Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
1951
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 15:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
A Skill Point investment should be required to make a player successful in a tank.
Currently players can be successful tankers without investing any points in vehicles. This is causing tank spam where there will often be 5 tanks on a single team. Tank spam is bad for the game, and extremely frustrating for infantry.
If only dedicated tankers could be successful in Tanks it would be rare to see more than 2 tanks on a team. Two tanks can be avoided or dealt with much more easily by infantry than 5 tanks. It is a much better balance on teams of 16.
Taking out the +5% HP bonus for the vehicle Armour and Shield skills was a mistake!
All vehicles should have a 25% hit point nerf, and the Armour and Shield skills should get the 5% bonus back, so that no-skill tankers will be 25% weaker, and dedicated tankers will have the same health as they do now. That is, people with no points invested in vehicles should be 25% weaker than dedicated tankers/drivers/pilots.
AV should be able to deal with no skill tankers easily enough that tanking is not a preferable course of actions for someone who is not committing skill points into vehicles.
The cost of militia tanks should stay where they are now, so that new players who want to become dedicated tankers can afford to go that route.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else, there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Ivy Zalinto
Lo-Tech Solutions Ltd
203
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 15:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
Honestly I feel tanks are fine the way they are. Their hp isnt that strong at all when a couple of remotes and a flux grenade will pop the grand majority. You can also simply avoid them most of the time with the right setup of suit even if they are running scanners. Where I agree most players feel they should be able to take a tank on solo, it just shouldn't happen in my opinion.
Dedicated scout.
New player tutor; scout instructor
Scrambler Pistol dedication
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
1952
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 15:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ivy Zalinto wrote:Honestly I feel tanks are fine the way they are. Their hp isnt that strong at all when a couple of remotes and a flux grenade will pop the grand majority. You can also simply avoid them most of the time with the right setup of suit even if they are running scanners. Where I agree most players feel they should be able to take a tank on solo, it just shouldn't happen in my opinion. Where you and I disagree is that I donGÇÖt think that a single AV should be able to take out a dedicated tanker solo, while you think that someone who has all their skill point invested in Infantry skills should be invulnerable in a tank.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else, there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Vin Mora
Sanguis Defense Syndicate
263
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 16:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:A Skill Point investment should be required to make a player successful in a tank.
Currently players can be successful tankers without investing any points in vehicles. This is causing tank spam where there will often be 5 tanks on a single team. Tank spam is bad for the game, and extremely frustrating for infantry.
If only dedicated tankers could be successful in Tanks it would be rare to see more than 2 tanks on a team. Two tanks can be avoided or dealt with much more easily by infantry than 5 tanks. It is a much better balance on teams of 16.
Taking out the +5% HP bonus for the vehicle Armour and Shield skills was a mistake!
All vehicles should have a 25% hit point nerf, and the Armour and Shield skills should get the 5% bonus back, so that no-skill tankers will be 25% weaker, and dedicated tankers will have the same health as they do now. That is, people with no points invested in vehicles should be 25% weaker than dedicated tankers/drivers/pilots.
AV should be able to deal with no skill tankers easily enough that tanking is not a preferable course of actions for someone who is not committing skill points into vehicles.
The cost of militia tanks should stay where they are now, so that new players who want to become dedicated tankers can afford to go that route. As new tanker that just runs Militia Tanks, I see some wisdom in your words. However, tanks are inifinity harder to kill with AV now, so until a sweet spot is achieved where AV is useful enough to warrant use, then Tanks should remain where they are. Right now, my main AV fit is my Militia Sica with a Blaster.
Remember, that their are far fewer militia modules then before, and we still don't have Large Missile Turrets without using LP. Plus tanker have skills for better/cheaper fitting requirements and shorter cooldowns.
Also, for me tanks solve my issue with extremely low TTK, I will never get one-shot (or seemingly one-shot) in a tank, and that actually makes me wait to play more, and fight harder. If TTK for infantry was raised to the levels that it was pre Auto-Aim and Hit Detection patch(es) then I'd be on the ground more.
Sanguis Defense Syndicate: Recruitment now open for players of all skill levels
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
1954
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 17:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
Vin Mora wrote:As new tanker that just runs Militia Tanks, I see some wisdom in your words. However, tanks are inifinity harder to kill with AV now, so until a sweet spot is achieved where AV is useful enough to warrant use, then Tanks should remain where they are. Right now, my main AV fit is my Militia Sica with a Blaster.
Remember, that their are far fewer militia modules then before, and we still don't have Large Missile Turrets without using LP. Plus tanker have skills for better/cheaper fitting requirements and shorter cooldowns.
Also, for me tanks solve my issue with extremely low TTK, I will never get one-shot (or seemingly one-shot) in a tank, and that actually makes me wait to play more, and fight harder. If TTK for infantry was raised to the levels that it was pre Auto-Aim and Hit Detection patch(es) then I'd be on the ground more. I do have some sympathy for where you are coming from, as the TTK is the other big problem making DUST not fun for infantry right now.
However, it is difficult to get reasonable data on the AV vs Tank balance with so many unskilled tankers around.
One important point is that it has long been agreed between dedicated tankers and dedicated AVers that driving off a tank is almost as good as killing a tank. This was one of the key arguments around the notion that a single Infantry AVer should not be able to solo a tank.
However, my experience in the week I spent testing AV in 1.7, was that if I managed to drive off a tank, two more tanks would come in and kill me. While tankers always thought that the balance should be 3 Infantry to take out one tank, the current situation often has tanks outnumbering infantry AV.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else, there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Sole Fenychs
Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 18:11:00 -
[6] - Quote
A barrier to entry might be an interesting idea. Make it like dropships. Make tanks really hard to learn. Maybe integrate modules in such a way that a tank without proper module usage is really weak.
How about power juggling? Give them a power bar. Let modules drain the bar continually. If the bar is depleted, there's a cooldown and no module can be used until it's full again. If the bar isn't depleted, it can be instantly used again and regenerates more quickly than on cooldown. If a tank doesn't use any modules, it can be solo'd by an AV player with moderate skill. But this system will allow the modules to be used for longer stretches of time, while keeping tankers on their toe. If a tanker wants to tank damage for longer stretches of time, he'll need to deactivate all non-armor modules. If a tanker wants to go full-on guns blazing and shoot the entire clip with damage modules, he'll need to deactivate the armor and the scanners. If a tanker wants to have a prolonged firefight, they will to constantly toggle modules on and off to allow the power bar to recharge between engagements. And while they are off, they tanker will need to keep the finger on the armor button.
You might tie the crew into lowering the skill requirements of the tank. Maybe by allowing passengers to control sub-sets of the power or something. The idea would be to have either many tanks with HUGE skill requirements or few tanks (and even fewer infantry units) at lower skill requirement on the field. |
Harpyja
DUST University Ivy League
950
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 19:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:A Skill Point investment should be required to make a player successful in a tank.
Currently players can be successful tankers without investing any points in vehicles. This is causing tank spam where there will often be 5 tanks on a single team. Tank spam is bad for the game, and extremely frustrating for infantry.
If only dedicated tankers could be successful in Tanks it would be rare to see more than 2 tanks on a team. Two tanks can be avoided or dealt with much more easily by infantry than 5 tanks. It is a much better balance on teams of 16.
Taking out the +5% HP bonus for the vehicle Armour and Shield skills was a mistake!
All vehicles should have a 25% hit point nerf, and the Armour and Shield skills should get the 5% bonus back, so that no-skill tankers will be 25% weaker, and dedicated tankers will have the same health as they do now. That is, people with no points invested in vehicles should be 25% weaker than dedicated tankers/drivers/pilots.
AV should be able to deal with no skill tankers easily enough that tanking is not a preferable course of actions for someone who is not committing skill points into vehicles.
The cost of militia tanks should stay where they are now, so that new players who want to become dedicated tankers can afford to go that route. Exactly what I've been saying for the past week or two, yet nobody really cared to listen
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
322
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 19:30:00 -
[8] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:Fox Gaden wrote:A Skill Point investment should be required to make a player successful in a tank.
Currently players can be successful tankers without investing any points in vehicles. This is causing tank spam where there will often be 5 tanks on a single team. Tank spam is bad for the game, and extremely frustrating for infantry.
If only dedicated tankers could be successful in Tanks it would be rare to see more than 2 tanks on a team. Two tanks can be avoided or dealt with much more easily by infantry than 5 tanks. It is a much better balance on teams of 16.
Taking out the +5% HP bonus for the vehicle Armour and Shield skills was a mistake!
All vehicles should have a 25% hit point nerf, and the Armour and Shield skills should get the 5% bonus back, so that no-skill tankers will be 25% weaker, and dedicated tankers will have the same health as they do now. That is, people with no points invested in vehicles should be 25% weaker than dedicated tankers/drivers/pilots.
AV should be able to deal with no skill tankers easily enough that tanking is not a preferable course of actions for someone who is not committing skill points into vehicles.
The cost of militia tanks should stay where they are now, so that new players who want to become dedicated tankers can afford to go that route. Exactly what I've been saying for the past week or two, yet nobody really cared to listen
Who are you?
(jk)
Agreed, something other than COOLDOWN and UPTIME to balance it all out.
Nuff Said
|
Quil Evrything
Triple Terrors
586
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 19:59:00 -
[9] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:A Skill Point investment should be required to make a player successful in a tank.
Currently players can be successful tankers without investing any points in vehicles. This is causing tank spam where there will often be 5 tanks on a single team. Tank spam is bad for the game, and extremely frustrating for infantry.
There are multiple ways to define "successful".
Personally, I find the existing skill points and militia setup just fine, for individual tanks. The problem is not "one unskilled tanker picks up a tank".
the problem is "tank spam", as you briefly touch on.
I've honed my infantry skill to the point where I can take out any one tank. The problem is that now, people basically go around in tank SQUADS. That, is virtually impossible to win against.
I'd rather see a 2-tank team limit, than more barriers to make tankers feel more 'leet.
More barriers to tank use, just makes for the new FOTM to be proto-stomping, tanker style. Where the "blessed few" get to completely dominate lesser beings. I would imagine we'd start seeing tanker-only corps. Better to lower team tank count. |
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
1961
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 20:11:00 -
[10] - Quote
I define Successful as getting more infantry kills than losses (even when there is an experienced tanker killing them) and going ISK positive. I am not concerned with the state of unskilled tankers against skilled tankers. I am concerned that if a team does not have a skilled tanker to clear the field of the unskilled tankers, then they are out of luck.
I also donGÇÖt like arbitrary limits. I donGÇÖt mind seeing 5 tanks on a rare occasion. I just donGÇÖt want to see it in every match.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else, there is the Learning Coalition.
|
|
501st Headstrong
Dead Man's Game
106
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 20:20:00 -
[11] - Quote
This is a battlefield, not a playground where everything is controlled. Get out a tank and hunt down the squads of tanks if it is becoming such an issue. Stop whining about how one person should be able to drive off something with 7000 armor and shields. That is a ridiculous concept. A tank should be capable of mowing down infantry. Infantry mow down other infantry. Tanks kill tanks and dropships. If one team found the time to get together a squad of their friends who are tankers, and you think you can go in like the king of COD and just blow up all their tanks, then please go play COD. Honestly, if everyone has a tank these days, then it shouldn't be too hard to find them. Even better, make a squad in Squad Finder called Tankers Only. That should do something...
Not Furious, just confused. There's a difference
Mando & proud
Minmatar Commando, join the Commando Squadron Chat 2day!
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
1961
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 20:27:00 -
[12] - Quote
501st Headstrong wrote:This is a battlefield, not a playground where everything is controlled. Get out a tank and hunt down the squads of tanks if it is becoming such an issue. Stop whining about how one person should be able to drive off something with 7000 armor and shields. That is a ridiculous concept. A tank should be capable of mowing down infantry. Infantry mow down other infantry. Tanks kill tanks and dropships. If one team found the time to get together a squad of their friends who are tankers, and you think you can go in like the king of COD and just blow up all their tanks, then please go play COD. Honestly, if everyone has a tank these days, then it shouldn't be too hard to find them. Even better, make a squad in Squad Finder called Tankers Only. That should do something...
Not Furious, just confused. There's a difference In your scenario there is no point in playing infantry at all.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else, there is the Learning Coalition.
|
501st Headstrong
Dead Man's Game
106
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 20:34:00 -
[13] - Quote
Well let's see. Tanks get out tanks to kill infantry. Infantry then get in tanks. Once hostile tankers either have no more ISK to keep calling in tanks, or they get upset at constantly being blown up, Infantry gun game resumes and they try to hack objectives. That is my scenario. It mirrors actuallity. Often, the military with the most money or bodies and equipment to throw into the fray will win. Same as in Dust. Everyone says Dust is a Pay to Win, and it is. But you Pay in game, not out.
Mando & proud
Minmatar Commando, join the Commando Squadron Chat 2day!
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&
|
Artificer Ghost
Bojo's School of the Trades
784
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 21:29:00 -
[14] - Quote
501st, I'd just like to remind you that Fox is probably having a bad day (Start being Canadian again, gosh dernit), and he is more than likely smarter than you. He owns a successful schooling corporation with over 100 players (Or 200 now?), and co-founded a very large group of multiple schools, that has hundreds of people attending.
TL;DR - He's most likely right in what he's saying.
~Art, CEO and Director of Educations at Bojo's School of The Trades, Co-Founder of the Learning Coalition
|
Quil Evrything
Triple Terrors
588
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 22:17:00 -
[15] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:I am not concerned with the state of unskilled tankers against skilled tankers. I am concerned that if a team does not have a skilled tanker to clear the field of the unskilled tankers, then they are out of luck.
I also donGÇÖt like arbitrary limits. I donGÇÖt mind seeing 5 tanks on a rare occasion. I just donGÇÖt want to see it in every match.
As for the first part of above: I dont see a significant difference between what you wrote, vs "I am concerned that if a team does not have a skilled tanker, to defeat the skilled tanker on the other side, then they are out of luck".
To look at it from another perspective; I fail to see how one team dominating a match because they have an unbeatable 10milSP tanker on their side, is any better than one team dominating a match because they have a squad of militia tankers.
You seem to be favoring the first thing, yet against the second thing. I say both are bad. But with the existence of militia tankers, at least a team-up of 3 of them, should be able to take out the 10mil SP tanker. In the same way that a team of 3 lesser beings, should in theory be able to take down one guy in uber-proto dropsuit.
And, in the same way, the "team up with 3" is equally available to all teams, in both situations, because of militia tanks. This is a GOOD thing.
So, for your original request, of doing away with militia tankers, I personally would say it's a bad idea, for the reason i just described above.
For your concern of "too many tanks", the only fair, and direct way, is to limit number of tanks. Yeah, you dont like that. but it's the only truly effective and fair way to limit them. SO, decide which you like less :)
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
1963
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 22:19:00 -
[16] - Quote
Artificer Ghost wrote:501st, I'd just like to remind you that Fox is probably having a bad day (Start being Canadian again, gosh dernit), and he is more than likely smarter than you. He owns a successful schooling corporation with over 100 players (Or 200 now?), and co-founded a very large group of multiple schools, that has hundreds of people attending.
TL;DR - He's most likely right in what he's saying. Ah, thanks, but I usually try to let my arguments stand for themselves, and if I felt the need to present my credentials in this matter I would likely reference my AV experience rather than the size of my Corp. Oh, and the GÇ£IGÇÖm smarter than you, so there!GÇ¥ defense never even occurred to me. I appreciate you trying to stand up for me though.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else, there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
1963
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 22:44:00 -
[17] - Quote
Quil Evrything wrote:Fox Gaden wrote:I am not concerned with the state of unskilled tankers against skilled tankers. I am concerned that if a team does not have a skilled tanker to clear the field of the unskilled tankers, then they are out of luck.
I also donGÇÖt like arbitrary limits. I donGÇÖt mind seeing 5 tanks on a rare occasion. I just donGÇÖt want to see it in every match. As for the first part of above: I dont see a significant difference between what you wrote, vs "I am concerned that if a team does not have a skilled tanker, to defeat the skilled tanker on the other side, then they are out of luck". To look at it from another perspective; I fail to see how one team dominating a match because they have an unbeatable 10milSP tanker on their side, is any better than one team dominating a match because they have a squad of militia tankers. You seem to be favoring the first thing, yet against the second thing. I say both are bad. But with the existence of militia tankers, at least a team-up of 3 of them, should be able to take out the 10mil SP tanker. In the same way that a team of 3 lesser beings, should in theory be able to take down one guy in uber-proto dropsuit. And, in the same way, the "team up with 3" is equally available to all teams, in both situations, because of militia tanks. This is a GOOD thing. So, for your original request, of doing away with militia tankers, I personally would say it's a bad idea, for the reason i just described above. For your concern of "too many tanks", the only fair, and direct way, is to limit number of tanks. Yeah, you dont like that. but it's the only truly effective and fair way to limit them. SO, decide which you like less :) To Infantry with no AV there is no difference between a Militia tank and a Proto tank.
3 militia tanks firing on an objective from 3 different directions is a way harder to take cover from than 1 tank, no matter how good that one tank is.
Infantry can generally avoid 1 or 2 tanks by taking Objectives on the other side of the map, but with 5 tanks all areas can be covered.
It is hard to address the Tank vs AV balance when tanks outnumber AVers.
Your idea of limiting the number of tanks to 2 per side conflicts with your idea of 3 militia tanks being the counter to a dedicated tanker.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else, there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Ghermard-ol Dizeriois
Maphia Clan Corporation
28
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 23:42:00 -
[18] - Quote
Current AV weapons are mostly uneffective unless there are many soldiers using them together against a single target. But since there are too many enemy tanks to deal with, AV soldiers always have the lower hand.
Someone suggested to use 3 soldiers for each tank: - driver - gunner - support (activates modules) and uses the small turret above the tank.
Great idea IMHO.
Also, leveling the cost of each tank to 400.000 ISK for MLT and 700.000 ISK for regular ones would surely cut down the number of spawed tanks for each battle. Right now, I could call in an entire amount of tanks and "build" a wall with them.
If you're an hacker, a cheater o a glitcher, you deserve death. In real life.
|
Vin Mora
Sanguis Defense Syndicate
264
|
Posted - 2013.12.24 12:48:00 -
[19] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:One important point is that it has long been agreed between dedicated tankers and dedicated AVers that driving off a tank is almost as good as killing a tank. This was one of the key arguments around the notion that a single Infantry AVer should not be able to solo a tank.
However, my experience in the week I spent testing AV in 1.7, was that if I managed to drive off a tank, two more tanks would come in and kill me. While tankers always thought that the balance should be 3 Infantry to take out one tank, the current situation often has tanks outnumbering infantry AV. This has also been my experience. With tanks now repairing so easily, the only thing they have to worry about is their hardeners and ammo.
Just yesterday in my MLT Sica with a blaster I was able to shrug off 1 forge gun hit, 1 Railgun hit (from a tank i was trying to hunt and was in my face) and several swarm launcher volleys. Here's how I did that, and why AV is nearly useless against (hardened) tanks: I turned on my Shield Hardener, let my shield drop to as low as I can, then activated my Heavy/Large Shield Booster. I go from being killable to invincible in 1 sec (literally the length of time it takes for the booster to kick in) and I am able to escape being killed.
The problem with tanks now is that they are really cheap and very survivable. 1.6 shield tanks were terrible and bad armor tankers were easy to kill, now in 1.7 it seems all tanks if driven by someone that is competent they are much harder to kill. Scaring off a tank is useless now, killing them, or trying to clone their team is the only way to win against tanks.
Also, Swarms, IMO, were never meant to used against tanks. They were for the faster, more maneuverable vehicles: LAVs and Dropships, but they were used by players because of not wanting to have to go into the Heavy Frame for a more effective AV method.
Sanguis Defense Syndicate: Recruitment now open for players of all skill levels
|
TheEnd762
SVER True Blood Public Disorder.
277
|
Posted - 2013.12.24 13:41:00 -
[20] - Quote
Vin Mora wrote:Also, Swarms, IMO, were never meant to used against tanks. They were for the faster, more maneuverable vehicles: LAVs and Dropships, but they were used by players because of not wanting to have to go into the Heavy Frame for a more effective AV method.
This is true. Now, with the damage nerf, they're completely useless against tanks (even with multiple proto users) and with the range nerf, they're nearly useless against dropships as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 :: [one page] |