DUST Search - Denial of Access without Denying Usage

Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote:

If you'll pardon the crappy MS Paint work this is roughly how I think map balance should work.

Allow me to explain. HAVs are, and in my opinion should be, simply more powerful than an infantry suit. That doesn't mean that we should set it up where infantry have no purpose, however. So in this map infantry are there to enter the closed in areas that vehicles either can't reach or where they would be too vulnerable. That's where much of their fighting would take place. Thus a team with the superior infantry force controls objectives A and B.

However, safe travel from A to B isn't easy. It's mostly open terrain where infantry run the risk of getting blapped by vehicles roaming the area. Fights in this area would be largely determined by vehicle on vehicle fighting, with infantry providing support if they aren't busy in one of the complexes.

But the game isn't won just because you had the better infantry team. Objectives C and D are in the open, and you won't be able to hold them unless you also have control of that part of the map with your vehicle team.

Thus in order to win a team must field an effective combined force of infantry AND vehicles, allowing both to operate in their respective roles.

"Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys." Sun Tzu

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
The Black Jackal The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 983	Posted - 2014.01.25 04:10:00 - [1] - Quote This primarily aims at the Heavy Attack Vehicle Vs. Infantry issues we have at the moment. While Tanks are currently able to dictate the field, and Anti-Vehicle Weapons are slightly underpowered, these are the only 2 bars being measured in the current arguments. A straight up comparison. But let me add a third variable that MUST be considered. It is one that was, in reality, somewhat balanced during Closed Beta when we had the two stage map. That is the idea of 'Map Balance'. Currently, I doubt anyone can argue that any map in the game favours Infantry over Heavy Attack Vehicles. Heavy Attack Vehicles can get to most places, and 90% of the places they can't, they can still fire upon. This means that in addition to being hard hitters and hard to kill, they have as good coverage as any infantry soldier. Now in balancing 'Map Design' you can create areas of tight turns, narrow passes, and general clutter that Heavy Attack vehicles CANNOT pass, and have trouble shooting through (limited field of fire). These avenues would be infantry corridors. This would stop Heavy Attack Vehicles from dictating every aspect of the match, and open up much more tactical usage as your HAV may not be able to get to point A as fast as the infantry taking a faster ground approach. It also opens up Air Dominance. Aerial Units being then able to traverse such areas much quicker, while Heavy Attack Vehicles are left wanting. Now this is coming from a Heavy Attack Vehicle driver, who knows that when he camps a spot, the only thing that budges him generally are 3+ AV all concentrated on him, or another HAV. While I want to see HAV's remain powerful and balanced (against each other), I want to see their dominance on the field end. HAVs should NOT be able to control so much of the field. tl:dr Increase clutter and make some areas inaccessible to Heavy Attack Vehicles to balance the gameplay as well as tweak the numbers. Open Maps will always favour Heavy Attack Vehicles, unless the Heavy Attack Vehicles are so weak as to be worthless additions to the field. "Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys." Sun Tzu
Ulysses Knapse Knapse and Co. Mercenary Firm 1129	Posted - 2014.01.25 04:19:00 - [2] - Quote The Black Jackal wrote: Currently, I doubt anyone can argue that any map in the game favours Infantry over Heavy Attack Vehicles. I can argue that, and I do. While most of the newer maps feature multiple vehicle-traversable complexes separated by wide-open country, some of the older ones are nearly impossible for HAVs to be effective in. Not that it's difficult to avoid HAVs by using cover. It's actually quite easy, regardless of the map, you just have to be smart about it. What's the difference between an immobile Minmatar ship and a pile of garbage? The pile of garbage is more lethal.
The Black Jackal The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 983	Posted - 2014.01.25 04:24:00 - [3] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: The Black Jackal wrote: Currently, I doubt anyone can argue that any map in the game favours Infantry over Heavy Attack Vehicles. I can argue that, and I do. While most of the newer maps feature multiple vehicle-traversable complexes separated by wide-open country, some of the older ones are nearly impossible for HAVs to be effective in. Not that it's difficult to avoid HAVs by using cover. It's actually quite easy, regardless of the map, you just have to be smart about it. But do those maps 'favour' infantry over Heavy Attack Vehicles? The old Commmunication's Centre stil has most areas internally still vulnerable to Heavy Attack Vehicle Fire from the traversable road. The BioMass Outpost has multiple Traversible paths for a HAV, and for Points A and C (B being the internal one) the point can be fired on by Heavy Attack Vehicles. Add in the surrounding flats, and you'd likely have a map that 30% infantry friendly, while the other 70% is more affable to Heavy Attack Vehicles. "Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys." Sun Tzu
Ulysses Knapse Knapse and Co. Mercenary Firm 1130	Posted - 2014.01.25 05:38:00 - [4] - Quote The Black Jackal wrote: But do those maps 'favour' infantry over Heavy Attack Vehicles? The old Commmunication's Centre stil has most areas internally still vulnerable to Heavy Attack Vehicle Fire from the traversable road. The BioMass Outpost has multiple Traversible paths for a HAV, and for Points A and C (B being the internal one) the point can be fired on by Heavy Attack Vehicles. Those aren't maps. Those are sockets. The maps I am referring to were introduced before sockets even existed. And yes, some of them definitely do favor infantry over vehicles. Ashland in particular comes to mind. What's the difference between an immobile Minmatar ship and a pile of garbage? The pile of garbage is more lethal.
The Black Jackal The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 984	Posted - 2014.01.25 10:19:00 - [5] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: The Black Jackal wrote: But do those maps 'favour' infantry over Heavy Attack Vehicles? The old Commmunication's Centre stil has most areas internally still vulnerable to Heavy Attack Vehicle Fire from the traversable road. The BioMass Outpost has multiple Traversible paths for a HAV, and for Points A and C (B being the internal one) the point can be fired on by Heavy Attack Vehicles. Those aren't maps. Those are sockets. The maps I am referring to were introduced before sockets even existed. And yes, some of them definitely do favor infantry over vehicles. Ashland in particular comes to mind. Maps are Sockets + the open plains. So it all counts in the overall scheme of things. Ashland is one of the few that comes to mind that may favour infantry in some aspects. However, there are still very few places a HAV cannot go, and fewer still that it cannot fire upon if you know the spots. "Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys." Sun Tzu
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 474	Posted - 2014.01.25 13:37:00 - [6] - Quote If you'll pardon the crappy MS Paint work this is roughly how I think map balance should work. Allow me to explain. HAVs are, and in my opinion should be, simply more powerful than an infantry suit. That doesn't mean that we should set it up where infantry have no purpose, however. So in this map infantry are there to enter the closed in areas that vehicles either can't reach or where they would be too vulnerable. That's where much of their fighting would take place. Thus a team with the superior infantry force controls objectives A and B. However, safe travel from A to B isn't easy. It's mostly open terrain where infantry run the risk of getting blapped by vehicles roaming the area. Fights in this area would be largely determined by vehicle on vehicle fighting, with infantry providing support if they aren't busy in one of the complexes. But the game isn't won just because you had the better infantry team. Objectives C and D are in the open, and you won't be able to hold them unless you also have control of that part of the map with your vehicle team. Thus in order to win a team must field an effective combined force of infantry AND vehicles, allowing both to operate in their respective roles.
The Black Jackal The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 987	Posted - 2014.01.25 13:53:00 - [7] - Quote Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote: If you'll pardon the crappy MS Paint work this is roughly how I think map balance should work. Allow me to explain. HAVs are, and in my opinion should be, simply more powerful than an infantry suit. That doesn't mean that we should set it up where infantry have no purpose, however. So in this map infantry are there to enter the closed in areas that vehicles either can't reach or where they would be too vulnerable. That's where much of their fighting would take place. Thus a team with the superior infantry force controls objectives A and B. However, safe travel from A to B isn't easy. It's mostly open terrain where infantry run the risk of getting blapped by vehicles roaming the area. Fights in this area would be largely determined by vehicle on vehicle fighting, with infantry providing support if they aren't busy in one of the complexes. But the game isn't won just because you had the better infantry team. Objectives C and D are in the open, and you won't be able to hold them unless you also have control of that part of the map with your vehicle team. Thus in order to win a team must field an effective combined force of infantry AND vehicles, allowing both to operate in their respective roles. That is almost exactly the point I'm trying to get across. Except for each point there should be a balance, making the taking of each point a tactical ideal that benefits (but doesn't require) the usage of one or more vehicles, but cannot be 'dominated' by vehicles. "Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys." Sun Tzu


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page