Heinrich Jagerblitzen
D3LTA FORC3
1392
   |
Posted - 2014.01.16 05:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
Thanks for the excellent summary, Prius. o7
I'll break down my thoughts on each of the points here. First off - I'm not one of those that think tanks are totally broken or OP, though there are some sensible adjustments that need to be made to make the current situation a lot healthier. There are typically two schools of thought where tanks are concerned (though this could apply to any vehicle really): those that believe tanks should be incredibly solid, expensive, and powerful...and those that see vehicles more as a commodity, cheap like dropsuits, hit points well within range of most A/V weapons without too much struggle.
I'm much more in the former camp, I think HAV's should noticeably warp the play around them, otherwise there's not much value of having them in the game at all. HAV's on the field should require squads to re-think their approach on an objective, and present a threat that must be removed in order to progress around the map and succeed. Not to mention, HAV's are an expense above and beyond a dropsuit, and require extra time to call into battle, presenting enough of a hassle that the more disposable design of the past gets pretty miserably for players who really enjoy tanking. I'm perfectly fine with a skilled tanker having a long survivability, as long as there are appropriate checks and balances to that level of staying power.
The problem is that CCP shifted too many variables at once, too strongly in opposite directions. They made HAV's more powerful, while reducing cost. Before the revamp, there were two roads CCP could have taken - slash vehicle costs, but leave the design and resiliency the same, or crank up the resiliency but leave the cost at an appropriate value. My recommendation at the time was to reduce costs, and I take responsibility for that as a CPM representative - but remember that reducing costs was one of the most common requests amongst vehicle users prior to the revamp. However, I also had no way of knowing exactly how strong they'd become, or how far CCP would slash the costs, until it was released and we saw firsthand how this all played out. Instead of the two variables meeting in the middle, they sailed past each other.
All that out of the way, here's my summarized thoughts on each of your points here:
a) Strongly Agree. As I've explained, I also agree that the power-to-cost ratio is too high right now, and think a price adjustment is absolutely reasonable given how long these can last in the hands of a skilled driver.
b) Strongly disagree. Without getting into somewhat irrelevant real-world examples, there's really nothing wrong with a fast tank. And certainly given the fact that these are the tanks of the future, I see no reason to make them crawl like sitting ducks all the time. From a gameplay perspective, the current speed of tanks is annoying - but its not unmanageable. There speedy counters in the form of Jihad Jeeps (an emergent, fun, and healthy tactic I think should stay), but more importantly, they allow Tanks to be either a threat, or not a threat, without having to choose between being alive or dead. This is the drawback of the old system - the only counter to a vehicle was to just nuke it. I found this particularly boring (moreso because slow tanks were a laughably easy target). It was even more frustrating for those that wanted to be full-time vehicle specialists, especially since they couldn't just spawn into a new vehicle the way that infantry can with dropsuits.
Instead of a binary system where tanks are either alive or dead, now we have a much more interesting variety of states where a tank can be alive, but no longer a threat, because he's in the process of retreating to safety. I'd much rather see harder counters to speed be added for infantry in the form of stasis webifier grenades, and I'd much rather A/V players spend more time figuring out ways to exploit HAV's current weaknesses (such as positioning themselves at opposite ends of the map in order to finish off vehicles chased off by their partner on the other side). A/V should be a skilled role - and that skill is greatly diminished by turning HAV's into sitting ducks. Eventually the maps will be growing beyond the tiny zones we can currently fight in, and the slow plodding tank model is just extremely anachronistic and unnecessary.
c.) Somewhat disagree. Sure, a crippling / disabling mechanic would be really interesting, but it also presents a number of additional design problems. If you can actually cripple the HAV, a swift death is going to come not too far behind, especially since it'll allow for more gangbanging and pile-on attacks. This basically mitigates all the value of having a working defense mechanism, and brings us right back to the old binary system where a tank is either not being shot at, or its dead. To really make crippling an HAV viable and interesting gameplay, you'd have to buff the tanking period even further - to allow for something interesting to happen once you've actually disabled it, besides just allowing a quick finish. If we're going to have a disable mechanic, there better be some damn good "last stand" gameplay associated with it, complete with epic Logistical saves where squads had a chance to un**** their buddy and get him on the road again. And really, this is a whole separate revamp we're talking to accommodate all this. It's just not that easy to say "move 1/4 speed".
|
Heinrich Jagerblitzen
D3LTA FORC3
1392
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 05:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
d) Somewhat disagree. First off, its not a "glitch", lets describe this accurately and just admit that there's no animation designed for vehicles. There's a difference between suboptimal design and something intended one way and functioning another. And sure, there's a lot of good reasons to have mount/dismount animations, but these also carry their own baggage, much like crippling mechanics do. Its one more painful moment of vulnerability for those that want to be full-time tankers, and only strengthens my belief that this extra inconvenience should always be offset with a very high degree of resiliency once you're inside the tank |
Heinrich Jagerblitzen
D3LTA FORC3
1403
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:59:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kevall Longstride wrote:The elimination of tanks in ambush pub matches. Or at the very least a tank free version of the ambush mode available to players to choose.
Nah, vehicles and OB's in ambush just need to GTFO entirely. There's no need for them whatsoever. Ambush is the simplest of game modes, the most accessible to new players coming from other games with Team DM, and Ambush should provide an initial comfort level and familiarity that eases new players into the game without overwhelming them. There's no need to split Ambush either, PCU already makes matchmaking difficult, and there's other game modes that involve all the bells and whistles. Besides, many veterans enjoy the simple pleasure of pure infantry combat, there needs to be a place where they can experience this as well.
|