DUST Search - AV Not so try hards

Kallas Hallytyr wrote:

A single AV user versus a single vehicle user is not a simple equation: active vehicle modules, cooldowns; passive dropsuit modules; weapons; terrain, map layout, installations, ammo/loaded clip, etc. There are many things that can have a serious impact on how and when a vehicle is vulnerable.

Also bear in mind that both have significant advantages over the other:

HAVs:
+ Faster than infantry
+ More powerful weaponry
+ Periods of power
- Reduced manoeuvrability (less capable of traversing tight spaces, for example)
- Limited awareness (vehicle visibility is more restricted)
- Periods of vulnerability

Dropships:
+ Greatly increased manoeuvrability and speed
+ Periods of power
- Easy target acquisition (less cover for aerial vehicles, for example)
- Periods of vulnerability

Infantry:
+ Increased manoeuvrability (can access interiors for protection, for example)
+ Flexibility in engagement terms (ability to use environment, to generate ambushes for example)
- Inferior survivability
- Less powerful weaponry (makes engagement risky without stacking odds in some form)

This isn't comprehensive, and I'm not the most well versed in AV-vehicle balance but these are what I can see as intended principles of vehicle combat. But assuming these, it seems that a lot of discussion around balance ignores a lot of the environmental and situational factors which are supposed to play a part.

Blaster HAV caught your Forge Gunner in a relatively open field with active modules available? Then your Forge Gunner should probably lose.
Forge Gunner ambushes a Rail HAV retreating with modules in cooldown? Tank should probably blow up.

Did the tank get caught on terrain? Did it need to slow down and turn, limiting it's manoeuvrability? Did the AVer jump in close and stand still? There are a lot of things that alter the balance on a situational basis. Personally speaking, I feel that HAV speed needs tweaking (Gallente need slower acceleration, Caldari need slower top speed) and AV needs a slight buff to Swarms (damage needs to return to 330, range is good) while Forge Guns need to get a slight revamp to make non-Assault variants viable.

But that's me trying to be reasonable. I'll show myself out...

Edit:
For reference, I am primarily an infantry (Logistics) with a new focus on Assault Dropships (which is what I always wanted to be, but because of the gamestate when I first began did not skill into them) while I use HAVs (primarily Sicas) as my anti-armour. Judge that as you will, but I am trying to be fair in my assessments.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Stinker Butt Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 187	Posted - 2013.12.14 19:27:00 - [1] - Quote Justice Prevails wrote: Lol. And the argument just keeps going and going and going............. :-) You guys are awesome. Never get bored with tank/av threads. I haven't actually seen any valid argument from the tanker perspective yet. What I have heard so far: You should adapt you should use teamwork - lots of it you should drive a tank too you should adapt - again I killed a tank solo, so they must be fine tanks don't bother me, so they must be fine Adapt! FFS Problem is that all of these are just opinions and you can't convince someone that they're wrong when they're happy about it. I would love to hear a logical reason as to why tanks are currently balanced. If it's just your opinion, then everyone is going to poke holes in it and it will get you nowhere.
Stinker Butt Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 187	Posted - 2013.12.14 20:14:00 - [2] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: A single AV user versus a single vehicle user is not a simple equation: active vehicle modules, cooldowns; passive dropsuit modules; weapons; terrain, map layout, installations, ammo/loaded clip, etc. There are many things that can have a serious impact on how and when a vehicle is vulnerable. Also bear in mind that both have significant advantages over the other: HAVs: + Faster than infantry + More powerful weaponry + Periods of power - Reduced manoeuvrability (less capable of traversing tight spaces, for example) - Limited awareness (vehicle visibility is more restricted) - Periods of vulnerability Dropships: + Greatly increased manoeuvrability and speed + Periods of power - Easy target acquisition (less cover for aerial vehicles, for example) - Periods of vulnerability Infantry: + Increased manoeuvrability (can access interiors for protection, for example) + Flexibility in engagement terms (ability to use environment, to generate ambushes for example) - Inferior survivability - Less powerful weaponry (makes engagement risky without stacking odds in some form) This isn't comprehensive, and I'm not the most well versed in AV-vehicle balance but these are what I can see as intended principles of vehicle combat. But assuming these, it seems that a lot of discussion around balance ignores a lot of the environmental and situational factors which are supposed to play a part. Blaster HAV caught your Forge Gunner in a relatively open field with active modules available? Then your Forge Gunner should probably lose. Forge Gunner ambushes a Rail HAV retreating with modules in cooldown? Tank should probably blow up. Did the tank get caught on terrain? Did it need to slow down and turn, limiting it's manoeuvrability? Did the AVer jump in close and stand still? There are a lot of things that alter the balance on a situational basis. Personally speaking, I feel that HAV speed needs tweaking (Gallente need slower acceleration, Caldari need slower top speed) and AV needs a slight buff to Swarms (damage needs to return to 330, range is good) while Forge Guns need to get a slight revamp to make non-Assault variants viable. But that's me trying to be reasonable. I'll show myself out... Edit: For reference, I am primarily an infantry (Logistics) with a new focus on Assault Dropships (which is what I always wanted to be, but because of the gamestate when I first began did not skill into them) while I use HAVs (primarily Sicas) as my anti-armour. Judge that as you will, but I am trying to be fair in my assessments. you're saying that they are each situational, but I think the major complaint is that the HAV seems to be good for any situation. The worst situation for a tank is probably a dropship hovering above shooting at it. But there aren't many that can fly a dropship well enough to take out a tank. Other than that, you're lucky if you caught a good tank in a bad spot while in cool down. Let me give you some examples of what others are saying about the imbalance. Some of them I don't personally care about. SP requirement ISK requirement Risk vs Reward Counter Play options Real skill required to be successful Teamwork requirement These are all verifiable means of measuring balance. No opinions required. And there are probably more. As for your negatives to HAV's, I'll give you reduced maneuverability, although it's hard to believe the way they are flying around. Awareness is easily taken care of with a scanner, and the periods of vulnerability are not much on a well fitted tank. After you shoot a tank and his hardeners go active, he knows where you are and you have to fight for the next 60 seconds with him shooting at you until he's vulnerable. That may be harder than it sounds because he will kill you in less than a second, and if he can't get to you, the chances are that his teammates are already shooting at you.