| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Elijah Sol' Dzusaki
Onward Defrosted Tuna Team
711
   |
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
IMO the maps need to be designed better, not nerfing/buffing vehicles/AV
There needs to be more place for Infantry to fight that vehicles can't get to. I do not care if the tank drives away if I damage it, I think I did a good job if I scared it away.
What I care about is the fact that most maps do not have enough cover or places to go that vehicles can't get to.
Signatures? Since when?
|
N1ck Comeau
Ahrendee Mercenaries
EoN.
1823
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:12:00 -
[2] - Quote
If tanks can't be a threat to Infantry Why bother.
Dropships would be useless if infantry could easily hide.
Minmatar Assault.
Sidearm King.
SMG's and Pistols. Melting armour, and blowing heads off. +60
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1563
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
The inside of the Gallente Resource Facility is a great example of an AV friendly map. Basically any map with lots of enclosed spaces and multiple elevations is a terrible map for vehicles.
1.8 Analysis - Sentinel Damage Efficiency Calcs
|
Elijah Sol' Dzusaki
Onward Defrosted Tuna Team
711
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:16:00 -
[4] - Quote
open areas are the place for vehicles like on Skim Junction. The open areas between objective is where Vehicles should be.
Signatures? Since when?
|
Aero Yassavi
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
5187
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
Not necessarily, when you look at all the outposts all the objectives are within places a tank cannot get to, with the exception of Bravo on the three-point version of the Caldari Orbital Artillery. This is good game design. The vehicles are still useful here, because the prevent traffic passing between objectives which can be very detrimental to the opposing team. The Gallente Research Facility probably takes this a bit too far, however, as for the most part you can travel even between objectives without worrying about vehicles, but a little diversity is always good.
When you look at the small and medium sockets, almost none of them follow these rules. With a few exceptions, a tank can completely clog the actual hack point on all these sockets. The newest small and medium sockets do a bit of a better job with this.
Honestly I really don't believe a tank should be able to cover the actual hack point. Maybe one or two on a map, but never the majority. That doesn't take away the value of tanks, because again if you stop the enemy from moving between objectives you're giving your team a good edge.
Would love to hear what others think about this.
ARC Commander
CPM Info and Q&A - Status: Open
|
Disturbingly Bored
The Strontium Asylum
1437
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:20:00 -
[6] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:The inside of the Gallente Resource Facility is a great example of an AV friendly map. Basically any map with lots of enclosed spaces and multiple elevations is a terrible map for vehicles.
Best designed map right there. (Lag bomb techniques notwithstanding.)
Tanks can drive in and suppress movement between objectives, but they're also vulnerable to AV, and can't keep infantry from hacking the objective if they manage to get past the tank.
Dropships can give you a tactical insertion point if the ground entrances are well defended, but they can't just hover over an objective and lock it down.
<3 Research Facility
I used to own the FAT GAT until this --> [ASCII Art removed - draconian forum overlord CCP Logibro]
|
Cosgar
ParagonX
9103
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:42:00 -
[7] - Quote
That's kind of the direction they're going with the newer maps. But keep in mind there's still going to be ones where vehicles will be better too.
I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |