| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
375
   |
Posted - 2014.01.06 09:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
On patch night, I wearily predicted that a zero-sum vehicle game would develop quite rapidly whereby you wouldn't require infantry AV anymore simply because a tank does a better job at killing vehicles AND can also kill infantry , while an infantry AV player is no longer effective against tanks, and was never effective against infantry in the first place. The first night I saw two tanks, the next I saw five, and now it's not uncommon to see 7 tanks a side roaming about.
To be fair to the argument, and for an argument to carry more weight, I decided to switch completely to HAV vehicles and see what their issues were and how this could be improved upon to make a better game for everyone involved.
I ran two fits - a railgun fit and a blaster fit. The railgun fit was a sica with damage mods and hardener, while the blaster was a pre-fitted Creodron HAV I picked up in one of the promotions (forgot I even had it!)
I must admit it's strange after you start playing exclusively in a tank, because it feels like you're playing a different game to everyone else. First of all, capturing points becomes irrelevant, so winning and losing become ethereal concepts. Generally you just get on with the serious business of destroying anything you can, and in a tank, you have quite a selection. I'm always on a constant lookout for other tanks, because these are the greatest threat to me, and occasionally you have to be aware of hunter-killer dropships and turret installations, but that's it. Turret installations are great fodder and within 5 minutes of a battle if I'm quick off the mark I can be well on the way to 1000 WP just from destroying installations.
I lost 38 tanks during my many battles since the 1.7 patch - 30 of those were to railgun tanks and 7 to blaster tanks. I lost one tank to a manned railgun installation. I never lost a tank to infantry AV (RE's, Proximity mines, swarms/forges or AV grenades).
My comments:
- I run into terrain clipping issues a lot more in a vehicle. Sometimes my tank would veer into an angle when there is no noticeable terrain increase, sometimes I would just get stuck for no apparent reason and would have to recall my vehicle. This happens more often near any kind of structure.
- Not once did I ever run out of ammo, making the use of ammo limits and the resultant ammo expansion packs questionable. When I'm retreating after taking a beating I will swing by a supply depot anyway, but the speed of a tank makes it trivial. The blaster tanks have a massive magazine, while the railgun magazine size seems correct. Both have about 3-4 reloads which is comparable to infantry so the only suggestion would be to reduce blaster magazine ammo totals slightly to compensate.
- The reload mechanic I like, it gives a good "flow" to battle, and means you must manage both your heat, and your ammo magazine - not only must you manage when your magazine will empty, but also the rate at which you are fire to avoid over-heating - difficult if you are used to "fire until empty" infantry weapons. This doesn't need to be touched.
- Vehicle skills are at a noticeable disadvantage to infantry skills simply because there are few passive bonus skills. Despite CCP mentioning they wanted to have less "access only" skills most vehicle skills are "access standard modules at lvl 1, advanced at lvl 3 and proto at lvl 5". A lot of infantry skills don't work this way and this give vehicle skill investment less inherent value.
- Railgun tanks are particularly vicious because even through hardeners they can do incredible damage. It resembles infantry combat in many ways because if you get the jump on another tank in a railfit, you can usually do tremendous damage and in many cases outright destroy him if you do a quick, accurate alpha strike before the opponent can react. There are issues with railgun tanks - Although it was "fun" two-shotting dropships out of the sky from across the map, it didn't feel particularly fair. I feel a lot of this comes down to map design, as you can just sit on the redline and bombard the map with impunity with little chance of being hurt yourself (apart from another rail tank!). Maps need to stop having elevated terrain surrounding the burnzone and should have a redline below the "sea-level" of the burnzone to prevent this kind of behaviour. This means if a tank wants to stay in the redline, he can, but he won't be able to hit anything - again I iterate this is not a tank issue, but a map issue.
- My hardeners seem to stay on for a long time, giving me a big window for my hardeners and/or my damage mods. This needs to be reduced. When I activated my damage mods, I had enough left in my cycle to destroy an enemy tank, switch position, take out a turret, an LAV and then engage another tank. They also activate independently so if I have multiple hardeners and/or damage modes I can overlap them to almost have a "permanent" cycle of modules. This makes me less picky about choosing my engagements. This is a broken game mechanic. In so far as other tanks are concerned the choice of when to activate your hardener is more tactical, as other tanks have the same capacity as you - manoeuvarability, damage output and they also have hardeners - against infantry it's another matter entirely, but I've covered this in the next point.
(continued below) |
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
375
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 09:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
- Infantry are irrelevant in a tank. I never lost a tank to infantry and this should be a concern - I'm not an experienced tanker. I had a few ocassions where I was damaged by multiple forge guns but simply moved out of line of sight to regnerate, activated a hardener and retreated, or just exploited the recall mechanic. Infantry felt more like an annoyance at the best of times. Swarm launchers don't even deserve a mention. As soon as you'd see the signature trail of missiles, you could just turn a corner, move out of line of sight, or retreat out of lock range, at full speed, all the while firing at the player. If they were close, I tried what I've seen many people do now - just exit your HAV and shoot them with your assault rifle - they have no anti-infantry capacity!!! When hunting infantry in a more general sense, you realise, especially in a blaster tank, that they die quickly, don't move as quickly as you, and have few options to engage you. Hitting infantry in a railgun tank is harder work unless you're at a distance - I admit I wasn't so great at shooting infantry with my rail fit and am constantly in awe at railgun tankers that take out infantry running from cover to cover, this is just great skill.
- Amazingly, I got to experience "Jihad LAV" on two ocassions. On one occassion the LAV hit me, but I think because I had just gone over a hill, he didn't build up enough velocity to explode and trigger the payload. I only realised it WAS a Jihad LAV once I destroyed it and got the signature "+50 kill, +40 LAV, +5 equipment, +5 equipment, +5 equipment, +5 equipment". 2nd time I saw him coming and one shotted him with my railgun before he got close. Again, the kill points told me what I'd just destroyed. It's astounding these even exist as they are very much touch and go (no pun intended) but go a long way to showing the few options infantry have left to engage HAV's.
- The times my tank was destroyed, I sometimes managed to jump out at the last second to avoid death. Somehow this doesn't feel so "clean". In an open-top LAV it makes sense that you can jump out quickly enough to avoid destruction but in a HAV less so. I'm not an advocate of forcing a driver to "go down with the ship" but the exit shouldn't be "instant". It's not critical, but it could be looked at for alternatives.
- Lastly, the recall mechanic. It becomes second nature to exploit this. Apart from the couple of times I got stuck on terrain, I used this often. If your tank was badly damaged, you can turn a corner, recall, and voila! Your tank is now safe. Wait for the danger to pass, then summon it again at your leisure. This needs to be fixed, it's a clear exploit with many viable solutions.
To summarise, it has been an interesting experience but now that I understand both sides of the equation, the arguments remain damning. There is no way, in its current state, that the situation with HAV's is balanced:
- First of all, their skill system is clearly lacking and doesn't reward players for heavy skill investment due to the massive absence of passive skills (especially where HAV's are concerned).
- Secondly, the redline needs to be looked at. I don't want to mention railgun tanks specifically because its their innate range that gives them an advantage, but their range wouldn't be an issue if there was a different map design philosophy in Dust 514. At the moment, giant mountain-ringed maps with no hindrances to line of sight are commonplace. This means that railgun tanks profit from this to the detriment of anything that can render to be shot at, notably other vehicles- HAV's, LAV's and ESPECIALLY Dropships.
- Lastly, but definitely not leastly: infantry and infantry AV more specifically. As a former dedicated AV player before the patch I felt something was wrong, but now it's pretty clear that the situation is skewed - no reasonable person can attest to the situation being balanced. In the best case scenario, Infantry AV were an annoyance while I was in my tank, and their weapons woefully ineffective. The incredible speed which tanks have, and the access to modules that render them nigh-on invincible to infantry AV for the time it takes them to retreat all the way to the other side of the map have no counter, if you have the skills to fit multiple hardeners you risk very little as you can cycle them indefinitely.
My tactics when dealing with infantry AV were so mechanical they became 2nd nature after a few matches:
->Player hits you with Swarm/Forge : if it does serious damage activate a hardener. You now have around half a minute to go wherever you like with no risk, as long as you don't run into another tank, or you can kill the player who's annoying you. The player will sometimes try to run after you, but he has stamina and you don't, so you outrun him easily and can move out of line of sight before he's even targeted you again. Nothing can slow me down when I'm in a tank as there is no stamina issue, so no matter how dedicated an infantry AV player may be, he just can't catch me, as even at running speed my base speed exceeds him. This game mechanic needs improvement.
->If you're confident no other infantry are around: just get out and shoot him - if he's a swarm/forge user he only has a sidearm. Swarm launcher users often stack damage mods so have very little base ehp, they go down in half a second to most sidearms.
->If you've taken serious damage from multiple co-ordinated AV users - just go around a corner, get out of your tank and spend 5 seconds recalling your HAV! Now your tank is safe, you can find somewhere quiet to re-summon OR you can just use your current light weapon of choice to mop-up the infantry AV players (remember they have no anti-infantry capacity), then you can go back to killing infantry. The recall mechanic needs to be hot-fixed right now.
(last part below) |
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
375
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 09:02:00 -
[3] - Quote
Before we go further, lets put to rest some of the fallacies that seem to plague this debate:
1) "It should require a team to take down a tank" - This a problem for many reasons:
a) This COULD be a viable argument if there were no set limits to engagements as there are in EVE online. Dust 514 has (for now) a 16 vs 16 engagement limit, so as soon as an asset provides you with a numerical advantage (be it soft or hard) then that asset is the most valuable on the battlefield. If a HAV requires multiple AV users to neutralise (soft numerical advantage), then the HAV provides numerical superiority on the battlefield as it only requires one player to operate. If a HAV required multiple users to operate or if dedicated infantry AV could neutralise a HAV on a one on one basis, this would not be an issue. This is not currently the case.
b) AV stands for "Anti-vehicle". A dedicated Anti-vehicle player sacrifices his anti-infantry capacity for the ability to destroy vehicles. His fit is ONLY useful against vehicles, and by definition should be effective ONLY against vehicles. If another asset provies you with the ability to destroy vehicles AND infantry, and with greater effectiveness (and similar cost) than a dedicated anti-vehicle infantry unit then naturally you will gravitate to that asset, especially if your anti-vehicle capacity is ineffective, as is currently the case. This is the creation of a zero-sum game and this is what is occuring now.
I've translated this analogy to make it dropsuit-centric so people can grasp how serious this issue is here:
You have a heavy suit, that can kill other heavies AND all other types of dropsuit - it can be countered by a light suit, lets call it the "anti-heavy" light suit. Now the "anti-heavy" light suit is not really effective on its own against the Heavy suit, even though that IS it's intended role, BUT it can also be killed by every other suit that exists, and it's not at all effective against other suits.
To take down a heavy suit you need two or more of these "anti-heavy" light suits to work in co-ordinated precision, timing their shots, taking cover, reloading asymetrically to keep the pressure up all the while avoiding the fire of the heavy suit AND other suits (again, from which they cannot defend themselves effectively). After doing this for a while, the players running "anti-heavy" light suits figured out that they could run a Heavy suit, which is more effective at killing other heavy suits than the "anti-heavy" suit AND they could engage all the other types of suits, without even resorting to teamwork - it's from here on out that everyone in the community came to the forums to complain about "Heavy suit spam" - since in every match it was not uncommon to see up to 7 heavy suits per side, completely dominating the map and making all other suits irrelevant.
2) "My tank is expensive so should be hard to kill" - Only a few people still spout this argument, but thankfully this is disappearing, and should not be an argument for either vehicles or infantry. An infantry proto suit can be prohibitively expensive, yet is not hard to kill. Price of an asset should never be a measure of power on the battlefield - it should be based on player skill, character skills, fittings and most importantly, game mechanics.
3) "I have to invest lots of skill points in vehicles, and you don't have to invest much in AV to kill me" - There is partial merit to this argument. After skilling into vehicles after the patch, I can attest to the fact that HAV users get shafted on the skill tree. I can't speak for other trees, but for the HAV tree, skills which give you a passive bonus are rare - most of them being "skill 1 access to STD, skill 3 to ADV, skill 5 to proto modules". Having said that, skills should not be the only factor when in play - game mechanics should be primordial.
4) *NEW* "Swarm launchers were always meant to counter light vehicles, and forge guns should be for heavy vehicles" - Yes, This appeared only last week, but lets deal with it here for the sake of argument. First of all, infantry weapons aren't classed by their opposing suit frame, they are classed by their damage type, range and fitting slot. A shotgun can kill a heavy frame just as well as a medium frame. A nova knife is the same. A forge gun can also kill all types of suits as well as a scrambler pistol or a rail rifle - they have different ranges, damage attributes and resultant damage will depend on the fitting and attributes of the suit, as well as engagement range, the character skills and real life skills of both players.
Classing Anti-vehicle weapons by their opposing class of vehicles would imply
a) They are ONLY effective against this type of vehicle
b) Their effectiveness is optimised against this type of vehicle
c) All HAV vehicles are homogenous and all LAV vehicles are homogenous
d) All infantry have access to each type of AV weapon
If you take the above list sequentially, the are so many exceptions to each rule that it quickly falls apart. Forge guns are also effective against infantry and vehicles, and are effective at engaging light vehicles and dropships. Swarm launchers aren't so good against dropships even though these can be classed as a light vehicle. Forge guns can only be wielded by one particular suit frame, HAV's are not homogenous,etc.
The solutions to the issues above are diverse and many good ones have been proposed already in the "feedback/requests" sections of the forum, which unfortunately, few people read - everything from different ammo types on infantry AV, to webifiers, going by vehicle capacitors, turret turning speeds, linking mulitple hardeners, etc. Ulysses Knapse actually has an impressive 4 part post on lots of vehicle changes which would benefit both vehicle and infantry alike here https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1609
*Nails a leg of honeyed lamb to the foot of the post and backs away slowly* |
LuckyLuke Wargan
HavoK Core
RISE of LEGION
258
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 09:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
Wow, nice one man in depth and unbiased for once, loved it.
"Cry HavoK!, and let slip the dogs of war!"
-Medical/Intel Logibro and Swarm Commando-
|
Arkena Wyrnspire
Fatal Absolution
7524
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 10:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
Fantastic post.
Agree completely.
Level 7 Forum Warrior
Lenin of the glorious armoured revolution
Gallente FW - 'Turalyon'
|
Kira Takizawa
2Shitz 1Giggle
83
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 10:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
Why can't more people be like this! |
Nitrobeacon
Freek Coalition
Freek Alliance
193
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 10:52:00 -
[7] - Quote
I agree with most parts, but to add to this, I don't think that cycling hardeners is a big issue. First of all, doing so in a Gunnlogi requires 3 hardeners, only one of which will be used out of the three, so a Gunnlogi who uses all of their modules instead of "cycling about 1 out of 3 high slots" will utterly destroy the cycling tank, so for Gunnlogies I don't recall this an issue.
Armor tankers only need 2 hardeners to cycle, but then again a guy who activates all hardeners has better survivability against another tank.
To be honest cycling is just a very risky move, you are vulnerable to tank to tank 1 v 1s as he likely used both his armor hardeners while you are using 1 out of 3/2
Also cycling adds to tactics of the gameplay, cycling is used when you need constant toughness, while 2 hardeners all tanked up is used for a more "I really need to take hits right now, there's two tanks over there". It makes one require a knowledge of the surroundings, and decide whether they need to take small hits via cycling or critical hits through dual hardening. |
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
401
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 11:01:00 -
[8] - Quote
Nitrobeacon wrote:I agree with most parts, but to add to this, I don't think that cycling hardeners is a big issue. First of all, doing so in a Gunnlogi requires 3 hardeners, only one of which will be used out of the three, so a Gunnlogi who uses all of their modules instead of "cycling about 1 out of 3 high slots" will utterly destroy the cycling tank, so for Gunnlogies I don't recall this an issue.
Armor tankers only need 2 hardeners to cycle, but then again a guy who activates all hardeners has better survivability against another tank.
To be honest cycling is just a very risky move, you are vulnerable to tank to tank 1 v 1s as he likely used both his armor hardeners while you are using 1 out of 3/2
Also cycling adds to tactics of the gameplay, cycling is used when you need constant toughness, while 2 hardeners all tanked up is used for a more "I really need to take hits right now, there's two tanks over there". It makes one require a knowledge of the surroundings, and decide whether they need to take small hits via cycling or critical hits through dual hardening.
Hey there. Thanks for reading and for replying. It's true I have less experience in tank vs tank combat and the tanks I ran with the skills I had didn't permit 3 hardeners so your comments are completely valid. In the tank vs tank combat I image tactical usage of multiple hardeners might be warranted depending on your situation - I just wonder how this can be tweaked to be able to balance it out against infantry AV...
|
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 11:02:00 -
[9] - Quote
Very well done. Thumbs up to you. |
PEW JACKSON
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
165
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 11:14:00 -
[10] - Quote
Nitrobeacon wrote:I agree with most parts, but to add to this, I don't think that cycling hardeners is a big issue. First of all, doing so in a Gunnlogi requires 3 hardeners, only one of which will be used out of the three, so a Gunnlogi who uses all of their modules instead of "cycling about 1 out of 3 high slots" will utterly destroy the cycling tank, so for Gunnlogies I don't recall this an issue.
Armor tankers only need 2 hardeners to cycle, but then again a guy who activates all hardeners has better survivability against another tank.
To be honest cycling is just a very risky move, you are vulnerable to tank to tank 1 v 1s as he likely used both his armor hardeners while you are using 1 out of 3/2
Also cycling adds to tactics of the gameplay, cycling is used when you need constant toughness, while 2 hardeners all tanked up is used for a more "I really need to take hits right now, there's two tanks over there". It makes one require a knowledge of the surroundings, and decide whether they need to take small hits via cycling or critical hits through dual hardening.
Learned something new .
I run dual hardeners and a booster. Would having both hardeners active give me more ehp than to use 1 then my booster to cycle the other?
Dead on the ground.... Think I made a wrong turn :/
|
|
|
Reign Omega
BurgezzE.T.F
Public Disorder.
83
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 11:17:00 -
[11] - Quote
Great summary of the current vehicle issue. |
Nitrobeacon
Freek Coalition
Freek Alliance
195
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 11:17:00 -
[12] - Quote
Justicar Karnellia wrote:Nitrobeacon wrote:I agree with most parts, but to add to this, I don't think that cycling hardeners is a big issue. First of all, doing so in a Gunnlogi requires 3 hardeners, only one of which will be used out of the three, so a Gunnlogi who uses all of their modules instead of "cycling about 1 out of 3 high slots" will utterly destroy the cycling tank, so for Gunnlogies I don't recall this an issue.
Armor tankers only need 2 hardeners to cycle, but then again a guy who activates all hardeners has better survivability against another tank.
To be honest cycling is just a very risky move, you are vulnerable to tank to tank 1 v 1s as he likely used both his armor hardeners while you are using 1 out of 3/2
Also cycling adds to tactics of the gameplay, cycling is used when you need constant toughness, while 2 hardeners all tanked up is used for a more "I really need to take hits right now, there's two tanks over there". It makes one require a knowledge of the surroundings, and decide whether they need to take small hits via cycling or critical hits through dual hardening. Hey there. Thanks for reading and for replying. It's true I have less experience in tank vs tank combat and the tanks I ran with the skills I had didn't permit 3 hardeners so your comments are completely valid. In the tank vs tank combat I image tactical usage of multiple hardeners might be warranted depending on your situation - I just wonder how this can be tweaked to be able to balance it out against infantry AV...
Oh yes I agree, usually only one hardener is whats needed to take infantry hits like nothing (I'd say 2 is what is needed to to such a thing). Probably a buff to AV is in order. Perhaps increase all av damage by 50%. |
Nitrobeacon
Freek Coalition
Freek Alliance
196
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 11:20:00 -
[13] - Quote
PEW JACKSON wrote:Nitrobeacon wrote:I agree with most parts, but to add to this, I don't think that cycling hardeners is a big issue. First of all, doing so in a Gunnlogi requires 3 hardeners, only one of which will be used out of the three, so a Gunnlogi who uses all of their modules instead of "cycling about 1 out of 3 high slots" will utterly destroy the cycling tank, so for Gunnlogies I don't recall this an issue.
Armor tankers only need 2 hardeners to cycle, but then again a guy who activates all hardeners has better survivability against another tank.
To be honest cycling is just a very risky move, you are vulnerable to tank to tank 1 v 1s as he likely used both his armor hardeners while you are using 1 out of 3/2
Also cycling adds to tactics of the gameplay, cycling is used when you need constant toughness, while 2 hardeners all tanked up is used for a more "I really need to take hits right now, there's two tanks over there". It makes one require a knowledge of the surroundings, and decide whether they need to take small hits via cycling or critical hits through dual hardening. Learned something new . I run dual hardeners and a booster. Would having both hardeners active give me more ehp than to use 1 then my booster to cycle the other?
Yes, two hardeners completely negates damage at the considerable cost of cooldown/exposed duration. Cycling is a good idea though, so you have the right idea, more so vs infantry.
Edit: Reading your question again, I'd say that continued cycling is a good idea, but risky too (as I said before), remember that if another tank gets you off your guard, you will be at a big disadvantage if he has more than two hardeners active. |
PEW JACKSON
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
165
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 11:28:00 -
[14] - Quote
@ OP, do you think WP for AV would help the problem with tanks?
In concept I think it's the same as 4 guys with mlt repair tools on a heavy.
Solo the heavy will die due to concentrated fire and week reps.
1 repairer and he has a little boost to his effectiveness.
Add 4 mlt repair tools, and that heavy will start wrecking face.
I think the problem is AV spreading themselves too thin.
I understand the disparity between needing 1 pilot, but 2-4 to deal with him.
Wouldn't it be easier to give AV more incentive to group up?
35 WP for every 1000 ehp dmg dealt to enemy installations and vehicles.
Even if no tanks die, players will run av more because of the WP payout
and now the potential kill shot that they may get.
I've run AV squads before and there's not much incentive for me to do so other than
having little to show for it.
I've been in squads running dual breach forges that completely wrecked tank squads.
Same with dual proto swarms & flux combo.
Reason we don't see more of this? They don't make much of a profit.
Vehicles can now profit with their roles. How about we do the same for the counter.
Dead on the ground.... Think I made a wrong turn :/
|
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
411
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 11:35:00 -
[15] - Quote
PEW JACKSON wrote:@ OP, do you think WP for AV would help the problem with tanks?
In concept I think it's the same as 4 guys with mlt repair tools on a heavy.
Solo, the heavy will die due to concentrated fire and weak reps.
1 repairer and he has a little boost to his effectiveness.
Add 4 mlt repair tools, and that heavy will start wrecking face.
I think the problem is AV spreading themselves too thin.
I understand the disparity between needing 1 pilot, but 2-4 to deal with him.
Wouldn't it be easier to give AV more incentive to group up?
35 WP for every 1000 ehp dmg dealt to enemy installations and vehicles.
Even if no tanks die, players will run av more because of the WP payout
and now the potential kill shot that they may get.
I've run AV squads before and there's not much incentive for me to do so other than
having little to show for it.
I've been in squads running dual breach forges that completely wrecked tank squads.
Same with dual proto swarms & flux combo.
Reason we don't see more of this? They don't make much of a profit.
Vehicles can now profit with their roles. How about we do the same for the counter.
Hey there - thanks for reading the long post and replying. I think your suggestion is a valid one, and if I remember correctly, CCP wolfman stated that is something he wanted to get onto the cards - getting WP as a reward for damaging a vehicle, even if you don't outright kill it will surely force more people to run AV fits, as long as it's implemented to avoid WP-farming.
I think it won't address the entire problem though - with more people running AV fits there is the chance that two or more AV users are in the vicinity of a HAV which is usually enough to neutralise it, if not outright destroy it if they sync themselves correctly BUT it still won't address the zero-sum game. If it still takes more than one infantry AV to destroy a HAV, a tank will do a much better job, and lets not forget the tank is completely viable against infantry, which is not the case for an AV infantry user.
|
PEW JACKSON
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
169
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 11:41:00 -
[16] - Quote
Justicar Karnellia wrote:
Hey there - thanks for reading the long post and replying. I think your suggestion is a valid one, and if I remember correctly, CCP wolfman stated that is something he wanted to get onto the cards - getting WP as a reward for damaging a vehicle, even if you don't outright kill it will surely force more people to run AV fits, as long as it's implemented to avoid WP-farming.
I think it won't address the entire problem though - with more people running AV fits there is the chance that two or more AV users are in the vicinity of a HAV which is usually enough to neutralise it, if not outright destroy it if they sync themselves correctly BUT it still won't address the zero-sum game. If it still takes more than one infantry AV to destroy a HAV, a tank will do a much better job, and lets not forget the tank is completely viable against infantry, which is not the case for an AV infantry user.
I think swarms should get a 30 dmg per missile buff along with a 100% speed buff.
It'd be a big number if I had to count all the times tanks survived being out in the open due to slow swarms....
Target sighted, target locked, proceeds to fire 3 volleys. Tank gets hit by 1 and makes it to cover before the third hits due to slow swarm speed.
Dead on the ground.... Think I made a wrong turn :/
|
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
417
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 11:45:00 -
[17] - Quote
PEW JACKSON wrote:Justicar Karnellia wrote:
Hey there - thanks for reading the long post and replying. I think your suggestion is a valid one, and if I remember correctly, CCP wolfman stated that is something he wanted to get onto the cards - getting WP as a reward for damaging a vehicle, even if you don't outright kill it will surely force more people to run AV fits, as long as it's implemented to avoid WP-farming.
I think it won't address the entire problem though - with more people running AV fits there is the chance that two or more AV users are in the vicinity of a HAV which is usually enough to neutralise it, if not outright destroy it if they sync themselves correctly BUT it still won't address the zero-sum game. If it still takes more than one infantry AV to destroy a HAV, a tank will do a much better job, and lets not forget the tank is completely viable against infantry, which is not the case for an AV infantry user.
I think swarms should get a 30 dmg per missile buff along with a 100% speed buff. It'd be a big number if I had to count all the times tanks survived being out in the open due to slow swarms.... Target sighted, target locked, proceeds to fire 3 volleys. Tank gets hit by 1 and makes it to cover before the third hits due to slow swarm speed.
Completely agree - the numbers could be debated ad infinitum but what you say is entirely correct. By the time a swarm launcher starts doing damage on the tank, he's already out of harm's way OR the driver got out and shot him (This is still my favourite counter for a one on one encounter with a swarm user)..... there are so many fixes... slowing down tank native speed, having the activation of a hardener slow you down so you can't just run away, webifier grenades, slowing effect on swarm impact, capacitors, etc. but yes it's one way to go. |
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2150
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 11:59:00 -
[18] - Quote
So lets do this
Ammo is fine, i run out a fair bit when using blaster, i need to restock 2-3 times in an active game
Vehicle skills have always sucked, we lost the PG/CPU/Shield HP/Armor HP skills and also lost passive mods to boot
Its a railgun, a large railgun at that it is going to have more power than a handheld FG because it requires a tank to use, it is supposed to be high damage long range like a sniper rifle except for infantry its for vehicles and the map is small because 16v16 when the entire district is 5km by 5km and maps will have mountains and elevation because ya know flat boring maps are boring we are supposed to be on a planet. Also elevation is so that the enemy cant just shoot into the spawn areas
Hardeners are fine, mlt have a 60-90sec cooldown and thats a pretty ******* big window, if i cycle 3 hardeners it means i only ever use 1 at that time and leaves me open if i get hit my AV/tank with enough dmg to stop my regen but also it means no speed mod/dmg mod/extender/booster and gives me limited options for a % increase in defence
Infantry sound static, a good AV player will chase your ass down, they dont stand still and take a shot and let you move away, FG are far from irrelevent and hit hard and fast, 2 breach will take you back to the MCC, swarms are mostly idiots because they keep shooting me with my hardeners on against a shield tank, they are much more effective with armor - I find most AV is fine except the PLC but its the players
Jihad jeep is a tactic for bad players who cant use the AV that is availible to them, they have got me maybe once or twice
Recall is fine, unless you want me to swap at a depot and spawn back in with the tank at full hp in an instant
TBH thats bad AV, its the players ive had good AV chase me around the map and put me away and out of the game
Teamwork to take out a tank - If 2 proto level AV cant take out a tank then they are idiots frankly
My tank is expenisive is now my AV fit is expenisive so AV is trying to balance around ISK now
Ive got an alt with a MLT tank, my MLT tank does fine and AV doesnt have a clue on how to take it out
The main point is that for the past 6+months AV has been used to soloing tanks, they still think they can do it, they still shoot you with your hardeners on, they stand in front of you and spam a swarm launcher at a shield tank
No AV uses a LAV to get around, they still do it on foot they still think they can lock on with a swarm from 400m away, they still sit up high if possible with no risk, they are not prepared to do what needs to be done to get a vehicle kill but also they arent even happy if they deny the tank an area of the map
Area denial is key on some maps to get a win or even just to defend your squad but AV doesnt want that they want to kill it outright every time and are never happy and refuse to work together, those which do work together killing vehicles are fine and they do it on a regular basis
The mindset hasnt changed and everytime AV got a buff and it got easier for them they didnt need to think when they had to take out a vehicle now its all changed and AV hasnt adapated and currently wont adapt
Intelligence is OP
|
Blaze Ashra
Ametat Security
Amarr Empire
75
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 12:11:00 -
[19] - Quote
I like this thread but I have one issue.Vehicle modules affect all vehicles, not just HAV's. Nerfing the hardeners would effect LAV's and dropships as well, and we don' t have anywhere near as large a PG/CPU pool as HAV's. |
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 12:21:00 -
[20] - Quote
Blaze Ashra wrote:I like this thread but I have one issue.Vehicle modules affect all vehicles, not just HAV's. Nerfing the hardeners would effect LAV's and dropships as well, and we don' t have anywhere near as large a PG/CPU pool as HAV's.
You're absolutely right - the intent is just to illustrate the infantry/HAV discrepancies. I don't pretend to know anything about dropships or LAV fitting, and of course, nerfing modules that are used by multiple assets to balance only one asset is always a hard-sell as it has such knock-on effects.
Hardeners are necessary in current tank on tank combat - they introduce an element of skill and tactical timing is key. I think the ultimate balancing will be through other means.
|
|
|
Scottie MaCallan
Krusual Covert Operators
Minmatar Republic
47
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 12:28:00 -
[21] - Quote
y'all need to step up yr jihad jeep game, with a little bit of recon, good use of terrain, and some proper planning you can nail tanks even if they've seen you coming. I can get multiple tank kills per game (enemy deployment permitting) when I use my jihad jeeps.
but yea, it'd be cool if swarms + AV nades were actually useful still. Sure I can chase off a tank and get them out of my AO for a bit , but maps are big and the shortened range means unless someone else is there to catch them during their retreat, it's not a kill, and I get no WP, so jihad jeep it is for now. it's more challenging and fun than AV infantry anyway, whatevr.
also for my tanker alt, all I have to say is, railguns do work, missiles don't do enough alpha for the short firing burst & long reload, and blasters overheat too quickly, but are still mostly effective. Also, kids, don't be dumb, if it's a gunnlogi, shield tank that ****, if it's a madrugar, go armor. Also when I'm in a tank only thing that actually scares me is railgun-style hits, so rail tanks, forge guns, and rail installations. anything else, I just go hardeners and then look around. I sat in front of an AV with swarms+nades and waited for him to run out of ammo then nailed him with my railgun once. |
R F Gyro
Clones 4u
898
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 12:51:00 -
[22] - Quote
Great post. +1
RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
|
Bayeth Mal
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 12:51:00 -
[23] - Quote
My main forges and my alt tanks. I've been working with some people to show how fairly straight forward strategies can work wonders.
Join chat channel "the sentinels".
Formed by Morte Deamor (spelling) we're training in combining AV with vehicles and frontline infantry to win both the vehicle and objective battle.
And it can be a hell of a lot of fun
Edit: Forgot to say this was a great post! I disagree in a couple of areas but mostly good stuff! |
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
433
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 13:04:00 -
[24] - Quote
Bayeth Mal wrote:My main forges and my alt tanks. I've been working with some people to show how fairly straight forward strategies can work wonders.
Join chat channel "the sentinels".
Formed by Morte Deamor (spelling) we're training in combining AV with vehicles and frontline infantry to win both the vehicle and objective battle.
And it can be a hell of a lot of fun
Edit: Forgot to say this was a great post! I disagree in a couple of areas but mostly good stuff!
Thanks for stopping by - it was a bit long. Feel free to disagree, I am not an expert tanker by any means but my main angle was the HAV vs infantry AV ... of course as long as it's constructive it can only help the game get better.
|
Ninjanomyx
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
526
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 13:32:00 -
[25] - Quote
Justicar Karnellia wrote:Bayeth Mal wrote:My main forges and my alt tanks. I've been working with some people to show how fairly straight forward strategies can work wonders.
Join chat channel "the sentinels".
Formed by Morte Deamor (spelling) we're training in combining AV with vehicles and frontline infantry to win both the vehicle and objective battle.
And it can be a hell of a lot of fun
Edit: Forgot to say this was a great post! I disagree in a couple of areas but mostly good stuff! Thanks for stopping by - it was a bit long. Feel free to disagree, I am not an expert tanker by any means but my main angle was the HAV vs infantry AV ... of course as long as it's constructive it can only help the game get better.
You get a High Five & an A for Effort  |
PADDEHATPIGEN
BurgezzE.T.F
Public Disorder.
116
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 13:55:00 -
[26] - Quote
Love the post
I do have a few things to ad.
I start by saying that I have NO HAV skills at all so I only use militia HAV's, I fitted them with BPO's, and militia scanner, dmg mods and speed mods.
My sica cost 59.565 ISK to restock.
My soma cost 71.475 ISK to restock.
On the other hand I have 31+ mill. SP invested in infantry skills and I'm fully trained in USELESS swarms and av nades.
My AV fit is all proto and cost 117.930 ISK to restock.
There IS something wrong. |
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement
Caldari State
448
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 14:21:00 -
[27] - Quote
PADDEHATPIGEN wrote:Love the post I do have a few things to ad. I start by saying that I have NO HAV skills at all so I only use militia HAV's, I fitted them with BPO's, and militia scanner, dmg mods, hardeners and speed mods. My sica cost 59.565 ISK to restock. My soma cost 71.475 ISK to restock. On the other hand I have 31+ mill. SP invested in infantry skills and I'm fully trained in USELESS swarms and av nades. My AV fit is all proto and cost 117.930 ISK to restock. There IS something wrong.
Hey there. Thanks for stopping by.
The skills argument definitely has some merit, but I'm always reticent to start using the total cost of an asset as an argument for balance even though it has gone some way to producing the "spam" effect in play. The counter to a an in-game threat doesn't necessarily need to flow through something that is of similar price - a proto infantry suit can be brought down by a skillfull militia player BUT the counter must be effective, if that is indeed it's only role. That is not presently the case.
So yes, you correctly highlight one of the issues. |
calisk galern
BurgezzE.T.F
Public Disorder.
1595
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 14:25:00 -
[28] - Quote
Scottie MaCallan wrote:y'all need to step up yr jihad jeep game, with a little bit of recon, good use of terrain, and some proper planning you can nail tanks even if they've seen you coming. I can get multiple tank kills per game (enemy deployment permitting) when I use my jihad jeeps.
but yea, it'd be cool if swarms + AV nades were actually useful still. Sure I can chase off a tank and get them out of my AO for a bit , but maps are big and the shortened range means unless someone else is there to catch them during their retreat, it's not a kill, and I get no WP, so jihad jeep it is for now. it's more challenging and fun than AV infantry anyway, whatevr.
also for my tanker alt, all I have to say is, railguns do work, missiles don't do enough alpha for the short firing burst & long reload, and blasters overheat too quickly, but are still mostly effective. Also, kids, don't be dumb, if it's a gunnlogi, shield tank that ****, if it's a madrugar, go armor. Also when I'm in a tank only thing that actually scares me is railgun-style hits, so rail tanks, forge guns, and rail installations. anything else, I just go hardeners and then look around. I sat in front of an AV with swarms+nades and waited for him to run out of ammo then nailed him with my railgun once.
the problem with ji had jeeps is the sheer broken physics in the game, I lose more jihad jeeps to random glitches then anything else.
for example more frequently then i'm happy with my jihad jeep will just freeze when going into a specific building structure, once i was frozen at an angle, but my only option is to get out of the vehicle but if i do i get flung at full speed as if I had gotten out of a vehicle moving full speed, quite frequently killing me.
another popular glitch is when you hit the tank instead of blowing up you drive right over him. although annoying I do get some impressive death spin air tricks, which can be quite fun to watch.
sometimes the vehicles just randomly explode when going over hills, that's fun =/ |
Scottie MaCallan
Krusual Covert Operators
Minmatar Republic
50
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 14:29:00 -
[29] - Quote
for devil's advocate's sake, it's relatively easy, or at least feasible to take out a 60-70k MLT tank fit with wykromi swarms (assuming you plan it right, get off all yr AV nades and at least 2-3 swarms, which I know I can do in my std. AV fit). on the other hand, my 329k gunnlogi or 297k madrugar fits? probably a little more durable, and they should be
EDIT: also yea, there are some glitches with jihad jeeps stuttering, it seems to be something to do with the equipment (RE's) moving so fast, since i never encounter it normally driving. But I've never had my jeeps randomly explode, even when colliding with structures, or getting shot from the front sometimes (PROTIP: I also keep my RE's on the front wheel arches, so the side, not the front) |
Scout Registry
321
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 14:37:00 -
[30] - Quote
+3
Agreed. Each and every word of this.
Nice work, OP. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |