Texs Red
DUST University
Ivy League
113
   |
Posted - 2014.01.12 21:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
Doshneil Antaro wrote:Noob tank much? You do realize that the blasters are designed for the sole purpose of taking out infantry only. Rails are designed to Bust vehicles. This means there is no balance between them in 1vs1 fights as intended.
I respectfully disagree. If we look at this in a big picture view the problem is clearly a lack of variety in turrets and play styles available. Right now we see it as blaster tanks being anti-infantry, rail tanks are AV, and missile tanks are the red-headed step child no one is really sure what to do with. But what happens when we add laser and projectile turrets? What will they be?
My opinion;
Redline: Open up the maps so they are much larger (at least the size of the gallente research lab) and have the redline be long, and thin (no more than 50 meters deep) that stretches around 50% of the map with at least 5 spawn locations spaced out over this area. People will be unable to spawn camp due to the length of the redline and the spaced out spawn locations, however you will not be able to stay there either because it is not deep enough to escape handheld weapons or a fast tank.
Vehicle roles: Each vehicle needs to have what it is supposed to do defined better.
1) LAV: needs to be completely redesigned to give the gunner way more cover and completely enclose the driver (concealment, not cover. You can shoot through LAV walls at reduced damage), this will allow the LAV to be a good anti-infantry vehicle through speed and mobility with enough defense to protect vs light weapons but not dedicated AV.
2) HAV: needs to do very poorly vs infantry, they are vehicle killers not infantry killers. Reduce the railgun splash radius to next to nothing and open up the spread on the blaster tank a bit, this will make it impossible to kill infantry with the railgun short of a direct hit and make the blaster not quite accurate enough to efficiently kill infantry but still more than accurate enough to engage a tank at short range.
3) Dropship: should be a highly agile, high alpha strike vehicle with paper thin defenses. It is a hit an run vehicle meant to take out entrenched HAVs. Redline rail tanks are a huge problem because the lack the alpha to kill them in general, let alone the redline, and lack the base agility to evade the tracking of a rail tank. The assault variant should be smaller with only 2-3 seats total (pilot + 2 gunners) with significant acceleration and maneuverability over than troop transport version.
4) Eventually you can get creative with the roles such as a LAV that can fit large turrets (good for a cheap-ish way to take out HAVs or installations but still vulnerable to handheld AV fire) or a HAV with only small turrets (exceedingly difficult for infantry to kill but useless at engaging other HAVs).
Add all turrets and variants: It is more or less the same technology as EVE, so why doesn't it look that way?
1) Blaster: Has the highest DPS and tracking speed but the shortest range, high risk (up close) for a high reward (highest DPS)
-Reality: CCP made them to be "anti-infantry" and be horrible vs vehicles/installations. Good for the current state but very limiting in the long run.
2) Railguns: Of the turrets, deals the lowest amount of DPS but gains the longest range.
-Reality: CCP intended them to be the more "AV" turret, but really they can do well enough vs infantry with good aim and positioning mostly because it has decent splash damage/radius. It's range, RoF, and damage along with current redline style makes cheap glass cannon fits horrible to fight and cost next to nothing to lose.
3) Lasers: Should have a short range and long range variant, not better than the blaster or railgun at either end but is much better at taking out shields and worst at armor.
4) Projectiles: The short range should be about the same optimal range as the blaster with slightly lower DPS but slightly longer fall off. The long range version should deal very powerful alpha damage but has terrible RoF. Does best vs armor.
Conclusion:
LAVs kill infantry, infantry can fight back against the vehicle that kills them the most.
Tanks have strong defenses vs infantry and LAVs and excel at killing LAVs but struggle to hit infantry.
Dropships do well vs tanks or infantry but not both at the same time and have poor defenses so it lacks staying power.
|
Texs Red
DUST University
Ivy League
113
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 22:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
Evolution-7 wrote:Texs Red wrote:[quote=Doshneil Antaro]
3) Dropship: should be a highly agile, high alpha strike vehicle with paper thin defenses. It is a hit an run vehicle meant to take out entrenched HAVs. Redline rail tanks are a huge problem because the lack the alpha to kill them in general, let alone the redline, and lack the base agility to evade the tracking of a rail tank. The assault variant should be smaller with only 2-3 seats total (pilot + 2 gunners) with significant acceleration and maneuverability over than troop transport version.
That would be a light gunship, dude. Let the dropship be a DROPSHIP.
Yes, I agree with you that would be a gunship but as it stands now dropship is more of a category for all aircraft rather than something with a specific purpose. In the end I would like to see specific, unique vehicle models for different categories of aircraft but right now it's the function of the role that is important rather than the looks of the thing and it's easier to work with an existing model than creating one from scratch. |