IAmDuncanIdaho II wrote:Shijima Kuraimaru wrote:I see your manipulation attempt.
I could agree with you if all weapons were a legitimate threat to vehicles. However, part of your vehicle advantage is that all weapons, except the few AV weapons, have their damage reduced by more than 75% when used against vehicles. That on top of ten times more EHP and a higher top speed than a speed fit scout gives vehicles, even the HAV, some nice advantages.
You see my manipulation attempt? I'm not following...I can't see it. Can you explain how I'm manipulating something? Ihttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tankttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tankdidn't intend to do that so I'd like to know. I'm not clear on what you're saying here. You can't seriously think a scrambler pistol should be able to damage a HAV can you? That's a logical extension of what you appear to be advocating.
For the record, I'm not a vehicle guy, so don't make assumptions. I am coming from a point of view that would like to see balance in the game, so that stuff can be added quickly instead of going around in circles carrying buff / nerf hammers and waiting months on end for progress. So I'd really like to understand how I might be making my life as infantry harder in an unbalanced way.
I'm following the points you're making, but I can't see how they make the vehicle / infantry relationship balanced. Vehicles *are* and *should be* an advantage in specific ways, shouldn't they? Just like infantry are. The trick is to get these differences right, whilst still keeping them different. Dictating that because A can't do something, then neither should B be able to, reduces variety and gets you closer to a scenario where the cheapest thing you can do is also the best thing.
You can't win a game involving hacking null cannons if everybody ran vehicles and never got out of them. So, for example, 0whatwdo you see (I'm assuming you are an infantry guy too) a tank's role in the game as? How should they be utilised on the field?
Looks like we misread each other then.
What I'm trying to say is that sure, vehicles are supposed to have some advantages. LAVs have speed, dropships have flight and troop carrying capacity, and HAVs have large turrets. All vehicles get seventy-five plus percent resistance to small arms, are faster than infantry, have better EHP (except for the LAV when compared to a proto EHP speced sentinal), and HAV's have about ten times the average EHP than the average assault.
Weapons made specifically for use against vehicles shouldn't be made to have little to no effect. Infantry who fit AV are at a disadvantage against other non-AV infantry. That sacrifice should allow a counterbalance to vehicle advantages. AV should always be a legitimate threat to vehicles, not just an annoyance. If you want to consider it an advantage, AV infantry's only advantages over vehicles is that they're smaller and more likely able to utilize terrain for cover, while wielding low ammo capacity weapons that should be effective versus vehicles without having to use more than twenty-five percent of their base total ammo capacity.
With the state the game is in right now, specifically team size, it is unreasonable to call for the creation of a norm where three plus mercs have to dedicate to AV to threaten a solo pilot and his HAV/dropship.
Other games I've played a heavy slow fire AV role in, I've taken out enemy vehicles in two to three shots, sometimes even one. This is the only game I've ever played where, on average, I have to reload to finish a HAV while using the most effective AV weapon providing it doesn't escape while I'm reloading.
As it's going to stand in 1.7, Vehicles (maybe just HAV's) will have short "windows of opportunity" when the vehicles will shine and be nearly indestructible. Between those "windows" the AV will shine. Both sides of the line will have to consider their opportunities to press their advantage.