Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
NAV HIV
The Generals General Tso's Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 14:43:00 -
[31] - Quote
Couldn't have said it better. Good post bro. But let me remind you, Some "great" tankers would say that it's balanced now, there's module cool down and such. But even they know how full of 5hit they are |
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
1919
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 15:04:00 -
[32] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:as much as you made some valuable points about HAVs , there were so many flaws in your arguments about HAVs . You like so many others pointed out that tanks were viable in 1.6 if you utilised team work how ever no matter how much team work I used when piloting havs I could still be popped by invisible solo av users who required absolutely no team work , only the ability to gain high ground and spam. Yes with extreme team work i.e. 4 people could operate a hav i.e. 3 inside gunning and 1 with a logi lav repping but all 4 people could be solod by 1 assault forge gunner this was not balance nor fair.
Now in 1.7 havs actually have a chance to react and blackout of situations rather than being instsa popped. it is more than possible now to pop maddys with cbr swarms and gunlogis with forges and plasma cannons ( I have tested all 3 and still able to solo tanks when I catch them on cool down) I personally like to run missiles or rails so I depend on my co gunners for anti infantry , this build actually requires allot of work to make std havs viable and cost effective ( if I loose 1 gunlogi im grinding 2 games to pay for it now apposed to the 5-10 games back in 1.6.
The real problem isn't std havs being op its mlt tank spam is op , since the release of 1.7 my primary job as a dedicated tanker ( over 15 mill sp) has been to demolish enemy tanks and I have popped over 600 since the release of 1.7 granted about 80% of them were militia tank rambos but if your team even has 1 vet tanker on your side youll see an end to the enemy's tank spam in minutes. just my opinion. Yes, the OP did make 1.6 sound more rosy than it was, but the rest of his point were mostly valid.
Your points mostly conform to what I am seeing on the battlefield as well. The biggest problem is tank spam by people with no skill points invested in tanks. And, yes, having even one experienced tanker in your squad can make all the difference. But there are not a lot of dedicated tankers, nor do I want to see a lot of dedicated tankers, so we do need to have infantry based AV options available.
I want to see tanking be a role that requires dedication, skill training, and experience. I want it to be rare to see more than 2 tanks on a team. I want those tanks, in the right hands, to pose a significant threat. Because if tanks are powerful, then dedicated AV is important and respected.
I think we both want the same thing ultimately. We want dedicated tankers to be powerful, so that dedicated AV become an important counter. I donGÇÖt think either of us want the masses to be OP in Tanks or AV, because it unbalances the entire match.
In these discussions back in 1.6 we agreed that one AV driving off a tank was almost as good as three AV killing a tank, from a tactical perspective. However right now if I drive off a tank, two more take its place.
So let us, the dedicated Tankers, and the dedicated AV, put our heads together and figure out how to achieve the balance we need.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else, there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
1920
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 15:09:00 -
[33] - Quote
The Robot Devil wrote:I don't like not having remote reps and shield transfers, I liked using those modules on HAVs. It really did help and was pretty fun but I never gained WP from it. I do like seeing the vehicles but I wish the logi modules were still there. I could keep a good HAV pilot on the field with reps and teamwork but now there is nothing to do except blow them up. Many of the HAVs only have the main gun now, that isn't always fun either. Remote Rep and Shield Transfer modules will return one day. CCP simplified everything to make balancing easier, so we need to balance what we have now, then add stuff in while trying to maintain that balance.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else, there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
1920
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 15:22:00 -
[34] - Quote
Valmorgan Aubaris wrote:I think it is absurd they can get out and put a tank back in their pocket if things don't go their way. Usually they get out in full proto gear and gun me down anyway. Tanks should: 1. Stay spawned once spawned untill end of match, period. 2. Tank drivers should only be allowed to wear a certain dropsuit (if any at all).. Come on now a guy driving a tank in a heavy dropsuit that can bail out and attack on foot in an instant? Yeah, ok. How about if Tanks could only be recalled behind the Red Line?
This would not work for LAVGÇÖs as their purpose is getting people to where they need to be, and behind the Red Line is not where people need to be, but for HAVGÇÖs it might make sense.
Just an idea, based on this post. Feel free to poke holes in it.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else, there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
1920
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 15:28:00 -
[35] - Quote
Justicar Karnellia wrote:I see in a lot of threads the issue of a dedicated anti-vehicle skill tree for infantry, which if specced into would calm one side of the argument, notably a) The skill investment in tanks is disproportionate to the skill investment required to build an AV fit - which if we sum it up is basically investment in a forge/swarm and some AV grenades (excluding suit of course, which is mutualised with your other skills). The AV tree could have lots of interesting stuff, like the ability to use webifier grenades, increase damage on certain weapons that are exclusively AV, give immunity to vehicle scanners, etc.
These are just ideas to bring to the storm... Well right now the Vehicle investment to be effective is 0 skill points. While a Swarm Launcher has to be proto, with 3 or 4 levels of clip size and proto damage modes, just to convince a tank to retreat. But I do get your point.
The Webefier Grenade is an excellent idea. I had been wondering how you could implement Webs in DUST effectively, and that is the best suggestions I have seen.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else, there is the Learning Coalition.
|
DUST Fiend
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
9166
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 15:38:00 -
[36] - Quote
Militia tanks are sapping the fun out of this game
Vids / O7
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star. EoN.
1987
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 15:40:00 -
[37] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:When skilling back into Vehicle Upgrades with my Heavy I noticed that the Armour and Shield skills donGÇÖt mention a 5% increase to Armour or Shield health. If that was taken out, then I think it should be put back in. The reason is that I feel someone who is skilled into vehicles should be more effective, even in a militia vehicle, than someone who is not skilled into them. If AV could easily cut down someone who did not have the skills, then it would greatly reduce Tank spam.
They removed both 5% per level to shield/armor skills, also did it with PG/CPU skills
These 4 skills are availible to infantry
Intelligence is OP
|
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll
Osmon Surveillance Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 15:50:00 -
[38] - Quote
Six 7 wrote:Justicar Karnellia wrote:Good post. Detailed arguments supported with facts illustrating this uncomfortable gaming dynamic that has crept in. I think it's pretty clear now there's a problem - I think we're just waiting for some kind of CCP action, but I think this will be in 1.8 rather than some kind of hot fix (although they hot fixed one of the most ridiculous issues - the speed). I'm pretty sure by the end of the page your thread will be hijacked by one of the usual fallacies "it should require teamwork to take down a tank" or "My tank costs a lot, it should be hard to destroy" or maybe just some good old fashioned ones like "you're just not good", "you're not supposed to solo a tank", "you're just stupid".... F*** 'em, something is wrong and needs to be addressed. Glad you liked it. Hopefully those tankers that know something is wrong will have some input as a to how to rebalance it all. Every voice should be heard and taken with a large shot of penicillinGǪ everyone is biased myself includedGǪ but if people don't speak up arguments can't be made. Railgun tanks seem to be in a nice spot... but it's just blaster tanks that seem to be a bit iffy, and I've yet to see a missile tank really do ANYTHING.
Do blasters need more scatter? Or potentially less? Should proto blasters have more damage, or just less spread? So the cheapest are inaccurate possibly?
If you can read this, it means you are reading.
Unless you are skimming
|
Vrain Matari
ZionTCD Public Disorder.
1374
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 15:57:00 -
[39] - Quote
Izlare Lenix wrote:I think tanks and AV would be perfectly balanced right now if tanks cost about 4x as much. Quadruple the price and people won't be inclined to keep spamming tank after tank because one tank loss and u probably break even for the game or even go negative. This will reduce a lot of casual tankers spamming cheap ass militia tanks.
If the constant flow of cheap tanks were reduced than a smart AV/tank squad could remove the tank threats or at least keep them at bay.
Increase the price and a lot of the problems with tank spamming will solve themselves. We learned a hard lesson in EVE: ISK can never be used in balancing arguments.
Because there are already peeps in DUST so wealthy they could run & lose Proto tanks(if they existed) all day everyday for a month and not break a sweat. And if that isn't bad enough, when we connect to EVE the wealth available to individuals and corps will be off the charts - you will have corps that are literally a million times richer than other corps. They will also have EVE-alliance sugar daddies to back them up with trillion ISK injections if they need it.
When that happens we'll all see very quickly that using ISK to balance in New Eden is a terrible mistake that only serves to create more severe imbalance later. It's a deal with the devil that looks good in the short term.
Likewise, skillpoints invested don't help us balance either, because once that tank or weapon is on the field, skillpoints have absolutely no bearing on the gameplay.
So how do we balance? There is only one way: by adjusting the vehicle/suit/weapon/equipment stats/abilities and looking hard at game mechanics. That is the only way we'll come up with a balance that doesn't turn to kittenpoop later.
I support SP rollover.
|
Vrain Matari
ZionTCD Public Disorder.
1374
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 16:07:00 -
[40] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:dude if I had remote reps on my gunlogi I don't think there would be any thing that could stop me apart from an evenly machete tank and pilot crew.
I have asked for severall fixes to the mlt tank spam from removing 1 low from the sica and 1 high from the soma pard with a 3.5% pg/cpu nerf this its self would end the mlt tank spam as quickly as I do when I enter a game. +1. Not saying i agree or disagree or have no valid opinion, saying that this kind of solution, focusing on in-game properties, is the only way we're going to balance vehicles with AV, or anything else for that matter.
I support SP rollover.
|
|
pegasis prime
BIG BAD W0LVES
1448
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 16:17:00 -
[41] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:pegasis prime wrote:as much as you made some valuable points about HAVs , there were so many flaws in your arguments about HAVs . You like so many others pointed out that tanks were viable in 1.6 if you utilised team work how ever no matter how much team work I used when piloting havs I could still be popped by invisible solo av users who required absolutely no team work , only the ability to gain high ground and spam. Yes with extreme team work i.e. 4 people could operate a hav i.e. 3 inside gunning and 1 with a logi lav repping but all 4 people could be solod by 1 assault forge gunner this was not balance nor fair.
Now in 1.7 havs actually have a chance to react and blackout of situations rather than being instsa popped. it is more than possible now to pop maddys with cbr swarms and gunlogis with forges and plasma cannons ( I have tested all 3 and still able to solo tanks when I catch them on cool down) I personally like to run missiles or rails so I depend on my co gunners for anti infantry , this build actually requires allot of work to make std havs viable and cost effective ( if I loose 1 gunlogi im grinding 2 games to pay for it now apposed to the 5-10 games back in 1.6.
The real problem isn't std havs being op its mlt tank spam is op , since the release of 1.7 my primary job as a dedicated tanker ( over 15 mill sp) has been to demolish enemy tanks and I have popped over 600 since the release of 1.7 granted about 80% of them were militia tank rambos but if your team even has 1 vet tanker on your side youll see an end to the enemy's tank spam in minutes. just my opinion. Yes, the OP did make 1.6 sound more rosy than it was, but the rest of his point were mostly valid. Your points mostly conform to what I am seeing on the battlefield as well. The biggest problem is tank spam by people with no skill points invested in tanks. And, yes, having even one experienced tanker in your squad can make all the difference. But there are not a lot of dedicated tankers, nor do I want to see a lot of dedicated tankers, so we do need to have infantry based AV options available. I want to see tanking be a role that requires dedication, skill training, and experience. I want it to be rare to see more than 2 tanks on a team. I want those tanks, in the right hands, to pose a significant threat. Because if tanks are powerful, then dedicated AV is important and respected. I think we both want the same thing ultimately. We want dedicated tankers to be powerful, so that dedicated AV become an important counter. I donGÇÖt think either of us want the masses to be OP in Tanks or AV, because it unbalances the entire match. In these discussions back in 1.6 we agreed that one AV driving off a tank was almost as good as three AV killing a tank, from a tactical perspective. However right now if I drive off a tank, two more take its place. So let us, the dedicated Tankers, and the dedicated AV, put our heads together and figure out how to achieve the balance we need.
As a dedicated tanker and a tanker since last August/September I have seen the change in power as well as feeling it on both sides as I like many other tankers also run AV ( we tend to be the best AVers as we know all the weaknesses around tanks ).
Yes I would like to see dedicated tankers making their presens known on the battlefield as well as dedicated av getting rewarded for their efforts. There is talk from CCP about re-introducing WP for damage inflicted on vehicles this would also reward avers who drive a tank off just as much as getting the kill.
also have a read at this thread and see what you think of some of the ideas regarding balance. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=130192&find=unread
The problem as you and many others who arnt to blind to see the trees for the forest have noticed is mlt spam and their effectiveness if mlt havs were say increased in price from 70K to say 120K fully fitted you would see allot less of them on the battlefield.
Its gone from suck .....to blow
level 1 forum warrior
|
Vrain Matari
ZionTCD Public Disorder.
1374
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 16:28:00 -
[42] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:Valmorgan Aubaris wrote:I think it is absurd they can get out and put a tank back in their pocket if things don't go their way. Usually they get out in full proto gear and gun me down anyway. Tanks should: 1. Stay spawned once spawned untill end of match, period. 2. Tank drivers should only be allowed to wear a certain dropsuit (if any at all).. Come on now a guy driving a tank in a heavy dropsuit that can bail out and attack on foot in an instant? Yeah, ok. How about if Tanks could only be recalled behind the Red Line? This would not work for LAVGÇÖs as their purpose is getting people to where they need to be, and behind the Red Line is not where people need to be, but for HAVGÇÖs it might make sense. Just an idea, based on this post. Feel free to poke holes in it. I've been thinking about recall and combat. If we're all honest with each other then we have to admit that a mechanic that was intended to prevent players from being locked into a vehicle all match out of economic concerns is now being used as a combat mechanic. That's not what was intended and it is distorting the battlefield experience and the balancing conversation we're engaged in.
Recall for tanks behind the redline only makes balance and makes sense. +1.
I support SP rollover.
|
Darken-Sol
BIG BAD W0LVES
911
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 16:40:00 -
[43] - Quote
I love how experienced tankers are saying MLT tanks are the problem. It shows a lack of integrity. Many have taken the stance of claiming to not kill infantry. They are trying to pin the blame on the ability to call in cheap MLT tanks.
lets ask a few questions.
what do you think is going to happen to the price of STD tanks if MLT goes up?
How will nerfing MLT tanks help the fact that AV can't effectively counter tanks?
what are these crusaders going to shoot at when there are no MLT tanks?
if it takes 3 AV to deal with a tank and there are 3tanks, how many are left to fight the other 13 guys on the ground?
Do people honestly believe the smoke screen these skilled tankers are putting up?
Be honest here because I play both sides. How many rail tanks does it take to stop vehicles from coming in?
If you don't have a skilled tanker how will you deal with another skilled tanker?
IMO these guys are incapable of seeing anything beyond their own turret. Its the tanking mentality. I have it too. When another tank on my team gets popped in always thinking "better him than me". I think this is something like that. What they do not realize is it will be more like "first him then me".
one more question.
After you get rid of your scapegoat, what will you hide behind?
I personally believe we will then have a crusade against OP tanks and it will come down to buffing AV. Its obvious really. So we see the tankers care nothing for the infantry they are now painting as the victim. They are just buying time until CCP gives us the means to defend ourselves. Its all very short sighted.
a final question. Why wait for balance?
Watch my back does not mean look at my spine.
|
DUST Fiend
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
9168
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 16:42:00 -
[44] - Quote
I'm a dropship pilot, and I'm getting pretty ******* pissed that any tom **** or harry can call in a damage stacked sica and camp the redline all game, denying my 8+ million SP and 500k ISK investment because he can hurp a durp de durpda durp so far back in the redline he rarely renders, yet he can still ******* hit me from across the map if I slow down for even a second.
This
Game
Is
Giving
Me
Dia
Be
Tes
Vids / O7
|
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State
288
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 16:46:00 -
[45] - Quote
Yes, people talk of the recall mechanic and it's been distorted from its original use - originally it was if you no longer had a viable tactical need for your vehicle you couldn't just leave it there to be destroyed ,so you recalled it OR what happened a lot more before but happens a lot less now is you got stuck on some map oddity and just couldn't move...
what I see a lot of now, is people recalling while they're taking fire, to save their burning HAV/LAV/Dropship from beind destroyed. Yes, the easy solution is only being able to recall from the redline OR:
1) Having an RDV physically come and pick it up - it takes just as long as the delivery and adds the risk of a) the RDV being blown up -> recall failed b) Tells the enemy you are recalling something, so they can do something about it
You could also add the redline restriction to this and this means anyone who wants to recall anything has to scurry all the way back to the edge of the battlefield and not get their RDV shot down in the process.
Of course it wouldn't solve the problem of redline sniping - but that's another issue altogether... |
Vrain Matari
ZionTCD Public Disorder.
1374
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 17:01:00 -
[46] - Quote
Six 7 wrote:Ghosts Chance wrote:you meantioned pre 1.7 balance without mentioning that all infantry was invisable outside the 50m mark.
alowing AV infantry to just stand in open spaces spamming without any danger whatsoever, and without the tank knowing where to properly retreat to unless he had boots on the ground.
tankers used teamwork in the form of AV spotters so that they diddnt get insta blapped by invisable people 400m away.
you realise that the numbers of AV damage as a percent of total heath havnt really changed right?
now its about 80% of the damage you used to do pre 1.7 when hardeners are on
and about 150% the damage you used to do pre 1.7 when they are off.
thats not a huge difference when all defences are up.
the real difference is AV isnt invisable anymore.
I posted on your topic, defenses down mean nothing when your out of range in 3 secondsGǪ and your talking to the wrong av'er about standing in the open. WIth respect not all av are F***tardsGǪ but yes a lot are +1. My underlining.
For me, this is one of the most critical variables in balancing infantry AV with vehicles: mobility.
The huge difference in mobility is what determines the structure of engagements for good tankers. And even for poor tankers, once they know how to steer and hit the gas they can get themselves out of some stupid situations they should have never gotten into in the first place.
This huge difference in velocities is something that infantry have no counter for, other than giving up and getting in a vehicle themselves. The lack of mobility is the primary killer of AV infantry, because the speed of vehicles can change the tactical geography around infantry much quicker than can be adapted to at 7 m/s.
Finding a reasonable way to modify the +öV between tanks and infantry would instantly change battlefield dynamics. My opinion is the AV already have enough damage potential, and that with more mobility infantry would be able to give good tankers a run for their money if the AV'er played smart.
I'm thinking we need to give infantry some kind of mobility platform(don't really care what it looks like) that allows the use of their handheld weapons, increases their speed(with a multiplier and/or a boost on a cooldown timer), but confers no other benefit. Reasonable drawbacks tbd later, but sig radius seem like a reasonable candidate.
tl:dr By adjusting the +öV for tanks and infantry AV, we can achieve an interesting & dynamic balance that leads to fun & engaging gamelay, but one that will require players to play smart. Fools will continue to die just the same.
I support SP rollover.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
1926
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 17:05:00 -
[47] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Fox Gaden wrote:When skilling back into Vehicle Upgrades with my Heavy I noticed that the Armour and Shield skills donGÇÖt mention a 5% increase to Armour or Shield health. If that was taken out, then I think it should be put back in. The reason is that I feel someone who is skilled into vehicles should be more effective, even in a militia vehicle, than someone who is not skilled into them. If AV could easily cut down someone who did not have the skills, then it would greatly reduce Tank spam. They removed both 5% per level to shield/armor skills, also did it with PG/CPU skills These 4 skills are availible to infantry This may be a large contributor to the tank spam by people with no skills in vehicles. These skills served to separate dedicated vehicle specialists from dedicated infantry.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else, there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
1928
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 17:28:00 -
[48] - Quote
Darken-Sol wrote:I love how experienced tankers are saying MLT tanks are the problem. It shows a lack of integrity. Many have taken the stance of claiming to not kill infantry. They are trying to pin the blame on the ability to call in cheap MLT tanks.
lets ask a few questions.
what do you think is going to happen to the price of STD tanks if MLT goes up?
How will nerfing MLT tanks help the fact that AV can't effectively counter tanks?
what are these crusaders going to shoot at when there are no MLT tanks?
if it takes 3 AV to deal with a tank and there are 3tanks, how many are left to fight the other 13 guys on the ground?
Do people honestly believe the smoke screen these skilled tankers are putting up?
Be honest here because I play both sides. How many rail tanks does it take to stop vehicles from coming in?
If you don't have a skilled tanker how will you deal with another skilled tanker?
IMO these guys are incapable of seeing anything beyond their own turret. Its the tanking mentality. I have it too. When another tank on my team gets popped in always thinking "better him than me". I think this is something like that. What they do not realize is it will be more like "first him then me".
one more question.
After you get rid of your scapegoat, what will you hide behind?
I personally believe we will then have a crusade against OP tanks and it will come down to buffing AV. Its obvious really. So we see the tankers care nothing for the infantry they are now painting as the victim. They are just buying time until CCP gives us the means to defend ourselves. Its all very short sighted.
a final question. Why wait for balance? We will not be able to effectively examine the balance between dedicated AV and dedicated tankers until this Militia tank spam is cleared up. Right now the Tanks often have the advantage of numbers on top of their other advantages.
I donGÇÖt think Militia tanks should be nerfed, at least not at this stage, beyond taking away things that can be added back in with skills. I donGÇÖt think we should look at increasing the price too much yet either. At least not yet. The fist priority is to bring back the skill distinction between dedicated pilots and people who have no skill points invested in vehicles.
This would also mean that an expensive fitted tank, called in by a tanker, would not be nearly as effective in the hands of a non tanker.
That and a bit of a Swarm Launcher buff should clear up the non-pilot tank spam. Then we could look at AV/Tank balance without all the clutter.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else, there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
1928
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 17:32:00 -
[49] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:I'm a dropship pilot, and I'm getting pretty ******* pissed that any tom **** or harry can call in a damage stacked sica and camp the redline all game, denying my 8+ million SP and 500k ISK investment because he can hurp a durp de durpda durp so far back in the redline he rarely renders, yet he can still ******* hit me from across the map if I slow down for even a second.
This
Game
Is
Giving
Me
Dia
Be
Tes In an unexpected turn of events, Dropship Pilots join the Infantry picket lines in demanding a fix to the militia tank spam issue! News at 11:00.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else, there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
1928
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 17:35:00 -
[50] - Quote
Justicar Karnellia wrote:Yes, people talk of the recall mechanic and it's been distorted from its original use - originally it was if you no longer had a viable tactical need for your vehicle you couldn't just leave it there to be destroyed ,so you recalled it OR what happened a lot more before but happens a lot less now is you got stuck on some map oddity and just couldn't move...
what I see a lot of now, is people recalling while they're taking fire, to save their burning HAV/LAV/Dropship from beind destroyed. Yes, the easy solution is only being able to recall from the redline OR:
1) Having an RDV physically come and pick it up - it takes just as long as the delivery and adds the risk of a) the RDV being blown up -> recall failed b) Tells the enemy you are recalling something, so they can do something about it
You could also add the redline restriction to this and this means anyone who wants to recall anything has to scurry all the way back to the edge of the battlefield and not get their RDV shot down in the process.
Of course it wouldn't solve the problem of redline sniping - but that's another issue altogether... That is a better solution than restricting recalls to the Red Line. As you mention in your post, sometimes vehicles must be recalled because they become stuck. Hard to get a stuck vehicle back to the Red Line.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else, there is the Learning Coalition.
|
|
Goric Rumis
Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn
256
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 21:52:00 -
[51] - 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. |
Commander Tzu
L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder.
108
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 22:09:00 -
[52] - Quote
Six 7 wrote:Yea, so what I have to say involves tanksGǪ figures right?
Tanks in 1.6 were viable given teamwork. You Had remote reps on LAVS, HAVS, and Dropships. Spider Tanking or LAV/ Tank spider was viable. YET no tanks I ever saw chose to use teamwork apart from 1 or 2 corps I saw in pc using a logi LAV for what it was intended to do. Remote repair was thrown out the window for Murder taxis and other horses**t. I do acknowledge that AV could wreck you in 5 secs if you were stoopid, but if you were you deserved it. Yet if u used remote reps, and used them well it requires AV to use teamwork as well. I remember first pc where I saw a Logi LAV doing what it was supposed to. Took 2 min and 3 guys to get around it (kill em) after they got stooped. A Tank should not dominate without support be it infantry or another vehicle... you were given the option yet chose not to use it.
Even though you cried I still saw people like Mavado running matches in PC going 20/0, The true tankers. WIth Swarms and forges on his ass simply because he knew when to retreat ask for help and push like an actual teammate and bad ass.
What I find funny nowGǪ Tanks are op and are finally using teamwork? Drop 4 send two in, if they are hit swap the other two out while the others outrun swarms and either wait for modules to come back or simply recall and drop again. Infantry running av is pressed to deal with new tanks while others recover. Nor can we hit the recovering tanks given their speed and specifically swarm lock rangeGǪ. Or send in all 4, deny enemy Vehicles, Clean up AV unchallenged (simply because running what is necessary to make an impact is too expensive and people rarely run it anymore) , and retreat when needed while other tanks finish dusting the battlefield.
Argument about sp invested into an AV suit to take you out? Ha laughableGǪ
Proto suit. Proto AV wep./Proficiency/ Pg reduction/ reload/ Capacity AV nades. Cpu/ PG to fit the goods. Proto sidearm/ Proficiency/ Pg reduction/ reload/ Capacity (to make you less of a liability to the team being specialized/ able to hold your own with a group rather then cower) Remotes/ hives Damage Mods
all circa 10 mil. Yes a lot of it is crossoverGǪ But your vehicle skills are too? Run a beast tank and suit with 15 mil sp? Yea try 20 or 25 mil don't expect to be an epic tanker and infantry w/o time invested.
Yet given the Sp invested into AV and the current cost of my AV suit (152,535 isK), the 3 in 5 chance I get stomped on the way to the tank, and does not have the anti infantry ability of the forge (be it opportunistic and a skill setGǪ well, kind of). What do I run???? Militia rail tank, no SP investedGǪ Costs 68k Isk. kills, maddys, gunlogis, militia tanks, infantryGǪ Best part is I don't know how to drive a tank but I'm not an idiot and avoid situations that I would capitalize on as an Av'er. Only really hunt tanks went 5/0 yesterday against 2 maddys and 3 militia. Yet when I do try to capitalize as an AV'er with some dumbA$$ in a situation where he should be killed. Zoom ZOOm ZOOOM.
Tanks shouldn't be paper, nor should AV KO a smart tanker. Things are simply imbalanced. Proto AV can barely scratch militia tanks, making every level below pointless. Since both true tankers and AV have had their asses nerved to hell and back we all need to discuss a option that makes us both a worthy blue dot on the field. Something worth having and a viable counters for all.
Lol, read the first paragraph and couldn't stop laughing. "Tanks weren't UP before 1.7. You just had to use Logi vehicles for what they were designed for!" Using an OP vehicle to prop up a UP vehicle, how many times were people saying LLAVs needed nerfing? Regular LAV/HAV spidering was fun, but not exactly viable when the support vehicle got killed in 3 seconds. Anyone, I agree, HAVs got nerfed to hell and now it's AV's turn. Eventually it will get sorted out; I personally think this new system is part of the problem, I think it would have been easier to tweek the old system instead of making a brand new one. As a tanker though, I hope the balance takes a build or two to get implemented, reparations for the six I had to wait.
P.S. 20/0, that's all?
|
Commander Tzu
L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder.
108
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 22:12:00 -
[53] - Quote
Vrain Matari wrote:Fox Gaden wrote:Valmorgan Aubaris wrote:I think it is absurd they can get out and put a tank back in their pocket if things don't go their way. Usually they get out in full proto gear and gun me down anyway. Tanks should: 1. Stay spawned once spawned untill end of match, period. 2. Tank drivers should only be allowed to wear a certain dropsuit (if any at all).. Come on now a guy driving a tank in a heavy dropsuit that can bail out and attack on foot in an instant? Yeah, ok. How about if Tanks could only be recalled behind the Red Line? This would not work for LAVGÇÖs as their purpose is getting people to where they need to be, and behind the Red Line is not where people need to be, but for HAVGÇÖs it might make sense. Just an idea, based on this post. Feel free to poke holes in it. I've been thinking about recall and combat. If we're all honest with each other then we have to admit that a mechanic that was intended to prevent players from being locked into a vehicle all match out of economic concerns is now being used as a combat mechanic. That's not what was intended and it is distorting the battlefield experience and the balancing conversation we're engaged in. Recall for tanks behind the redline only makes balance and makes sense. +1.
All vehicle recalls should be behind red line only. |
Shion Typhon
Intara Direct Action Caldari State
329
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 00:19:00 -
[54] - Quote
Wrote this before the change, still applies and is why current tanking model will NEVER work.
Tanking issues |
The Robot Devil
Molon Labe. Public Disorder.
1337
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 00:44:00 -
[55] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:The Robot Devil wrote:I don't like not having remote reps and shield transfers, I liked using those modules on HAVs. It really did help and was pretty fun but I never gained WP from it. I do like seeing the vehicles but I wish the logi modules were still there. I could keep a good HAV pilot on the field with reps and teamwork but now there is nothing to do except blow them up. Many of the HAVs only have the main gun now, that isn't always fun either. if you see me in game and want to gun in the tank mail me and ill land one with turrets for gunners . I like to encourage infantry to get in and gun as the small turrets are actually quite effective now. the same goes for any one.
I have a brick tanked Armarr logi with a vehicle rep tool. I'll gun for you anytime you want to roll together.
No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride.
|
The Robot Devil
Molon Labe. Public Disorder.
1337
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 01:00:00 -
[56] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:The Robot Devil wrote:I don't like not having remote reps and shield transfers, I liked using those modules on HAVs. It really did help and was pretty fun but I never gained WP from it. I do like seeing the vehicles but I wish the logi modules were still there. I could keep a good HAV pilot on the field with reps and teamwork but now there is nothing to do except blow them up. Many of the HAVs only have the main gun now, that isn't always fun either. Remote Rep and Shield Transfer modules will return one day. CCP simplified everything to make balancing easier, so we need to balance what we have now, then add stuff in while trying to maintain that balance.
I agree that getting balance before the remote modules make a come back is the correct way of doing things. My whole take on the HAV thing will make people mad. I believe that it should take an entire squad to destroy a tank and I mean two FG, a SW and PLC with a good logi and one good mid ranged assault. The only counter for a HAV should be a large blaster, a squad focused on AV or another HAV. But on the opposite of the same coin it should take a squad to support a HAV to make it viable, solo pilots shouldn't be able to fight for very long and as of right now that is how it kind of works.
If a good HAV squad was to deploy they would wipe the floor with infantry twice as bad as now. A HAV with a couple of guns followed by a LAV with a good logi and gunner would screw over any kind of AV that wasn't totally working together. Now a good AV merc can run off a HAV but with a dedicated squad supporting the HAV it wouldn't even have to run. I want a web and I think that would solve everything.
No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride.
|
Vrain Matari
ZionTCD Public Disorder.
1379
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 03:34:00 -
[57] - Quote
Shion Typhon wrote:Wrote this before the change, still applies and is why current tanking model will NEVER work. Tanking issues That was a pleasure to read Shion. +1. Your powers of analysis and your game design kung-fu are very good. Thank you for the education.
And i agree with you, your solution works on several levels. Most importantly, it sets a rational foundation for vehicle-AV infantry interaction.
I don't want to like it, mind you, because it seems so one dimensional: tanks become hitpoint buckets and AV become smaller negative-hitpoint buckets. But what i like and don't like doesn't really matter, i have to acknowledge that your solution addresses all the major issues successfully, and because it is a hitpoint model it is very stable and not easily exploited or distorted.
On an aesthetic level i want Team Kong's punctuated-godmode approach to succeed, it seems more dynamic and perhaps romantic. I had identified the velocity gap as the primary variable and was looking for a gameplay-based way to narrow that gap and hence balance AV infantry vs. tanks.
I acknowledge that it would be a tricky process, intuition tells me it's non-linear and nowhere near as stable a solution as yours. Still, there are many examples in science and engineering of inherently non-linear systems that admit robust stable solutions. Best known example would be solitonic waves, i suppose. In Wolfman's position i would be tempted to keep on trying but i would say this: the system is non-linear and has multiple inputs and it is going to be an uphill battle to find a stable solution, and if such a solution is found it will forever lock together certain properties of tanks with certain properties of AV infantry. These locked properties will effectively constrain any design that touches on it forever.
Shion Typhon's solution's greatest strength is most likely that it leaves game designers unconstrained by the tank-AV balance and free to create without having to forever tend to a very tricky and game-breaking balance problem.
A tough call.
I support SP rollover.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
1940
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 19:47:00 -
[58] - Quote
Shion Typhon wrote:Wrote this before the change, still applies and is why current tanking model will NEVER work. Tanking issues Shion Typhon, I have a lot of respect for the argument you presented. I donGÇÖt necessarily agree with all of it, but much of it range true, and I will certainly be keeping your arguments in mind.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else, there is the Learning Coalition.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |