry can't already do (although it does it better while being a bigger target). Dropships and LAVs have obvious transport roles. A APC type troop carrier would have obvious roles in transporting, spawning, healing, supplying, boosting infantry. Fighters would be anti-dropships vehicles (dropships would need more impact to make them worthwhile). Bombers would probably be large area denial and/or anti-ground vehicles. But what about tanks? -"Breaking through enemy defences" sounds like destroying installations to me but installations don't play a large part in the games at the moment and blowing them up sounds like a terribly boring activity. -"Supporting infantry" tends to mean killing enemy infantry (or scaring them so they hide) which is a role I would prefer to give to heavies and heavy weapons. -"Destroying other vehicles" is a fine role but not terribly useful with the small imparct of LAVs of Dropships at the moment. Without other roles tanks killing tanks is a closed system. Perhaps if turrets were serious threats to infantry? If turrets flipped with null canons (or some other area control panel) instead of individually then disabling them would help infantry take an area. If the turrets couldn't be permanently destroyed, just temporarily disabled, then that might give tanks more to do. Just brainstorming.
Oswald Rehnquist Abandoned Privilege General Tso's Alliance 348	Posted - 2013.10.29 06:49:00 - [14] - Quote Garth Mandra wrote: I agree that HAVs don't seem to have a good role. I'm not sure what that role should be though. As an infantryman I'm not keen on the invincible rolling death machine that a few of the tank players advocate for as it doesn't do anything that infantry can't already do (although it does it better while being a bigger target). Dropships and LAVs have obvious transport roles. A APC type troop carrier would have obvious roles in transporting, spawning, healing, supplying, boosting infantry. Fighters would be anti-dropships vehicles (dropships would need more impact to make them worthwhile). Bombers would probably be large area denial and/or anti-ground vehicles. But what about tanks? -"Breaking through enemy defences" sounds like destroying installations to me but installations don't play a large part in the games at the moment and blowing them up sounds like a terribly boring activity. -"Supporting infantry" tends to mean killing enemy infantry (or scaring them so they hide) which is a role I would prefer to give to heavies and heavy weapons. -"Destroying other vehicles" is a fine role but not terribly useful with the small imparct of LAVs of Dropships at the moment. Without other roles tanks killing tanks is a closed system. Perhaps if turrets were serious threats to infantry? If turrets flipped with null canons (or some other area control panel) instead of individually then disabling them would help infantry take an area. If the turrets couldn't be permanently destroyed, just temporarily disabled, then that might give tanks more to do. Just brainstorming. I agree with making offensive installations a serious threat, even fortress like, but tanks as a way to break infantry is literally the only IRL role of tanks. That is equivalent of advocating a gun that doesn't poke holes in people.
Ulysses Knapse Condotta Rouvenor Gallente Federation 540	Posted - 2013.10.29 06:56:00 - [15] - Quote Garth Mandra wrote: I agree that HAVs don't seem to have a good role. I'm not sure what that role should be though. As an infantryman I'm not keen on the invincible rolling death machine that a few of the tank players advocate for as it doesn't do anything that infantry can't already do (although it does it better while being a bigger target). Dropships and LAVs have obvious transport roles. A APC type troop carrier would have obvious roles in transporting, spawning, healing, supplying, boosting infantry. Fighters would be anti-dropships vehicles (dropships would need more impact to make them worthwhile). Bombers would probably be large area denial and/or anti-ground vehicles. But what about tanks? -"Breaking through enemy defences" sounds like destroying installations to me but installations don't play a large part in the games at the moment and blowing them up sounds like a terribly boring activity. -"Supporting infantry" tends to mean killing enemy infantry (or scaring them so they hide) which is a role I would prefer to give to heavies and heavy weapons. -"Destroying other vehicles" is a fine role but not terribly useful with the small imparct of LAVs of Dropships at the moment. Without other roles tanks killing tanks is a closed system. Perhaps if turrets were serious threats to infantry? If turrets flipped with null canons (or some other area control panel) instead of individually then disabling them would help infantry take an area. If the turrets couldn't be permanently destroyed, just temporarily disabled, then that might give tanks more to do. Just brainstorming. Breaking through enemy defenses doesn't always refer to installations. If you have a group of enemy infantry defending a bridge and you just can't seem to get through, send a HAV. Unless they have dedicated AV already there, it's going to cause quite a fuss. You can't just ignore it, nor can you shoot it down in the same way as infantry. Even if it doesn't destroy their defenses outright, it basically forces them to hide, scatter or focus on the HAV. Basically, you've broken their defenses without even needing to kill them. Supporting infantry isn't just the killing of threats. HAVs provide counterfire and cover in a mobile package. Destroying other armored vehicles, not just other vehicles. HAVs are currently the only armored vehicles in-game, but MAVs will also fall under this term when they are introduced. Humanity is the personification of change.
Alena Ventrallis Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 125	Posted - 2013.10.29 06:58:00 - [16] - Quote Vyzion Eyri wrote: Make large turrets "AV Turrets" and small turrets "AP turrets". These changes are keeping in mind the upcoming turret ammo. What changes for large turrets: -Missiles and railguns lose their splash -Missiles get more missiles per salvo, higher damage per missile -Railguns get longer initial spool time, higher direct damage -Blaster RoF is reduced to 120RPM (2RPS) -Blaster damage is increased accordingly (around 3-4x) to compensate -Blaster should overheat in the same amount of time as currently Mostly these are changes to the blaster, obviously because currently as a large turret it's the most devastating against infantry. With the RoF nerf, infantry should essentially be able to run past a tank without being killed, BUT if they stand still or if the tanker is exceptionally accurate, they're goners because bullets will deal massive damage. And without splash damage, railguns and missiles will lose much of their AP capabilities. Still possible, but difficult. Now, as for AP (small turrets): -Railguns need more splash, more direct/splash damage, slower overheat -Blasters need a tad more range, and slower overheat -Missiles should stay the same but perhaps lower the RoF to make the ammo feel like it lasts longer. Essentially buffing railguns up so they actually have a chance against blasters and missiles in terms of AI. With these changes, instead of small and large turret slots tankers will get two AP and 1 AV turret slot. Make it clear from the outset what the tank driver's role is, and that it is the job of his passengers/crew to support with anti-personnel small turrets. An excellent suggestion. I do think that as it stands, these changes would be detrimental to the game. The lack of any vehicle beyond the HAV being useful, especially considering that CCP is removing vehicle types, makes this a long term goal, which in effect probably means never implemented. Once we have MAVs then tanks will have a role. MAVs will have some high AP capability, slaughtering infantry, perhaps give them some extreme countermeasures to infantry AV, while HAV are tasked with disposing of MAVs, Dropships, LAVs, and whatever other vehicle CCP tosses in. HAVs are in turn, vulnerable to infantry AV, completing the rock/paper/scissors. The issue most will have, is this requires teamwork, which is sorely lacking outside of player corporations. an MAV will decimate infantry formations without tank support, and tanks will be annihilated without an MAV for support. Infantry will of course be good against infantry, but the MAV more so.
Vyzion Eyri The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 1611	Posted - 2013.10.29 07:12:00 - [17] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: I can agree with the idea that Large Turrets should be primarily AV and Small Turrets should be primarily AP, but I still think that Small Turrets should be reasonably effective against Light Vehicles. So, would Medium Turrets be middle-ground? Missiles are currently very effective against LAVs and there won't be much changes to them. Small railguns are being buffed across the board so that means they're viable against installations/light vehicles too. Small blasters will be the AP of all AP turrets, and essentially should be glorified ARs mounted on a hardpoint with the gunner partially shielded by the vehicle. What I envisage the roles of each turret to be: NAME: % AV / % AP Large Blaster: 80% / 20% Large Missile: 90% / 10% Large Railgun 90% / 10% Small Blaster: 20% / 80% Small Missile: 25% / 75% Small Railgun: 40% / 60% And each turret's variants should essentially fill in the gaps between. ie. scattered blasters are more infantry than vehicle, compressed would be more vehicle than infantry, etc. And @Alena, I suppose you're right. We probably need a higher vehicle cap, bigger maps and more players per map before these changes really will be implemented. > "I will show you fear in a handful of dust." T.S. Eliot, The Wasteland
Ulysses Knapse Condotta Rouvenor Gallente Federation 541	Posted - 2013.10.29 07:23:00 - [18] - Quote Vyzion Eyri wrote: NAME: % AV / % AP Large Blaster: 80% / 20% Large Missile: 90% / 10% Large Railgun 90% / 10% Small Blaster: 20% / 80% Small Missile: 25% / 75% Small Railgun: 40% / 60% I see... Well, this is confusing. Roles aren't really defined by percentages, so this really doesn't tell me anything other than a very vague picture. I get the general idea, though. Humanity is the personification of change.
Ulysses Knapse Condotta Rouvenor Gallente Federation 541	Posted - 2013.10.29 07:35:00 - [19] - Quote I've just thought of something to alleviate the issues with Large Turrets being overly effective against infantry. In World of Tanks (bear with me here), your aiming reticule widens and your gun's accuracy diminish when you either A. move the turret or B. move the tank. When you remain stationary, your aiming reticule refocuses and your gun's accuracy slowly returns to normal. There is no such system in Dust 514, which means how well you can fire at something is completely dependent on your level of skill. While rewarding skill is certainly a positive thing, I personally think it makes it too easy for tankers to hit infantry. I say this mechanic should be added. Large Turrets would be the most affected by it, and Medium Turrets would be somewhat affected by it, while Small Turrets wouldn't be affected by it at all. Also, modules and bonuses that increase tracking speed would reduce this phenomenon. Any thoughts? Humanity is the personification of change.
Vyzion Eyri The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 1613	Posted - 2013.10.29 07:50:00 - [20] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: I've just thought of something to alleviate the issues with Large Turrets being overly effective against infantry. In World of Tanks (bear with me here), your aiming reticule widens and your gun's accuracy diminish when you either A. move the turret or B. move the tank. When you remain stationary, your aiming reticule refocuses and your gun's accuracy slowly returns to normal. There is no such system in Dust 514, which means how well you can fire at something is completely dependent on your level of skill. While rewarding skill is certainly a positive thing, I personally think it makes it too easy for tankers to hit infantry. I say this mechanic should be added. Large Turrets would be the most affected by it, and Medium Turrets would be somewhat affected by it, while Small Turrets wouldn't be affected by it at all. Also, modules and bonuses that increase tracking speed would reduce this phenomenon. Any thoughts? I like it, BUT this could be negated by the 'future tech' argument. Maybe projectile dispersion should increase based on whether or not you're taking damage. Taking more damage: bigger, unfocused reticle. Therefore the longer the tank withstands a pounding from AV, the more ineffective it gets in combat. How the reticle is restored to maximum potential is something to be discussed too though. Should it be based on the current percentage of HP the tank has, or should accuracy keep diminishing until the tank returns to 100% armour? Explanation could be repair nanites focus on survivability/mobility first and offensive capability last. And my bad with the percentages. To be honest all I wanted to show was whether the turret in question was better in AV or AP. > "I will show you fear in a handful of dust." T.S. Eliot, The Wasteland

Ulysses Knapse Condotta Rouvenor Gallente Federation 545	Posted - 2013.10.29 08:20:00 - [21] - Quote Vyzion Eyri wrote: I like it, BUT this could be negated by the 'future tech' argument. We've already seen how often balance is chosen over realism in Dust 514. Vyzion Eyri wrote: Maybe projectile dispersion should increase based on whether or not you're taking damage. Taking more damage: bigger, unfocused reticle. Therefore the longer the tank withstands a pounding from AV, the more ineffective it gets in combat. How the reticle is restored to maximum potential is something to be discussed too though. Should it be based on the current percentage of HP the tank has, or should accuracy keep diminishing until the tank returns to 100% armour? Explanation could be repair nanites focus on survivability/mobility first and offensive capability last. And my bad with the percentages. To be honest all I wanted to show was whether the turret in question was better in AV or AP. I don't think it's a good idea for HAVs, since they are supposed to be able to shoot under intense fire. Though I did have an interesting thought. When a turret gets hit directly (instead of the chassis, for example), it could suffer a penalty in the form of a "damage meter" (for simplicity's sake, it won't have a separate health bar, just a damage meter). The higher the damage meter, the less heat capacity the turret has, and the less accurate it is. When it's 50% damaged, for example, it can only handle 50% as much heat, loses 'focus' (let's call the reticule/accuracy mechanic that, shall we?) 50% faster, and regains focus 50% slower. When it hits 100% damage, it auto-overheats and isn't able to be used until the damage meter goes back down. The damage meter automatically goes down over time, and using a repair tool (infantry equipment) will remove damage from it more quickly (armor repairers won't repair it, as that would give an advantage to armor tankers. I also think this makes infantry more valuable to tankers). Humanity is the personification of change.
CLONE117 Planetary Response Organization Test Friends Please Ignore 437	Posted - 2013.10.29 15:06:00 - [22] - Quote large blasters r my favorite toy for my soma tank. they r best against infantry since u can pretty much spray and pray it. it turns the tank into a cqc tank. meaning it has to go into the fray to kill stuff. missile turrets? i feel they could use alittle more blast radius or splash damage sometimes but a single direct missile hit from a large missile turret can ohk some ppl. rail turrets? i would also like a bit larger blast radius for them im tired of having to get direct hits on everything id like to at least do a little damage if i get a close shot. thats how i feel on some of the turrets. i have no problem with the blaster turrets because i think they r fine where they r at but i dont see them instablapping much of anything. my times behind the control of a large blaster turret im either missing or experiencing hit detection problems with them as many times its taken several shots to kill a single player. im not talking about the adv turrets and above times damage mod stuff.. im mostly talking about the std stuff. when i say this. i feel the rapid fire blaster turret is best suited against infantry while the other 2 turret types are better against vehicles. with the missile being better in the mid range between the 2. i dont think the many suggestions proposed here would be good here as the hav as i see it currently is extremely expensive and if i were to compare it to the bf4 beta tank. the the gameplay was largely the same except the fact my dust tanking skills made my bf4 tank extremely deadly. u cant really do much pushing because of c4 but ive managed to rack up alot of kills against the enemy teams with it. only died when got surrounded by enemies. the way i see alot of the tanks function in dust is that very few will try to be brave. and the ones that do will die very fast if not fitted properly. i dont thinking changing hav funtions to be more similar to the bf tanks is a good idea it might just make the problem worse for every1 as those tanks r free and respawn every few minutes. the tanks we have, we have to purchase everything for them ourselves.
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Kinsho Swords Caldari State 35	Posted - 2013.10.29 15:26:00 - [23] - Quote [quote=Ulysses Knapse]HAVs. They are controversial vehicles, indeed. Why? HAVs DO NOT need: 1. The ability to hit small or fast moving targets with their main guns. (They are for destroying fortifications, not infantry.) 2. The ability to easily repair all damage dealt to them. (That's what retreating is for. They are offensive, not defensive.) Are you kidding me ???? You mentioned that they should be able to defend in this post and now you say " not defensive " . I don't understand that one . It should be an offensive and defensive force in war , just like in REAL WARS and REAL LIFE . I am ALWAYS glad to be able to DESTROY someone who brings a swarm launcher at not only myself but those who ride with me and MY TANK as well and to take away that option by " not being able to hit small or fast moving targets " , will see TOO many tanks being destroyed and people gravitating from using them . I KNOW I WOULD !!!!! I don't have money to waist and the tanks , mods and turrets are not cheep , not to mention the Olympic hurdles that you have to overcome to have your tank , pose as any type of force on the battle field. The main turret is ALREADY slow moving as it is , even more so depending on the Blaster or Cannon you use , so what do you wan't ??? If your constantly retreating then , WHAT KIND OF FORCE CAN YOU PRODUCE AND BECOME ???? If you don't have the damage repairers working like they do ( And it's not fast and sometimes the computer and programming requirements don't allow you to place the mods that one would place on their tank to become successful or feel comfortable even ) then that just sounds like , " MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN " and it seems like you HAVE A LOT . I DON'T !!!!!
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Kinsho Swords Caldari State 35	Posted - 2013.10.29 15:41:00 - [24] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: Vyzion Eyri wrote: I like it, BUT this could be negated by the 'future tech' argument. We've already seen how often balance is chosen over realism in Dust 514. I don't think it's a good idea for HAVs, since they are supposed to be able to shoot under intense fire. Though I did have an interesting thought. When a turret gets hit directly (instead of the chassis, for example), it could suffer a penalty in the form of a "damage meter" (for simplicity's sake, it won't have a separate health bar, just a damage meter). The higher the damage meter, the less heat capacity the turret has, and the less accurate it is. When it's 50% damaged, for example, it can only handle 50% as much heat, loses 'focus' (let's call the reticule/accuracy mechanic that, shall we?) 50% faster, and regains focus 50% slower. When it hits 100% damage, it auto-overheats and isn't able to be used until the damage meter goes back down. The damage meter automatically goes down over time, and using a repair tool (infantry equipment) will remove damage from it more quickly (armor repairers won't repair it, as that would give an advantage to armor tankers. I also think this makes infantry more valuable to tankers). You had me on the turrets until you talked about , " how the armor repairer shouldn't repair the turrets ." Then they should have a turret repairer ??? One more thing that you can't place on your tank due to the computer and programming capacity and also the slot limits . The turrets damaging effecting the performing overall makes since but they should be repairable and WITHOUT help from SQUAD MATES . What if your riding in an area where there are NO SQUAD MATES or an OPPOSING TANK and your alone , even more so , where there are a lot of opponents with swarms ???? YOU ARE TOAST !!!! NO REPAIRERS , NO LUCK , NO HOPE !!!!
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Kinsho Swords Caldari State 35	Posted - 2013.10.29 15:53:00 - [25] - Quote Nova Knife wrote: The problem is basically that CCP's trying to do pretty much everything, with everything. If you ignore the terrible balance relationship between HAV survivability and AV weapons for a moment, and consider the HAV. Literally every large turrets' damage numbers are balanced around taking out other vehicles, whilst still being able to combat infantry. Those numbers in turn when used against infantry mean that they're pretty much always going to get instablapped by HAV, creating the 'unfun' experience. CCP's all about toting the 'side grade', so why isn't there AV and AP variants of the turrets that allow a pilot to excel in one of the two, and disadvantage themselves against the other? If specialization is indeed the key, then an 'all around' tank should (In equal circumstances, even though those do not exist) be less ideal and lose against an AV spec tank, whereas that AV spec tank will have a harder time killing infantry (Though ideally not impossible) and likewise with an AP spec tank having a hard time killing an AV spec or 'all around' tank in turn. I do not think "HAV" qualifies as a role in and of itself, and that unless CCP allows for an actual specialization, we're always going to be struggling to find a good place for HAV to shine on the grand scheme of balance. If we set aside the 'real life' examples of what tanks do, I think it's safe to assume that in a video game that will always be pretty much completely out the window. In certain competitive environments you might see some pretty amazing and organized infantry + tank maneuvers, but at the end of the day while you should aim for high end play when doing balancing work, if you set that bar at the /very top/ then you uaually fail to account for the daily 'stupid factor' of the majority of people on the internet, which will pretty much break any illusions you had about how people will use your stuff. (Failing to account for stupid and/or player greed has been one of CCP's greatest shortcomings in terms of gameplay design and balance thus far) AGREED. Well represented and spoken , but I have seen and done it myself where I wasn't instablapped so it can be done. Just listen for that sound and RUN !!!!!
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Kinsho Swords Caldari State 35	Posted - 2013.10.29 15:56:00 - [26] - Quote Oswald Rehnquist wrote: Someone phrased this best, but the new roles of HAVs are what was described as 2 min / sporadic battering rams with how active modules are going to change. So HAV pilot main role is essentially going to function as stall breakers. THAT SUCKS !!!! It's a shame that it has to be that way too .
shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon 852	Posted - 2013.10.29 17:59:00 - [27] - Quote Don't mess with our role on the battlefield. WE ARE BAITS "Just another piece of duct tape" Equality Event
CELESTA AUNGM Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 30	Posted - 2013.10.29 18:15:00 - [28] - 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.
Ulysses Knapse Condotta Rouvenor Gallente Federation 546	Posted - 2013.10.29 20:26:00 - [29] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: You had me on the turrets until you talked about , " how the armor repairer shouldn't repair the turrets ." Then they should have a turret repairer ??? One more thing that you can't place on your tank due to the computer and programming capacity and also the slot limits . The turrets damaging effecting the performing overall makes since but they should be repairable and WITHOUT help from SQUAD MATES I'm not sure if you've seen this, but... Ulysses Knapse wrote: The damage meter automatically goes down over time I said this already. Furthermore, it was in the middle of the post, which I know you read from start to finish. Humanity is the personification of change.
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Kinsho Swords Caldari State 39	Posted - 2013.10.29 22:53:00 - [30] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: You had me on the turrets until you talked about , " how the armor repairer shouldn't repair the turrets ." Then they should have a turret repairer ??? One more thing that you can't place on your tank due to the computer and programming capacity and also the slot limits . The turrets damaging effecting the performing overall makes since but they should be repairable and WITHOUT help from SQUAD MATES I'm not sure if you've seen this, but... Ulysses Knapse wrote: The damage meter automatically goes down over time I said this already. Furthermore, it was in the middle of the post, which I know you read from start to finish. I did but " over time " ??? How do you define that ???? Is it like if you had your shields knocked out and you don't have a charger mod or shield booster available so it's like , tic ... tock ... tic , aw come on already ???? The way you had the scenario going made it seem like if you didn't have support and you were to encounter another tank or swarms or even a few forge gunners and troops with av's ( just the luck you need and that can happen even now to someone who doesn't have the RIGHT mods ) then you will be dead in a heartbeat ???? It just seemed like there was no way that you had given to speed up this process without personal to support you . " Doubts are like flies and should be crushed !!!!!! " I hope that I am THE FLY SWATTER of those in my presence .

True Adamance PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 3752	Posted - 2013.10.29 22:58:00 - [31] - Quote I was always of the opinion that the HAV's role should have been. 1.) Anti Vehicle 2.) Breaching the Enemies Lines (aka Anti Infantry) 3.) Mobile Artillery And due to this my question always was why do we even have large blaster turrets, why don't we have Main Battle Cannons, single shot, multi shot mag, AoE rounds. Tanks just don't feel right when they can spray and pray as they see fit and when one turret, the large blaster is king. Why not have 2 types of turret. Assault Turrets- Much large ammo cap, Artillery Vibe, wider AoE but lesser direct damage Battle Cannon Turrets- High Alpha, lowered ammo counts, moderate AoE E.G Caldari Tanks Assault Turret- Heavy Missile Turrets Battle Cannon Turret- Rail Guns Amarr Assault Turret- Flayer Launcher Battle Cannon Turret- Heavy Laser Beam or Arc Cannon "All things were created by the Divine, and so the glory of our faith is inherent to us all"
Jrakraa5 ZilchmobZ Industries 15	Posted - 2013.10.29 23:09:00 - [32] - Quote the only problem is that in real life you don't have just a lone tank or two. they rely on each other for support and we don't have that in this game. what people need to do is realize a single tank is better on the hit and run than a whole out firefight. unless you skill into modules your best chance is a mid to long range guerrilla warfare style fighting. that's all there is too it. Recruiting at ZilchMobZ Industries. visit my site here! ZilchMobZ
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Kinsho Swords Caldari State 39	Posted - 2013.10.29 23:10:00 - [33] - Quote I am not knocking your concept . Like I said , " it's a good ideal " but when you talk about , personal in exchange for repairers ( so to speak ) I had to just disagree on that point , that's all . You know as someone who uses tanks , that you are not always around people and to speak plainly , they can go places that HAV's can't and normally they ( people ) do . They don't always stay together and I just don't see someone walking and running around following a tank especially if another tank is heading in that direction , even with a swarm launcher . Not saying it's not possible , just saying that I don't see it . " Doubts are like flies and should be crushed !!!!!! " I hope that I am THE FLY SWATTER of those in my presence .
Jrakraa5 ZilchmobZ Industries 15	Posted - 2013.10.29 23:16:00 - [34] - Quote i think a lot of times when people think there op they forget how much these vehicle cost to run. i use a falchion that's got mostly proto on it and ill looking at 8k hp. i'm also looking at around 2.5 to 3 million in isk per vehicle. i better sure as hell take quite a few hits before i go down! Recruiting at ZilchMobZ Industries. visit my site here! ZilchMobZ
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Kinsho Swords Caldari State 39	Posted - 2013.10.29 23:29:00 - [35] - Quote I like blasters and that's part of the appeal of the HAV's for me . If they were just cannons ( especially on this game ) with the way people can boost their speed and how they can jump and the unpredictability of your adversary , blasters are a perfect tool . It's like crowd control . Yeah they can get away but they will suffer some damage . I have hit people with my scattered neutron cannon and it just seems like the magically survive by some fluke . It HAS to be RIGHT on them for them to die and I MEAN RIGHT on them .That's why I can agree when it comes to those who say that they need to increase the splash damage at least . " Doubts are like flies and should be crushed !!!!!! " I hope that I am THE FLY SWATTER of those in my presence .
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Kinsho Swords Caldari State 39	Posted - 2013.10.29 23:31:00 - [36] - Quote Jrakraa5 wrote: i think a lot of times when people think there op they forget how much these vehicle cost to run. i use a falchion that's got mostly proto on it and ill looking at 8k hp. i'm also looking at around 2.5 to 3 million in isk per vehicle. i better sure as hell take quite a few hits before i go down! That's all I'm saying . " Doubts are like flies and should be crushed !!!!!! " I hope that I am THE FLY SWATTER of those in my presence .
True Adamance PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 3756	Posted - 2013.10.29 23:49:00 - [37] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: I like blasters and that's part of the appeal of the HAV's for me . If they were just cannons ( especially on this game ) with the way people can boost their speed and how they can jump and the unpredictability of your adversary , blasters are a perfect tool . It's like crowd control . Yeah they can get away but they will suffer some damage . I have hit people with my scattered neutron cannon and it just seems like the magically survive by some fluke . It HAS to be RIGHT on them for them to die and I MEAN RIGHT on them .That's why I can agree when it comes to those who say that they need to increase the splash damage at least . Yeah but I feel they destroy the purpose of a tank. medium to long range delivery of incredible ordinance. There are reasons why Tanks don't simply rock up to other tanks and broadside them. Currently I think the Blaster is cool and all but unbalanced as hell. Would you settle for a big nerf to RoF, Damage buffs to say 900 per shot and smaller proposed clip sizes from say 80 down to 8, with an AoE effect now. Most Tank engagements happen as point blanc range... no strategy other than can I get behind him or are my modules better. The idea to make one blaster round the equivalent of 10 rapid fire ones for longer, more engaging, and realistic tank battles and to balance against infantry. AKA- Infantry don't survive a ******* 100+mm cannon to the guts, they can dodge, but damage to infantry is done more with AoE than direct damage. "All things were created by the Divine, and so the glory of our faith is inherent to us all"
Ulysses Knapse Condotta Rouvenor Gallente Federation 548	Posted - 2013.10.30 07:31:00 - [38] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Ulysses Knapse wrote: Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: You had me on the turrets until you talked about , " how the armor repairer shouldn't repair the turrets ." Then they should have a turret repairer ??? One more thing that you can't place on your tank due to the computer and programming capacity and also the slot limits . The turrets damaging effecting the performing overall makes since but they should be repairable and WITHOUT help from SQUAD MATES I'm not sure if you've seen this, but... Ulysses Knapse wrote: The damage meter automatically goes down over time I said this already. Furthermore, it was in the middle of the post, which I know you read from start to finish. I did but " over time " ??? How do you define that ???? Is it like if you had your shields knocked out and you don't have a charger mod or shield booster available so it's like , tic ... tock ... tic , aw come on already ???? The way you had the scenario going made it seem like if you didn't have support and you were to encounter another tank or swarms or even a few forge gunners and troops with av's ( just the luck you need and that can happen even now to someone who doesn't have the RIGHT mods ) then you will be dead in a heartbeat ???? It just seemed like there was no way that you had given to speed up this process without personal to support you . "Over time" is a very, very simple term. Unless specified, it almost always means gradually over time. Secondly, I didn't specify how long it would take because I'm not good with pulling statistics out of my arse. Thirdly, that's right, there's no way to repair it faster using vehicle modules (because that would be such an incredibly situational module that it wouldn't be worth it). Fourthly, why do you assume it will be easy to take a turret out of commission? They aren't made out of paper mache, you have to do quite a bit of direct damage to the turret or it won't be disabled at all. It would usually be a better idea to simply do whatever does the most damage to the HAV instead of disabling it's turret. Humanity is the personification of change.
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Kinsho Swords Caldari State 41	Posted - 2013.10.31 00:22:00 - [39] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Ulysses Knapse wrote: Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: You had me on the turrets until you talked about , " how the armor repairer shouldn't repair the turrets ." Then they should have a turret repairer ??? One more thing that you can't place on your tank due to the computer and programming capacity and also the slot limits . The turrets damaging effecting the performing overall makes since but they should be repairable and WITHOUT help from SQUAD MATES I'm not sure if you've seen this, but... Ulysses Knapse wrote: The damage meter automatically goes down over time I said this already. Furthermore, it was in the middle of the post, which I know you read from start to finish. I did but " over time " ??? How do you define that ???? Is it like if you had your shields knocked out and you don't have a charger mod or shield booster available so it's like , tic ... tock ... tic , aw come on already ???? The way you had the scenario going made it seem like if you didn't have support and you were to encounter another tank or swarms or even a few forge gunners and troops with av's ( just the luck you need and that can happen even now to someone who doesn't have the RIGHT mods ) then you will be dead in a heartbeat ???? It just seemed like there was no way that you had given to speed up this process without personal to support you . "Over time" is a very, very simple term. Unless specified, it almost always means gradually over time. Secondly, I didn't specify how long it would take because I'm not good with pulling statistics out of my arse. Thirdly, that's right, there's no way to repair it faster using vehicle modules (because that would be such an incredibly situational module that it wouldn't be worth it). Fourthly, why do you assume it will be easy to take a turret out of commission? They aren't made out of paper mache, you have to do quite a bit of direct damage to the turret or it won't be disabled at all. It would usually be a better idea to simply do whatever does the most damage to the HAV instead of disabling it's turret. How would an turret repair mod be situational if this is something that you have suggested ???? ( i.e. turret damage ) Shouldn't a tank user have a way to repair something that effects his or her tank's performance ??? Shouldn't that become an option ...???... just like your proposal ??? A turret is a part of a tank and actually one of the MAIN parts of it because it produces offence and defense and without the turrets , what is it then ???? They are made of paper mache as you have stated . Try using a SICA or a SOMA even with advance turrets and mods and see how far that will get you . THEY ARE HORRIABLE and are not worthy of being called tanks . But I guess that's why they are re-working the vehicles . I'm going to stop commenting on this topic because clearly you don't understand me and vise versa . I just felt that as a tank user , that maybe I could add something but it's clear that I was wrong . Good luck . " Doubts are like flies and should be crushed !!!!!! " I hope that I am THE FLY SWATTER of those in my presence .
Vyzion Eyri The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 1641	Posted - 2013.10.31 00:37:00 - [40] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: I don't think it's a good idea for HAVs, since they are supposed to be able to shoot under intense fire.. For HAVs to be able to put out damage under intense fire. This would be a key role for HAVs, so there we go. Progression has been made amongst debate. The ability to shoot under fire implies it can TAKE substantial amounts of damage (another key role of HAVs, I'd say) as opposed to being instapopped by AV (as can happen to some tanks currently) and I feel if it isn't penalised in some way after taking lots of damage, it's role becomes something too broad, and hence too powerful. What I envisaged with my suggestion with accuracy reduction as you take damage is that in a tank 1v1, eventually both tanks cripple each other so severely that neither can 'finish off' the other. That's when the battle comes down to which side has infantry supporting the tank. The shield/armour balance comes into it through the fact that only armour damage reduces accuracy. Armour tanks have the capability to repair armour damage and return to fights (endurance) with restored accuracy, whereas shield tanks who take little armour damage assuming they get away from fights just as their shields are depleted lose accuracy and cannot restore it independently; they need infantry with a repper, another remote repairing vehicle or a supply depot. BTW: I only tank on an alt. with about 4m SP. My experience with HAVs is limited to that and a little dabbling in Chromosome, so there may be some... inaccuracies in my assumptions. > "I will show you fear in a handful of dust." T.S. Eliot, The Wasteland

Ulysses Knapse duna corp 615	Posted - 2013.10.31 00:59:00 - [41] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: How would an turret repair mod be situational if this is something that you have suggested ???? ( i.e. turret damage ) Shouldn't a tank user have a way to repair something that effects his or her tank's performance ??? Shouldn't that become an option ...???... just like your proposal ??? A turret is a part of a tank and actually one of the MAIN parts of it because it produces offence and defense and without the turrets , what is it then ???? 1. Unless the enemy is intentionally targeting your turret, the amount of damage it will take is minimal. 2. Even if the turret is targeted, it likely won't be disabled, just weakened. 3. You're in more danger of having your HAV popped than you are of having your turret disabled. 4. It's better to have an extra slot for tanking than to waste a slot for "just in case". Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: They are made of paper mache as you have stated . Try using a SICA or a SOMA even with advance turrets and mods and see how far that will get you . THEY ARE HORRIABLE and are not worthy of being called tanks . But I guess that's why they are re-working the vehicles . When did I imply that I was talking about the vehicles themselves? I thought it would be understood by the context that I was referring to the turrets. Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: I'm going to stop commenting on this topic because clearly you don't understand me. That's just your assumption. I understand what you are saying, but I'm trying to tell you that it's not that big of a problem. As I have already said, even if your turret is being targeted in an attempt to disable it, keeping your tank alive is a bigger priority than keeping your gun in peak condition because 1. turrets wouldn't be that easy to disable and 2. even if your turret is disabled, you don't auto-pop. Humanity is the personification of change.
Negris Albedo Nuevo Atlas Corporation 32	Posted - 2013.11.23 14:01:00 - [42] - Quote +1.
Samael Artico Company of Marcher Lords Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2013.11.24 01:58:00 - [43] - Quote I agree. HAVs clearly have no defined role. CCP needs to do better research.
Ulysses Knapse Knapse and Co. Mercenary Firm 817	Posted - 2013.12.20 05:27:00 - [44] - Quote Bump. What's the difference between an immobile Minmatar ship and a pile of garbage? The pile of garbage looks nicer.
Jrakraa5 ZilchmobZ Industries 26	Posted - 2013.12.21 00:03:00 - [45] - Quote Nova Knife wrote: The problem is basically that CCP's trying to do pretty much everything, with everything. If you ignore the terrible balance relationship between HAV survivability and AV weapons for a moment, and consider the HAV. Literally every large turrets' damage numbers are balanced around taking out other vehicles, whilst still being able to combat infantry. Those numbers in turn when used against infantry mean that they're pretty much always going to get instablapped by HAV, creating the 'unfun' experience. CCP's all about toting the 'side grade', so why isn't there AV and AP variants of the turrets that allow a pilot to excel in one of the two, and disadvantage themselves against the other? If specialization is indeed the key, then an 'all around' tank should (In equal circumstances, even though those do not exist) be less ideal and lose against an AV spec tank, whereas that AV spec tank will have a harder time killing infantry (Though ideally not impossible) and likewise with an AP spec tank having a hard time killing an AV spec or 'all around' tank in turn. I do not think "HAV" qualifies as a role in and of itself, and that unless CCP allows for an actual specialization, we're always going to be struggling to find a good place for HAV to shine on the grand scheme of balance. If we set aside the 'real life' examples of what tanks do, I think it's safe to assume that in a video game that will always be pretty much completely out the window. In certain competitive environments you might see some pretty amazing and organized infantry + tank maneuvers, but at the end of the day while you should aim for high end play when doing balancing work, if you set that bar at the /very top/ then you uaually fail to account for the daily 'stupid factor' of the majority of people on the internet, which will pretty much break any illusions you had about how people will use your stuff. (Failing to account for stupid and/or player greed has been one of CCP's greatest shortcomings in terms of gameplay design and balance thus far) AV TANK: railgun. INFANTRY TANK: Blaster. seems simple to me. Member of ZilchMobZ Industries. we have EVE pilots! join today! FacebookZilchmobz
Ulysses Knapse Knapse and Co. Mercenary Firm 846	Posted - 2013.12.21 00:34:00 - [46] - Quote Jrakraa5 wrote: AV TANK: railgun. INFANTRY TANK: Blaster. seems simple to me. Uh, don't you understand why that concept is broken? What's the difference between an immobile Minmatar ship and a pile of garbage? The pile of garbage looks nicer.


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.