DUST Search - Reduce AV cost

Avallo Kantor wrote:

Don't let ISK be a balancing factor.

The issue is AV is designed to be Anti-Vehicle, and right now they are outclassed in their own role by a tank.

Yes, multiple AV can take down a tank, but a single tank can take on and kill a single tank. It would be as if assault suits were given 12 equipment slots, yes a Logi suit can still be used for logi, but it would take three of them to provide the same equipment variety as one assault.

When in matches that are limited in player count (16 v 16, for example) the weight of each player matters, especially in more competitive battles. The fact that four AVs can take on a tank is all well and good, but if their job could be matched by a single AV tank, then all a team is doing is wasting 4 people on the work of 1.

The problem here is that AV currently only have one way to deal with tanks, by doing damage, and this role is done better by AV tanks. The solution to this, if AV Infantry is to be kept relevant, is either to have AV damage a tank in much the same way as tank on tank combat, or give AV infantry a way to engage tanks that AV Tanks cannot. This would most likey mean some form of Ewarfare, such as having AV grenades that scramble a tank (Black out Minimap, and Tac-net on HuD [The symbols you see]), having webifier mines / weapons / Trap Areas to slow tanks, or having other hostile modules that either diminish a tank's ability, nullify it for periods of time (in which AV Infantry or Tanks can kill it), or otherwise prevent it from being able to do it's job.

And these activities should generate war points, and allow AV Infantry to set up kill zones / areas of denial for tanks. These trap areas however should not affect infantry, and be able to be destroyed by infantry (but not by tanks), perhaps by some hack to deactivate / overload (destroy) it.

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
CharCharOdell 1845	Posted - 2013.12.23 03:22:00 - [1] - Quote Well, let's be honest: they're not effective enough to cost more than a mlt tank. Bring the proto down to 40k for the weapons, please. Gùñn++é-º+¼+ò+¦GÖÑ+ú+ú+¡ GÖÑ'Ðe+ü+üGùÑ Gùú -ä>-üð+++Ç++§<-¡<-¡ Gùó I like railguns.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 2423	Posted - 2013.12.23 03:24:00 - [2] - Quote The AV weapons (most) already are at 40k. What makes AVing expensive is the fact that you have to stack all PRO modules on PRO suits to even scratch a tank. I do agree on the price reduction however. We finally deployed in the MinFW Match! \o/
Cosgar ParagonX 8987	Posted - 2013.12.23 03:25:00 - [3] - Quote Does this include proximity mines and REs? I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
CharCharOdell 1845	Posted - 2013.12.23 03:28:00 - [4] - Quote Atiim wrote: The AV weapons (most) already are at 40k. What makes AVing expensive is the fact that you have to stack all PRO modules on PRO suits to even scratch a tank. I do agree on the price reduction however. Originally, I wanted tanks to either be expensive at powerful, or cheap and meh. This is like classic CCP double buff/nerf spam mode elite #yoloswag style. Tanks need to be more expensive. Av needs to be cheaper. I want to feel like someone is crying when I splode their tank. It's like sploding a bpo suit now- they just call in another one! I miss killing a sagaris and saying: 'HELL YEAH! BE BROKE, PU88SY!' Gùñ-é-º+¼+ò+¦GÖÑ+ú+ú+¡ GÖÑ'Ðe+ü+üGùÑ Gùú -ä>-üð+++Ç++§<-¡<-¡ Gùó I like railguns.
Ryder Azorria Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 750	Posted - 2013.12.23 03:29:00 - [5] - Quote Atiim wrote: The AV weapons (most) already are at 40k. What makes AVing expensive is the fact that you have to stack all PRO modules on PRO suits to even scratch a tank. I do agree on the price reduction however. Well maybe if you stopped shooting at tanks with their hardeners up that wouldn't be the case
Avallo Kantor Scions of Athra 251	Posted - 2013.12.23 03:43:00 - [6] - Quote Don't let ISK be a balancing factor. The issue is AV is designed to be Anti-Vehicle, and right now they are outclassed in their own role by a tank. Yes, multiple AV can take down a tank, but a single tank can take on and kill a single tank. It would be as if assault suits were given 12 equipment slots, yes a Logi suit can still be used for logi, but it would take three of them to provide the same equipment variety as one assault. When in matches that are limited in player count (16 v 16, for example) the weight of each player matters, especially in more competitive battles. The fact that four AVs can take on a tank is all well and good, but if their job could be matched by a single AV tank, then all a team is doing is wasting 4 people on the work of 1. The problem here is that AV currently only have one way to deal with tanks, by doing damage, and this role is done better by AV tanks. The solution to this, if AV Infantry is to be kept relevant, is either to have AV damage a tank in much the same way as tank on tank combat, or give AV infantry a way to engage tanks that AV Tanks cannot. This would most likey mean some form of Ewarfare, such as having AV grenades that scramble a tank (Black out Minimap, and Tac-net on HuD [The symbols you see]), having webifier mines / weapons / Trap Areas to slow tanks, or having other hostile modules that either diminish a tank's ability, nullify it for periods of time (in which AV Infantry or Tanks can kill it), or otherwise prevent it from being able to do it's job. And these activities should generate war points, and allow AV Infantry to set up kill zones / areas of denial for tanks. These trap areas however should not affect infantry, and be able to be destroyed by infantry (but not by tanks), perhaps by some hack to deactivate / overload (destroy) it.
jerrmy12 kahoalii Krullefor Organization Minmatar Republic 172	Posted - 2013.12.23 03:55:00 - [7] - Quote CharCharOdell wrote: Well, let's be honest: they're not effective enough to cost more than a mlt tank. Bring the proto down to 40k for the weapons, please. if thats the reason decrease the price of ADS's recuruit link 5 to 11 mil isk per 100k recuruit
CLONE117 planetary retaliation organisation 539	Posted - 2013.12.23 03:58:00 - [8] - Quote thats funny my new glass cannon anti tank sica costs more than your 40k isk proto forge gun... a lot more...
Eltra Ardell Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 253	Posted - 2013.12.23 04:02:00 - [9] - Quote CLONE117 wrote: thats funny my new glass cannon anti tank sica costs more than your 40k isk proto forge gun... a lot more... A prototype weapon a full suit does not make. My AV heavy suit mounts a complex damage mod, proto forge, BPO sidearm, a plate, and is all mounted on a BPO suit. It's only 2k less expensive than my militia general purpose tank.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 2427	Posted - 2013.12.23 04:04:00 - [10] - Quote CLONE117 wrote: thats funny my new glass cannon anti tank sica costs more than your 40k isk proto forge gun... a lot more... Idiotic player is idiotic. We finally deployed in the MinFW Match! \o/

Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 1726	Posted - 2013.12.23 04:23:00 - [11] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: Don't let ISK be a balancing factor. The issue is AV is designed to be Anti-Vehicle, and right now they are outclassed in their own role by a tank. Yes, multiple AV can take down a tank, but a single tank can take on and kill a single tank. It would be as if assault suits were given 12 equipment slots, yes a Logi suit can still be used for logi, but it would take three of them to provide the same equipment variety as one assault. When in matches that are limited in player count (16 v 16, for example) the weight of each player matters, especially in more competitive battles. The fact that four AVs can take on a tank is all well and good, but if their job could be matched by a single AV tank, then all a team is doing is wasting 4 people on the work of 1. The problem here is that AV currently only have one way to deal with tanks, by doing damage, and this role is done better by AV tanks. The solution to this, if AV Infantry is to be kept relevant, is either to have AV damage a tank in much the same way as tank on tank combat, or give AV infantry a way to engage tanks that AV Tanks cannot. This would most likey mean some form of Ewarfare, such as having AV grenades that scramble a tank (Black out Minimap, and Tac-net on HuD [The symbols you see]), having webifier mines / weapons / Trap Areas to slow tanks, or having other hostile modules that either diminish a tank's ability, nullify it for periods of time (in which AV Infantry or Tanks can kill it), or otherwise prevent it from being able to do it's job. And these activities should generate war points, and allow AV Infantry to set up kill zones / areas of denial for tanks. These trap areas however should not affect infantry, and be able to be destroyed by infantry (but not by tanks), perhaps by some hack to deactivate / overload (destroy) it. A 10 ton gun mounted on a tank should be more effective than an infantry carried weapon, don't you think? Going to stay out of AV/V debates, better for my sanity. GÿåTank driverGÿå


Pages: 1 :: [one page]