DUST Search - Limit Havs deployed to 1 per side

Alena Ventrallis wrote:

True Adamance wrote:

Alena Ventrallis wrote:

can anyone give me a reason why? I still haven't heard any argument at all, let alone a sound one.

Why should you limit a very enjoyable playstyle to one person a match, you might as well make the HAV a respawning asset like in BF, with that logic all vehicles should be spawning assets because it would be woefully unfair to penalise one playstyle.

That would also remove a sand box aspect from the game.

In EVE the side that brings out the most ISK, the biggest ships, and the better gear wins the field.

If my team brings out 3 tanks and you bring out 1 and we roll the field clean its not our fault you team did not or could not escalate the battle to involve more HAV and AV.

Frankly speaking I spend more time tanking watching out for enemy HAV that taking down infantry, get your own tanks and I will be off the infantry so far and hunting for that HAV.

But eve does not have a hard cap of 16 people per side. This is where the imbalance comes in. One tank in Dust carries a lot more impact than one titan in Eve, simply by matter of numbers. In Eve, in a battle of 100 titans vs 100 titans (and there have been far bigger battles than that) a single extra titan wont tip the balance as much. Not so for Dust. Dust caps both sides at 16. Therefore, until we allow more people per side, a single extra tank means so much more.

"Shudder. Again another smart idea from an Amarr..."- Forlorn Destrier (11/12/13) LAWL

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Alena Ventrallis Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 305	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:20:00 - [1] - Quote Perhaps two. It lets AV able to kill a tank as a group without worrying about 3-4 other tanks ambushing them, and tanks retain their awesome power, with the exception that they cannot simply get 4-5 of their buddies to faceroll the other side. Can anyone find fault with this idea?
ZeHealingHurts HurtingHeals Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 664	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:20:00 - [2] - Quote This seems highly unreasonable. My logi-code.
Chunky Munkey Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 2666	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:21:00 - [3] - Quote Terrible idea. But I'd love to see the monumental QQ from tankers in such an event. No.
Alena Ventrallis Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 305	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:25:00 - [4] - Quote can anyone give me a reason why? I still haven't heard any argument at all, let alone a sound one.
Mr CreepyPasta DUST University Ivy League 36	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:31:00 - [5] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Perhaps two. It lets AV able to kill a tank as a group without worrying about 3-4 other tanks ambushing them, and tanks retain their awesome power, with the exception that they cannot simply get 4-5 of their buddies to faceroll the other side. Can anyone find fault with this idea? want to beat a tank? DO NOT TRY TO SOLO AV KILL IT IN A WIDE OPEN PLAIN! the weakness of a tank is it manuverability! get it in an inclosed space & reek havoc that'll make him/her think twice before coming back (Tips from a pro tanker.)
Pvt Numnutz Black Phoenix Mercenaries 433	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:34:00 - [6] - Quote What's next one dropship? No
True Adamance Scions of Athra 4909	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:35:00 - [7] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: can anyone give me a reason why? I still haven't heard any argument at all, let alone a sound one. Why should you limit a very enjoyable playstyle to one person a match, you might as well make the HAV a respawning asset like in BF, with that logic all vehicles should be spawning assets because it would be woefully unfair to penalise one playstyle. That would also remove a sand box aspect from the game. In EVE the side that brings out the most ISK, the biggest ships, and the better gear wins the field. If my team brings out 3 tanks and you bring out 1 and we roll the field clean its not our fault you team did not or could not escalate the battle to involve more HAV and AV. Frankly speaking I spend more time tanking watching out for enemy HAV that taking down infantry, get your own tanks and I will be off the infantry so far and hunting for that HAV. "Shudder. Again another smart idea from an Amarr..."- Forlorn Destrier (11/12/13) LAWL
Alena Ventrallis Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 305	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:36:00 - [8] - Quote The issue is not the power of tanks. They are in a good place as it is. the issue is how many are getting deployed at once. I saw 12 tanks last battle. There were more people in tanks than running infantry. That's ridiculous. An HAV limit allows tankers to keep there power, and allows AV to be able to focus on one threat instead of 6. IT's not like this will suddenly make swarms hit harder or forges reach farther. They just have less to contend with.
Seymor Krelborn DUST University Ivy League 1557	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:36:00 - [9] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Perhaps two. It lets AV able to kill a tank as a group without worrying about 3-4 other tanks ambushing them, and tanks retain their awesome power, with the exception that they cannot simply get 4-5 of their buddies to faceroll the other side. Can anyone find fault with this idea? I would disagree if this was like eve where you could have 1000 vs 1000 battles. but in a 16v16 lobby shooter, its a great idea. CCp's newest joke, making setting off your own remote explosives in FW FF... awesome job ccp.
True Adamance Scions of Athra 4909	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:37:00 - [10] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: The issue is not the power of tanks. They are in a good place as it is. the issue is how many are getting deployed at once. I saw 12 tanks last battle. There were more people in tanks than running infantry. That's ridiculous. An HAV limit allows tankers to keep there power, and allows AV to be able to focus on one threat instead of 6. IT's not like this will suddenly make swarms hit harder or forges reach farther. They just have less to contend with. Why some battles are major tank skirmishes with minor support infantry to capture key positions. "Shudder. Again another smart idea from an Amarr..."- Forlorn Destrier (11/12/13) LAWL

Jason Pearson 3453	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:38:00 - [11] - Quote What a boring idea, 1v1 would be no point in even having tanks tbh, the only reason to play is for the tank fights and you'll just have two railgun tankers sitting there trying to pop infantry from a distance rather than let someone else fight. Yawn. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire. Buffing or Debuffing Vehicles or AV will never fix anything.
Vulpes Dolosus SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 484	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:38:00 - [12] - Quote I'd limit it to three. One is ridiculous. Dropship Specialist Kills- Incubus: 3; Pythons: 0; Militia: 26; Tanks: 10
Jason Pearson 3453	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:41:00 - [13] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: The issue is not the power of tanks. They are in a good place as it is. the issue is how many are getting deployed at once. I saw 12 tanks last battle. There were more people in tanks than running infantry. That's ridiculous. An HAV limit allows tankers to keep there power, and allows AV to be able to focus on one threat instead of 6. IT's not like this will suddenly make swarms hit harder or forges reach farther. They just have less to contend with. Unless you were on Ambush that's major bullshit and you know it. Vehicles are capped to 5 per team, that's 10 maximum on the field. If there are 16 players per team and 5 are in vehicles, that's 11 Infantry. If however, Ambush, it's broken and doesn't have the cap and needs to have the 5 vehicle cap in place. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire. Buffing or Debuffing Vehicles or AV will never fix anything.
thesupertman Better Hide R Die 62	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:41:00 - [14] - Quote This might work if there were 6-8 vehicle types in the game. Maybe CCP could make it so each team can only have 2-3 of each vehicle type on the field at once. Right now we have: Dropships LAV HAV We are getting: Jets Transports Speeders Mechs I think I'm the only person still waiting for mechs/giant robot killing machines..... dangCCPyourslowpickupthepace
Alena Ventrallis Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 306	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:41:00 - [15] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: can anyone give me a reason why? I still haven't heard any argument at all, let alone a sound one. Why should you limit a very enjoyable playstyle to one person a match, you might as well make the HAV a respawning asset like in BF, with that logic all vehicles should be spawning assets because it would be woefully unfair to penalise one playstyle. That would also remove a sand box aspect from the game. In EVE the side that brings out the most ISK, the biggest ships, and the better gear wins the field. If my team brings out 3 tanks and you bring out 1 and we roll the field clean its not our fault you team did not or could not escalate the battle to involve more HAV and AV. Frankly speaking I spend more time tanking watching out for enemy HAV that taking down infantry, get your own tanks and I will be off the infantry so far and hunting for that HAV. But eve does not have a hard cap of 16 people per side. This is where the imbalance comes in. One tank in Dust carries a lot more impact than one titan in Eve, simply by matter of numbers. In Eve, in a battle of 100 titans vs 100 titans (and there have been far bigger battles than that) a single extra titan wont tip the balance as much. Not so for Dust. Dust caps both sides at 16. Therefore, until we allow more people per side, a single extra tank means so much more.
Cosgar ParagonX 8741	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:41:00 - [16] - Quote Change the vehicle quota to 4 HAV, 4 LAV, and 4 dropships. I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
Alena Ventrallis Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 306	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:42:00 - [17] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: I'd limit it to three. One is ridiculous. Even three could be too much. what about two?
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 265	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:43:00 - [18] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Change the vehicle quota to 4 HAV, 4 LAV, and 4 dropships. message from Godin: As long as it gets reworked so that if I'm in a pilot suit, I get first dibs for a specific time period.
KING CHECKMATE Scions of Athra 3218	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:45:00 - [19] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: can anyone give me a reason why? I still haven't heard any argument at all, let alone a sound one. Read my signature and be enlightened. AV-TANK BALANCE = https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1612446#post1612446
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 265	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:46:00 - [20] - Quote thesupertman wrote: This might work if there were 6-8 vehicle types in the game. Maybe CCP could make it so each team can only have 2-3 of each vehicle type on the field at once. Right now we have: Dropships LAV HAV We are getting: LAA's MAV's Speeders MTAC's Gunships message from Godin: Fixed And if it comes (hopefully it doesn't), the Commander vehicle. The most OP thing I have ever seen, ever. In any game. That thing is the definition of OP.

Cosgar ParagonX 8741	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:46:00 - [21] - Quote Roger Cordill wrote: Cosgar wrote: Change the vehicle quota to 4 HAV, 4 LAV, and 4 dropships. message from Godin: As long as it gets reworked so that if I'm in a pilot suit, I get first dibs for a specific time period. Seems fair. I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
Alena Ventrallis Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 306	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:50:00 - [22] - Quote KING CHECKMATE wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: can anyone give me a reason why? I still haven't heard any argument at all, let alone a sound one. Read my signature and be enlightened. Similar idea to mine, but I like yours better.
True Adamance Scions of Athra 4913	Posted - 2013.12.16 02:19:00 - [23] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: can anyone give me a reason why? I still haven't heard any argument at all, let alone a sound one. Why should you limit a very enjoyable playstyle to one person a match, you might as well make the HAV a respawning asset like in BF, with that logic all vehicles should be spawning assets because it would be woefully unfair to penalise one playstyle. That would also remove a sand box aspect from the game. In EVE the side that brings out the most ISK, the biggest ships, and the better gear wins the field. If my team brings out 3 tanks and you bring out 1 and we roll the field clean its not our fault you team did not or could not escalate the battle to involve more HAV and AV. Frankly speaking I spend more time tanking watching out for enemy HAV that taking down infantry, get your own tanks and I will be off the infantry so far and hunting for that HAV. But eve does not have a hard cap of 16 people per side. This is where the imbalance comes in. One tank in Dust carries a lot more impact than one titan in Eve, simply by matter of numbers. In Eve, in a battle of 100 titans vs 100 titans (and there have been far bigger battles than that) a single extra titan wont tip the balance as much. Not so for Dust. Dust caps both sides at 16. Therefore, until we allow more people per side, a single extra tank means so much more. Why should it matter, you have the same capacity to call in HAV as my team does. I can out pilot two tanks, done it before, will do it again. "Shudder. Again another smart idea from an Amarr..."- Forlorn Destrier (11/12/13) LAWL
Jason Pearson 3454	Posted - 2013.12.16 02:25:00 - [24] - Quote I think having a low cap would be a bad idea, we already have a max 5 vehicle cap for each team anyways, it just means if the good tanker gets the tank out first, you're not gonna be able to have the option of outnumbering him with more tanks, and the the tanks that will face him will probably just get stomped. Atleast right now 4 Railguns can rush me and might win. "might". King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire. Buffing or Debuffing Vehicles or AV will never fix anything.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

dangCCPyourslowpickupthepace