|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
213
   |
Posted - 2013.12.11 07:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
I destroyed a tank last night. Well that's not entirely true - WE destroyed a tank, all six of us, including another tank. It took 4 players with swarms to get the tank to retreat, and by chance a Forge gunner was on the other side of the bridge firing with a clear line of sight on the retreating tank, and even after this, a blueberry tank gave chase and managed to finish it off. Six people - one tank.
First of all, this seems like a high ratio of AV / Tank.
If we start looking at numbers:
- opposing team deploys a tank -> you deploy 4 AV (assuming they are coordinated and well equipped)
OR you deploy a tank of equal strength
- opposing team deploys two tanks -> you deploy 8 AV (if they are to be countered simultaneously)
OR you deploy two tanks
Naturally, the side fielding AV now has a reduced anti-infantry capacity. To level this, they can either deploy tanks OR not deploy AV at all - but thereby losing their anti-vehicle capacity, leaving an unstoppable anti-infantry machine roaming the map faster than any infantry can cover.
What this has done has created a type of zero-sum game: If I can deploy more vehicles than you, then I have the advantage on the field.
So now my side races to deploy as many vehicles as is allowed before you can deploy yours, and capitalize on those gains with the massive speed these provide (I can transport small numbers of infantry too, which will be used for capturing objectives if necessary, but now the infantry are peripheral to the action).
This has effectively transformed an INFANTRY based game into a VEHICLE based game, which it isn't or else there would be no limit on the number of vehicles we could deploy and also the terrain isn't entirely optimised for vehicles (numerous indoor areas, although last night I saw creative driving that put them in areas they previously could not go).
It's clear the current situation isn't optimal. Admiringly, the community has come up with a sandbox solution to a design issue - attaching RE's to LAV's and using these as missiles. It's pretty inspiring to see people try it, but it's very touch and go (tank just speeds out of the way, LAV gets destroyed, etc.) Having said that, I think it shows there is a disparity when people are creating their own AV solutions when those that are exclusively meant to destroy vehicles just simply do not work.
I'll leave the community to suggest solutions that don't swing the pendulum back to the other extreme -> one man Anti-vehicle killing machines... this is not ideal either. I feel we haven't found the sweet spot yet, but feel free to suggest your fixes.
Keep it constructive please. :)
|
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
214
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 08:08:00 -
[2] - Quote
T8R Raid wrote:12 RE's, One LAV, One Supply Depot, Suit-swapping = one hilariously destroyed tank
I admire your ingenuity. :)
|
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
214
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 08:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
crazy space 1 wrote:Hey! Didn't you read the dev blog? Quote:Quote:We felt that the HAVGÇÖs were simply not yet enjoyable enough to drive. They often felt heavy and unresponsive and this produced more frustration than it did convey a sense of weight and power. Aside from the pure fun aspect, their low speed and sluggish handling also made it hard for pilots to react to the changing pace of battle. This meant they were not fulfilling their most basic functionality. Namely, to help break through entrenched enemy positions by destroying installation turrets, scatter ground forces and support infantry assaults by forcing the enemy to react and bring in AV weaponry of their own. Overall, HAVs are now a little more nimble, can get to critical battlefield locations quicker, donGÇÖt take damage from every little bump, and, hopefully, more fun to drive.
I don't think they support infantry assaults anymore - I believe the infantry support the vehicle assaults. |
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
215
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 08:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote:Vehicle capacitors. Balance them around cap.
Interesting idea. Or maybe longer cooldowns on the modules? I don't know why, but it seems that shields regenerate passively even though hit by swarms.... not sure if this was intended or not? |
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
215
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 09:00:00 -
[5] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Justicar Karnellia wrote:
This has effectively transformed an INFANTRY based game into a VEHICLE based game,
This was never an infantry-only or vehicle-only game. That kind of mindset poisoned the whole playerbase, and led to the near lifetime of nerfs that tanks suffered. Also, how is it unfair to force you to take out AV? That's a childish thing to say.
Hey there.
I don't think it's unfair to force infantry to change to an AV build. What I do find unfair is even with 3-4 of them switching to an exclusively AV build, it still doesn't nullify the one vehicle (manned by usually one person). There should be a natural counter, it probably wasn't a natural counter when it was one AV vs one tank (although some might argue this is fair), but 4 or more AV is a bit much don't you think?
Also, there's nothing wrong with having a hybrid infantry/vehicle game - battlefield balances this perfectly, but Dust hasn't found that sweet spot. I didn't say it was infantry only or vehicle only. To me, Dust is infantry based with vehicles in a support role, as CCP themselves say (again, if they played a central role, why limit them).
Anyway more fuel for the fire. :)
|
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 10:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
Yagihige wrote:crazy space 1 wrote:I love how we don't have webs yet I'm hoping this was designed with webs in mind and hopefully they're being worked on and deployed into the game soon enough. Those things could play a major part in AV tactics.
Yeah, this would be interesting... slowing the tank down would at least mitigate the "speed tanking" part which negates most AV now. |
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 10:06:00 -
[7] - Quote
Chesyre Armundsen wrote:Then you have a game where only tanks get deployed... its not Tanks 514
Yes, this is quite important. If the tank is the only best counter to another tank, and the tank in general wipes out infantry AND counter tanks, then it's a race to get all your tanks out before the opponent. |
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
218
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 10:09:00 -
[8] - Quote
*waves honeyed lamb about desperately for CCP wolfman* |
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
220
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 10:23:00 -
[9] - Quote
Medic 1879 wrote:Also based on my experiences yesterday I hardly ever saw anyone switch to swarms when tanks appeared, in 1.6 the second a tank appeared people would switch to proto swarms thinking oh goody 150WP (I did this as well) yesterday I have seen very few people switch to AV now this could be due to a few reasons, maybe people are too busy playing with the new rifles to switch to AV, or people have seen the swarm nerf and decided swarms are useless now and don't even try.
I admit I'm always one of the first to pull out AV whenever I see a tank/dropship, but by the end of last night I moved on into "not my problem" territory and just let the tank do its thing while I busied myself elsewhere with things I could actually kill. Like I said, the only kill of the night was the one described in the very first post , and it seemed more out of luck than any co-ordination.
|
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
220
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 10:31:00 -
[10] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Crimson Cerberes wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Jack McReady wrote:everyone and their mother already pointed out what is wrong with it in this thread. thanks for admitting that you dont even bother to properly read what others wrote, your can say goodbye to your credibility forever  Because what other people post is insane. Nuclear baseballs? Mining equipment more powerful than a gun that has a range measured in miles? Homing AV that still has rendering issues? I know who's biased, and it's not us. Seriously? Ok so what do you think: Are tanks op now? Should tanks not require teamwork to use, but require tons of teamwork to counter? Should tanks have a counter (please for the love of god don't say tanks are the counter to tanks)? Your answers to these questions would prove how biased or not you are. None of you ever provide a reason as to why tanks shouldn't be their own best counter. What should CCP balance this game on? Ambush? Or Faction Warfare and Planetary Conquest? Should they balance this on the thought that each team will have tanks, or that one team will have 5 and the other none, plus no AV, and make them weak accordingly?
Actually I think many posters did this - If the tank is best counter against another tank, then this will mean everyone will bring out as many tanks as possible (keeping in mind a tank can also destroy any and all type of infantry, regardless of fit, bar none). I don't believe this is in the best interests of the game, do you?
(try and keep it constructive)
|
|
|
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
220
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 10:48:00 -
[11] - Quote
Seriously?
Ok so what do you think:
Are tanks op now?
Should tanks not require teamwork to use, but require tons of teamwork to counter?
Should tanks have a counter (please for the love of god don't say tanks are the counter to tanks)?
Your answers to these questions would prove how biased or not you are.
[/quote]
None of you ever provide a reason as to why tanks shouldn't be their own best counter. What should CCP balance this game on? Ambush? Or Faction Warfare and Planetary Conquest? Should they balance this on the thought that each team will have tanks, or that one team will have 5 and the other none, plus no AV, and make them weak accordingly?[/quote]
Actually I think many posters did this - If the tank is best counter against another tank, then this will mean everyone will bring out as many tanks as possible (keeping in mind a tank can also destroy any and all type of infantry, regardless of fit, bar none). I don't believe this is in the best interests of the game, do you?
(try and keep it constructive)
[/quote]
How is it a bad thing?[/quote]
You mean there is no problem with a tank that can kill everything in the game and can not be countered by anything else, apart from another tank?
|
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
220
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 10:54:00 -
[12] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Justicar Karnellia wrote:Seriously?
Ok so what do you think:
Are tanks op now?
Should tanks not require teamwork to use, but require tons of teamwork to counter?
Should tanks have a counter (please for the love of god don't say tanks are the counter to tanks)?
Your answers to these questions would prove how biased or not you are.
None of you ever provide a reason as to why tanks shouldn't be their own best counter. What should CCP balance this game on? Ambush? Or Faction Warfare and Planetary Conquest? Should they balance this on the thought that each team will have tanks, or that one team will have 5 and the other none, plus no AV, and make them weak accordingly?
Actually I think many posters did this - If the tank is best counter against another tank, then this will mean everyone will bring out as many tanks as possible (keeping in mind a tank can also destroy any and all type of infantry, regardless of fit, bar none). I don't believe this is in the best interests of the game, do you?
(try and keep it constructive)
[/quote]
How is it a bad thing?[/quote]
You mean there is no problem with a tank that can kill everything in the game and can not be countered by anything else, apart from another tank?
[/quote]
You're not a tanker so you wouldn't understand.[/quote]
Tha'ts not really a coherent reply, but you've posted enough so we understand your position. thanks.
|
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
228
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 14:34:00 -
[13] - Quote
IraqiFriendshipExplosive wrote:Look im not saying there isnt balance issue. God dont get me started.
All I am saying, hand on heart is that with my character - CommanderBolt , earlier this morning I joined into a random pub match and to begin with it was me and one other dude vs like 4 tanks.
As the match progressed more people joined. I decided I needed something to deal with the tanks so i ran to the nearest supply depot and got out my forge gun suit.
First tank was driving past my position, charge.... hit. 2nd charge..... hit, 3rd charge and he blew up.
second tank was being called in (Might have even been the same guy) 1st and 2nd shots hit him while it was still being dropped off via RDV, 3rd hit blew him up just as he got in.
Third tank was mobile, had no idea where I was, 3 shots ALL in his rear end, I was surprised I got this one as I thought he had pulled enough range.
4th tank I KNOW i had help from someone else as in-between my forge shots the tank was losing chunks of health.
Forge gunning is the ONLY viable way to kill tanks as far as I can see. Then I have always thought forges are the bets weapon all round if I'm honest.
I was obviously lucky, but if CCP can dig up the battle records I would be happy to prove I got the 3 tank kills with a 4th being shared. It is not impossible to kill tanks, HOWEVER if the tanker knows where you are he can probably just drive away with that crazy F1 car speed!!
I'd say well done - it does seem that way.... better go grab my forge gun...
|
|
|
| |
|