| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vrain Matari
ZionTCD
Public Disorder.
1366
   |
Posted - 2013.12.15 16:31:00 -
[1] - Quote
Just posted this here, in this thread, but thinking about it it's an idea that should prolly have it's own thread.
TL;DR:
Problem: AV is strong enough to be effective, but infantry is too slow to properly apply the tools at hand.
Solution: Keep everything the same, but give AV infantry some kind of mobility platform to help them fight(and survive) vehicles. Balance could then be adjusted by dialing in the speed/acceleration of the mobility platform.
Right now i'm thinking the primary weakness of AV is mobility. Given the current resists and the current mobility of tanks what gets AV(necessarily Proto for our new vehicles) killed is lack of mobility.
I'd like to see a mobility platform(think walker frame or hoverdisk) that allowed the normal use of handheld weapons but had only marginal secondary AV-based benefits. Best solution to me would be if we could shoot from the saddle of the personal hoverbike transport solution CCP has talked about. The point is AV would be able to bug out and perhaps live to continue cat-and-mousing with the three to six tanks on the field.
This would make AV rewarding and viable, and we would be able to avoid buffing damage or otherwise altering weapons balance. It would add another layer of gameplay that would interact well with both infantry and vehicles, making for a richer mix and more adaptability for infantry who want an alternative to spending a significant portion of the match in a tank.
This is war, and we should all expect to have to do whatever is required to win. Put it is also an entertainment product, and a portion of the playerbase is not here to be forced into a vehicle-based playstyle because there is no viable tactical alternative.
In planetary conquest matches we can expect teams and squads to evolve viable strategies and tactics, expect combined arms solutions where infantry/vehicles support each other, and accept no excuses. But in pub matches it's a different story - infantry need tools to make the game more interesting than the vehicle-driven stagnation we have atm. I think a mobility option for infantry could satisfy both pilots and infantry, and give us more interesting, visceral matches.
I support SP rollover.
|
IceShifter Childhaspawn
DUST University
Ivy League
463
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 17:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
I could agree with the mobility bit if the mechanics would allow some sort of benefit to being more mobile.
aV grenades are too slow to throw, require a team effort, and require the tank not noticing your approach. Being more mobile would aide on the approach, but would not help the ability to apply dps before the tanker could react.
Swarm launchers could likewise be assisted by mobility, but as soon as the first volley hits, nothing would stop the tank from popping hardeners and running. As soon as swarms have to target a moving target they lose their ability to apply DPS.
The forge gun could be the only weapon to benefit from a solo mobility platform, even then when in a squad as a single forge gunner will not be able to pop an HAV before it can activate its hardeners.
Agree that infantry cannot compete with tankageddon. Disagree that mobile platforms would be used to combat HAV.
There is currently NO drawback to tanking. They are cheaper, faster, tougher, and deadlier than drop suits.
The aV we have is insufficient to combat the HAV on the field.
The support tanker threads are from the POV that when CCP alters things, they destroy them with HUGE nerfs or buffs. The tankers are deathly afraid that the hope they have had for a week nows will be dashed into the rocks.
TL;DR- It is fair for a tanker to solo a team, but unfair for one Merc to solo a tanker. Bull***t
CCP Logibro is awesome.
|
Alena Ventrallis
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
299
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 17:32:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'm for making tanks more expensive, but remember, the nerfs you give to tanks apply to dropships as well. There are other vehicles to consider before you start messing with modules and the like. |
Jason Pearson
3439
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 17:43:00 -
[4] - Quote
Am not to sure, seems more sensible to allow Infantry to limit Vehicle mobility rather than increased mobility through the use of devices that could potentially break infantry combat.
King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire.
Buffing or Debuffing Vehicles or AV will never fix anything.
|
Gelan Corbaine
Gladiators Vanguard
256
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 18:05:00 -
[5] - Quote
Give us webs and WP for damage and watch tanks die and things will be much better.
AS for spam I have a question of curiousity for tankers .. I'm not endorsing this thought but just wondering . What would you think of the keeping everything exactly as is .... but using the old planetside 1 system of giving say a 3-5 min cooldown upon the death of the tank before you can call another one ? Only for death mind you ... you could call and recall as much as you want .
No job is worth doing if you don't get paid in the end .
|
Vrain Matari
ZionTCD
Public Disorder.
1366
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 18:32:00 -
[6] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:Am not to sure, seems more sensible to allow Infantry to limit Vehicle mobility rather than increased mobility through the use of devices that could potentially break infantry combat.
It's a good point and my primary concern also. The mobility platform would have to have some kind of drawback to infantry. Maybe AV grenades? Maybe hitbox? Maybe signature?
Webifier grenades/mines would solve tank speed for a particular tank, but would not allow AV infantry to bug out any faster when multiple tanks roll in.
I support SP rollover.
|
Jason Pearson
3441
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 18:34:00 -
[7] - Quote
Gelan Corbaine wrote:Give us webs and WP for damage and watch tanks die and things will be much better.
AS for spam I have a question of curiousity for tankers .. I'm not endorsing this thought but just wondering . What would you think of the keeping everything exactly as is .... but using the old planetside 1 system of giving say a 3-5 min cooldown upon the death of the tank before you can call another one ? Only for death mind you ... you could call and recall as much as you want .
Am not sure, I quite enjoy people pumping out the vehicles because it allows for constant fights and no pure dominance for one single side (If both sides have good vehicle pilots). From a recent experience I had, A squad brought out 5 tanks in a match, and I was the only pilot on our team, They were rinsing infantry and I was able to kill a couple before I was killed, if I had the inability to bring my vehicle back in straight away, they'd still have two tanks roaming and massacring the Infantry not bothering with AV while I'm stuck in the red line unable to do anything.
King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire.
Buffing or Debuffing Vehicles or AV will never fix anything.
|
Vrain Matari
ZionTCD
Public Disorder.
1366
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 18:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:I'm for making tanks more expensive, but remember, the nerfs you give to tanks apply to dropships as well. There are other vehicles to consider before you start messing with modules and the like.
Because some day soonGäó we'll be connected to EVE and there'll be scads of ISK floating around, we should never use ISK for balancing 0 it always fails sooner or later.
I support SP rollover.
|
George Moros
Area 514
216
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 18:40:00 -
[9] - Quote
@OP:
Allow infantry who are dropship passengers to use their weapons during flight. You know, swarms, forges 'n stuff.
Problem solved.
Pulvereus ergo queritor.
|
Nonoriri ko
Onikanabo Brigade
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 18:45:00 -
[10] - Quote
How about giving swarms slow effect to vehicles on hit?
They could totally do that with a hot fix.
No change to anything except add slow to swarms,
No buffing or nerfing anything.
|
|
|
Roger Cordill
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar
DARKSTAR ARMY
249
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 18:47:00 -
[11] - Quote
George Moros wrote:@OP:
Allow infantry who are dropship passengers to use their weapons during flight. You know, swarms, forges 'n stuff.
Problem solved.
message from Godin: Would cause too many problems (such as having all that DPS, and not being able to down it, basically causing unkillable DS's. No, Rifles and sililar weapons, yes. |
Everything Dies
Chatelain Rapid Response
Gallente Federation
372
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 18:49:00 -
[12] - Quote
George Moros wrote:@OP:
Allow infantry who are dropship passengers to use their weapons during flight. You know, swarms, forges 'n stuff.
Problem solved.
Or even allow them to be used from LAVs.
Hell, they could even make a dedicated (L)AV vehicle that fires swarms, but would be useless against infantry. Just give us something to keep up with the tanks!
Life is killing me.
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Bojo's School of the Trades
3278
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 18:50:00 -
[13] - Quote
Infantry based AV should be strong yet immobile.
Small rails should be stronger- imagine an LAV or dropship chasing down an HAV
We used to have a time machine
|
ARC34
The Game of Clones
8
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 18:53:00 -
[14] - Quote
Space Bikes? (._.)/
If you're not prepared to lose
Don't use it
|
Roger Cordill
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar
DARKSTAR ARMY
249
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 18:58:00 -
[15] - Quote
Message from Godin: Firing a light weapon off of a Speeder makes no sense, as it requires two hands for all the weapons to operate them. I'm all for having a small turret attached to the front of it however. |
Scheneighnay McBob
Bojo's School of the Trades
3278
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 19:21:00 -
[16] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:Message from Godin: Firing a light weapon off of a Speeder makes no sense, as it requires two hands for all the weapons to operate them. I'm all for having a small turret attached to the front of it however.
Again- LAVs should be more capable tank destroyers. With the current range and DPS of even proto small rails, attacking an HAV is suicide, unless the driver REALLY knows what they're doing, and the tank's turret has slow tracking.
We used to have a time machine
|
Vrain Matari
ZionTCD
Public Disorder.
1367
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 19:26:00 -
[17] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:Message from Godin: Firing a light weapon off of a Speeder makes no sense, as it requires two hands for all the weapons to operate them. I'm all for having a small turret attached to the front of it however.
Speeder hovers - no hands required. Just need to switch from travel mode to hands-free coast mode. I suggest implementing this through a single button press. Complicated, no?
And hella fun too ;)
I support SP rollover.
|
George Moros
Area 514
217
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 19:54:00 -
[18] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:George Moros wrote:@OP:
Allow infantry who are dropship passengers to use their weapons during flight. You know, swarms, forges 'n stuff.
Problem solved. message from Godin: Would cause too many problems (such as having all that DPS, and not being able to down it, basically causing unkillable DS's. No, Rifles and sililar weapons, yes.
Agreed. The idea was just a joke (well, half-a-joke, anyway, since I think the idea would be super cool if implemented correctly).
IMHO, the main problem with tanks now is their speed. The idea of giving them super-powers for a limited duration is nice, but not coupled with vehicular micro warp drives they currently have. Nerf tank speed, and force them to take risks when entering enemy-rich areas. Especially in "urban" environments. In real life, tanks in urban areas are dead without proper infantry support. This should also be the case in DUST.
Pulvereus ergo queritor.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |