Goric Rumis
Dead Six Initiative
Lokun Listamenn
256
   |
Posted - 2013.12.19 21:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'm going to repeat my post from this thread: The one thing that will have the greatest effect on vehicle versus AV balance at this stage is map design.
At the moment, the biggest problem I have with any vehicle is that tanks are very low risk and very high reward. It doesn't seem like tanks are completely ruining the battlefield to the extent they did in Replication, and even a little bit of AV will send them running, but once they run, then what? Unless you're a vehicle hunter, they're likely not going to lose much. They'll pop up somewhere else, kill several more infantry, and move on at the first sight of a threat. It's a low-risk, high-reward role that there's really no reason not to use.
If vehicles are going to be hard to kill, it has to come at the cost of battlefield effectiveness. And the only way to cost them battlefield effectiveness without totally negating the role is to let the map design echo the roles. Give them access to 30% of the infantry hotspots, instead of the 100% they can reach on Manus Peak or Line Harvest.
Most of the older maps are made so that every inch can be dominated by a strong vehicle if there's one around--which is why, for so long, strong vehicles were anathema not only to much-maligned AV but to all infantry: if tanks are hard to kill, and there's nowhere to play that isn't easily accessible to tanks, then you end up sitting in the red zone and waiting for the end to come. (Fortunately the current build isn't as bad as Replication, but this is the original argument against AV requiring disproportionate teamwork.)
The proper way to do this is to create more-or-less open spaces that will typically be crossed using LAVs, where vehicles dominate and infantry are toast. This gives plenty of space for vehicles to fight one another to dominate this tactically significant space, as well as the chokepoints where they can make some impact on the infantry fight without totally defining it. Facilities, cities and other sockets will provide ample battlegrounds for infantry to fight amongst themselves, including walled areas that may be semi-accessible to vehicles (via infantry-controlled gates, claustrophobic roads or the ability to attack from above) and allow a variety of ranges for things like laser rifles, sniper rifles, and other ranged weapons to find purpose, as well as close-quarters weapons. Rounding everything out, there should be a couple of key points on each socket (or at least major sockets) where AV infantry can position themselves that will put them at an advantage against vehicles, using elevation and cover and possibly a nearby supply depot, to help push them away and keep squads crossing between sockets safe from harm. These vantage points for AV would be additional tactical points that smart infantry will hold as dearly as the marked installations.
Given map design that follows a general outline like the above, vehicles could be very hard to kill and tactically significant but still balanced due to their inability to engage in the majority of infantry fights, thereby lowering the "reward" for using a vehicle. Meanwhile, the fact that they are most often engaging with other vehicles (unless they are besieging a socket, in which case AV can take up an advantageous position) increases their relative risk, thereby balancing out the risk/reward ratio without making any changes to a single in-game item.
TL;DR: Maps are the number one issue with vehicle balance. Re-design older maps so infantry have significant playable areas that are separate from vehicles. Controlling a null cannon wins you the game, controlling a vehicle tactical point can influence the ability to control a null cannon, and controlling an AV tactical point can influence the ability to control a vehicle tactical point. |