DUST Search - HAV vs AV balance, or, why it should take two AVers to kill a tank.

Harpyja wrote:

Jebus McKing wrote:

+1

Personally, I've never understood why Blaster Tanks are so effective against other tanks. (I'm not a tanker)

Why not make Blaster Tanks the ultimate infantry killers but very weak against other tanks? Maybe you could have some sort of rock-paper-scissors systems: (Rail Tanks > Blaster Tanks > Infantry AV > Rail Tanks)

The job of the Blaster Tank is to take out infantry. To do so it is relatively hard to kill with infantry AV weaponry.
Rail Tanks are mainly used to destroy other vehicles. Very hard to kill by Blaster Tanks even if fighting inside the Blaster Tanks optimal range. Easy targets for infantry AV.
Infantry AV weaponry weak to Blaster Tanks but devastating to Rail Tanks.

I'm undecided about the role of missile tanks though. Maybe they can serve some kind of middle-ground. Being somewhat effective against all kinds of vehicles, especially DS.

Also, buff the Plasma Cannon! (I propose a +100% direct hit damage increase, I'm totally serious! Big smile

)

Rail tanks shouldn't be their only hard counter. Rails should stay at range, and if a missile tank gets within 100m of the rail tank, I think the rail tank should lose majority of the time, even if it's shield tanked.

To do this I first suggest that heat costs need to be increased so you can't just rapid fire until the other tank dies. Second, RoF needs to be reduced to allow the missile tank to close the distance and get under the railgun's tracking.

And here's the most important change: charging or holding the charge on a large railgun should immobilize the tank (turret can still turn). If you're at range, you're already sitting still so this won't affect you. This is to allow skilled tanks to outmaneuver rail tanks at CQC. Currently, the rail tank only needs to drive in a straight line and you'll never be able to circle it and get under it's tracking, all while it's still shooting at you and applying its full DPS.

I believe that these changes to the railgun will keep it as an intended ranged turret without outperforming the missile turret in CQC. You shouldn't be able to apply full DPS at any range; and because the railgun is a ranged weapon, it should lose its DPS in CQC.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Lorhak Gannarsein 1452	Posted - 2014.02.03 12:04:00 - [1] - Quote First of all, credentials. I started playing DUST in Open Beta; my first role was forge-gun heavy (took me days to learn how to fire the damn thing guess I'm a scrub). I specced into HMG from there, seeing as it was a gun that fit onto my suit, and no-one else's (I suppose I thought that was cool, or something). I went from there to HAVs; started off in Gunnlogis. The shield hardeners confused me, so I went to the far more easily accessible Madrugar, and so I stayed for the next eight? months. I ended up with about 12M SP invested in HAVs before I started really branching out into infantry. I'd really started to enjoy infantry play by the time 1.7 came by, and I was a bit fed up of tanking by then. Was about to start the proto grind, and then the respec came. I dropped about 7M back into HAVs, and built a particle cannon Gunnlogi which I mathsed to be the AV King; turned out it was perfectly viable as an anti-infantry brawler. It took me about a week and a half to realise how broken tanks were; I only realised after discussing it with swarm users; my forge was still working, if it was perhaps not as devastating as it once was. It's been nearly two months now, and I am now heartily sick of tanks. I think now is a good time to provoke some discussion on something that's been burning in the back of my mind for a long time now. So, let's get to it. HAVs are in a bad place; they always have been. No, I'm not talking about ephemeral balance between HAVs and AV; that's been going back and forth for a while, and will probably never be solved to everyone's satisfaction. No, I'm talking about purpose. There is no purpose to HAVs. There never has been. A HAV is capable of, depending on fitting, obliterating infantry, or destroying vehicles. It takes about ten seconds to switch between the two, and the only difference between fittings need be the main turret. This is a marked difference to other games, recall abuse aside. In, say, the Battlefield series, there are multiple sizes of vehicles; some are intended as anti-infantry, or transports, or support, all the way up to MBTs, who are entirely capable of eliminating infantry, but are not intended for such a role by dint of having as their standard weapon an anti-vehicle weapon. In DUST, then, we have the following meta: LAV is used for ground transport, esp. Heavies, DS is used for rapid squad transport and to claim high ground (and sometimes as AI), and HAVs are for killing. Everything. It is simplicity itself to build an HAV for any purpose; even squad transport can be performed by HAVs more effectively than LAVs. The primary weapon I see fitted to HAVs at the moment (and ever, in fact) is the blaster turret, because of its ability to decimate infantry and not leave oneself defenseless against other HAVs. It is the primary reason that HAVs are considered 'overpowered' at the moment. Essentially, the perceived problem with blaster turrets is this: they are essentially an Assault Rifle x3. Their DPS is massive (the lowest of the HAV weapons, to be clear, but possessed of far higher damage per magazine, or per overheat), compared even to the mighty Scrambler Rifle. It is also, more importantly, encased in a relatively inexpensive, and, for infantry weapons, unkillable, vehicle hull. (While we're on this topic, the railgun needs looking at too. Missiles are basically fine, relative to these two. A balance pass really should wait until after these two main offenders are restored to balance) So. 1.7. Tanks are nerfed, but AV is nerfed more, so it seems like a general buff. (I'm serious; my old blaster Madrugar hit harder than these do, with permanent 32-47% resistance on 6k armour, plus 7k reps inside 15s. Current forge guns wouldn't scratch the paintwork.) HAVs are cheaper, so they're spammed, and over nerfed swarms, the most popular AV weapon, have been over-nerfed. This leaves us with the current meta. That the best way to kill an HAV is with another one. Now, I'm of the opinion that this is a good thing. Myself, I skilled into proficiency 3 forge guns + ADV heavy, so that I had a way of cost-effectively and consistently destroying tanks. This relegates HAVs to a single role, essentially: that of slaughtering infantry. If HAVs are less effective at destroying HAVs than are infantry, that is the only purpose they can have. Alternatively, HAVs can be capable of destroying infantry, though less effective, generally speaking, than Joe Assault Rifle (and maybe duna can find another way of padding his KD), and HAVs can be primary AV. I am in no way saying that it should be impossible for infantry to kill a tank; far from it. I am of the opinion that, assuming the first situation, infantry should be equally as effective at destroying HAVs, if not more, than other HAVs, and assuming he second, considering the lowered anti-infantry effectiveness of HAVs, that it takes two infantry to stand a good chance of destroying an HAV, but that a skilled, prepared and appropriately equipped player can solo-kill an HAV. Presumably three would put the nail right in the coffin. As it just do happens, the AV-HAV balance leans dramatically towards the latter as it is now. If it should happen that HAV effectiveness against infantry should be reduced, it should be the case that an alternative vehicle is created (MTACs, perhaps?) with large anti-infantry capacity but poor anti-vehicle capacity, so that there is still a reason to use HAVs. All I can say is that the presence of the large blaster turret makes HAVs little more than upscaled dropsuits. Or perhaps you disagree? P.S. Holy wall-of-text, Batman! Happily printing ISK with permahardeners and MLT blasters. Just let me get a couple mil more before nerf, CCP!
Lorhak Gannarsein 1453	Posted - 2014.02.03 12:36:00 - [2] - Quote Fizzer94 wrote: It is 6:30 in the morning. I'm not reading that... Have a +1 for your time. It's 11pm here :) I have too much time. Happily printing ISK with permahardeners and MLT blasters. Just let me get a couple mil more before nerf, CCP!
Lorhak Gannarsein 1458	Posted - 2014.02.03 13:10:00 - [3] - Quote Joseph Ridgeson wrote: It is a difficult scenario any way that it is put. The very concept of "I cannot possibly kill this person but he can kill me" is something that most people don't like in any game. It isn't a test of skill. An Infantryman, with load up meant to kill other Infantryman, will never kill even an empty module militia tank. This is something that most people find extremely annoying and I can understand that, even as the Tank pilot. Specializing into Anti-Vehicle skills is only good in the case of the enemy pulling out their tanks, so it can be seen as a wasteful skill. If you pay for the precaution and a tank never comes out, you effectively have burned your SP. The vehicle user, from the point of view of the AV dude, is at least capable of deciding whether the AV-Tank battle happens. So "why would I waste points for a scenario that might never happen?" becomes a point of order. That is where most of the frustration comes from, just from my opinion. But I digress. About your post: Adding an additional vehicle meant solely for killing Infantry but be terrible with other vehicles (MAV's) adds a fairly huge SP dump for Tankers though. AV and Infantry for a Heavy is a single weapon switch. If the Swarm is made less embarrassing, swapping a weapon for Assaults, Scouts, Logistics, and Commandos suddenly turns them into an AV. If pilots would have to change to a completely different type of Vehicle to become targeted towards Infantry as well as training a new turret, it puts a larger burden of SP on Tankers. It seems more reasonable to suggest the blaster to be weaker against vehicles OR to make the HAV and MAV go off the same skill but only a HAV can use a rail and a MAV a blaster. Overall, I don't know how to feel about it. Good, bad, I am honestly clueless. Very coherent and well thought post mate. At the moment, there isn't any value in an MAV class vehicle; that's the worst part of the situation from my perspective. Perhaps if player counts (in match) were doubled, then we could branch out more. But I dislike the idea of an HAV being the be-all and end-all of slaying. Also thanks :) Monkey MAC wrote: Ok so, lets get thing one thing straight before I start. I believe the BEST way to take out a HAV should be with an AV-Vehicle. However the reasons for this shouldn't because 1) Its the only viabld method 2) Its just physically easier This rises from the idea of force strength and how a person's force strength can fluctuate. You don't want to have an AV unit constantly because it lowers your force strength, Commondos are good but don't do fantastically in either. A tank however doesn't loose his forcestrength by going AV. It shouldn't take more than 1 AV unit to nullify the vehicular threat, (not necessarily destroy) but the implications of fielding a tank over infantry AV should be benifical. This is basically what I want in the end, except it's not really an option with only one vehicle frame (relevant to this discussion). I don't want infantry AV to be capable of soloing a (well-fit) tank, I want only tank-destroyers (which I think current HAVs should become) to be capable of easily accomplishing such a thing. Basically, in the meantime, I want rail gun splash nerfed for lowered AI performance, shots to overheat lowered to, say, 4 from the six it is now, so a decent-fit tank can survive, and I want blasters nerfed against vehicles. Happily printing ISK with permahardeners and MLT blasters. Just let me get a couple mil more before nerf, CCP!
Lorhak Gannarsein 1459	Posted - 2014.02.03 13:30:00 - [4] - Quote Jebus McKing wrote: +1 Personally, I've never understood why Blaster Tanks are so effective against other tanks. (I'm not a tanker) Why not make Blaster Tanks the ultimate infantry killers but very weak against other tanks? Maybe you could have some sort of rock-paper-scissors systems: (Rail Tanks > Blaster Tanks > Infantry AV > Rail Tanks) The job of the Blaster Tank is to take out infantry. To do so it is relatively hard to kill with infantry AV weaponry. Rail Tanks are mainly used to destroy other vehicles. Very hard to kill by Blaster Tanks even if fighting inside the Blaster Tanks optimal range. Easy targets for infantry AV. Infantry AV weaponry weak to Blaster Tanks but devastating to Rail Tanks. I'm undecided about the role of missile tanks though. Maybe they can serve some kind of middle-ground. Being somewhat effective against all kinds of vehicles, especially DS. Also, buff the Plasma Cannon! (I propose a +100% direct hit damage increase, I'm totally serious! ) Yep, this is the kind of thing I want to happen. Maybe increase railgun fitting costs, lower blaster fitting costs and cut blaster damage by 33% while improving its RoF by 50%, and lowering its vehicle damage by, say, 40%. So [136x0.66]x[487x1.5]=90x730=1100DPS against infantry, and 660 against vehicles. In other words, enough to destroy rail HAVs assuming outnumbering, but leaving rails and missiles as vastly superior at any range. Happily printing ISK with permahardeners and MLT blasters. Just let me get a couple mil more before nerf, CCP!
Lorhak Gannarsein 1459	Posted - 2014.02.03 13:36:00 - [5] - Quote thomas mak wrote: too long, make it shorter and cleaner anser the topic:size---size design HP and damage I don't know what you mean by this. BAD FURRY wrote: .........ok not even BAD is going to read this and not this soon in the day i just got home from work . plz some all you said up with only 150 words at most for me plz ...... if not the rest of us ! I'm in a good mood, so here it is. Blaster OP against infantry, makes infantry QQ about OP HAVs. Makes noobs spam MLT HAVs. Nerf blaster against HAVs. Make HAV vehicle killer, add infantry killer. Better? Happily printing ISK with permahardeners and MLT blasters. Just let me get a couple mil more before nerf, CCP!
Lorhak Gannarsein 1460	Posted - 2014.02.03 14:51:00 - [6] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Quote: There is no purpose to HAVs. There never has been. A HAV is capable of, depending on fitting, obliterating infantry, or destroying vehicles. It takes about ten seconds to switch between the two, and the only difference between fittings need be the main turret. Your wrong already Saying it has no purpose then you say unless its fitted for killing vehicles or infantry So there it is built for its purpose, as blaster it isnt easy to generally take down other vehicles likewise as a railgun i have **** poor aim with it so its harder for me to go AI with it It may only be the turret which changes but i can do the same for my dropsuit If i swap my FG for a HMG then its AI, if i keep the FG its AV It's built for its purpose, hm? So... What purpose is that, again? Blasters are intended as AI, you say? It might be harder to kill a tank with a blaster, but in no way is it specialised. I've killed my fair share of rail tanks with a blaster - hell, a couple of times I've killed particle cannon tanks with an MLT blaster. Rail guns are intended as AV? I'd just like to point out that I've had 25, 30 kill games with a railgun. Not regularly, sure, but they happen. And when that happens it's not direct damage, I can assure you. See, HAVs don't have a purpose. They're inherently all-purpose. Your example of a heavy suit is flawed; good luck killing a vehicle with an HMG. I would prefer HAVs to have similar specialisations to medium frames i.e. focused on anti infantry, with zero AV capacity, or focused on AV, with comparatively small AI capability. Teamwork would then be required to cover all roles. Happily printing ISK with permahardeners and MLT blasters. Just let me get a couple mil more before nerf, CCP!
Lorhak Gannarsein 1461	Posted - 2014.02.03 16:52:00 - [7] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Quote: There is no purpose to HAVs. There never has been. A HAV is capable of, depending on fitting, obliterating infantry, or destroying vehicles. It takes about ten seconds to switch between the two, and the only difference between fittings need be the main turret. Your wrong already Saying it has no purpose then you say unless its fitted for killing vehicles or infantry So there it is built for its purpose, as blaster it isnt easy to generally take down other vehicles likewise as a railgun i have ** poor aim with it so its harder for me to go AI with it It may only be the turret which changes but i can do the same for my dropsuit If i swap my FG for a HMG then its AI, if i keep the FG its AV It's built for its purpose, hm? So... What purpose is that, again? Blasters are intended as AI, you say? It might be harder to kill a tank with a blaster, but in no way is it specialised. I've killed my fair share of rail tanks with a blaster - hell, a couple of times I've killed particle cannon tanks with an MLT blaster. Rail guns are intended as AV? I'd just like to point out that I've had 25, 30 kill games with a railgun. Not regularly, sure, but they happen. And when that happens it's not direct damage, I can assure you. See, HAVs don't have a purpose. They're inherently all-purpose. Your example of a heavy suit is flawed; good luck killing a vehicle with an HMG. I would prefer HAVs to have similar specialisations to medium frames i.e. focused on anti infantry, with zero AV capacity, or focused on AV, with comparatively small AI capability. Teamwork would then be required to cover all roles. How many pull 25+ games with a rail? Its AV Blaster is AI Why is that? well damage and time to kill, a rail does it quicker against a vehicle and can hit through hardeners where as blasters ** through infantry quicker and more often but against a vehicle it can fail hard espc if it has hardeners on Yes. Rail is AV. Blaster is AI. Rail has significant AI capability, esp. at range. It's also exceptionally useful for eliminating heavies for your squad. Blaster has significant AV capability. It takes placement, judgement, patience and skill, but you can best any tank. It can be as straight-forward as burning nitrous and accelerating/reversing too rapidly for the railgun to track. Then the rail needs to reload, or overheats, or hardeners come off and it flees. Then it dies as you pour rounds into te weak point. The fact remains that the railgun is far more useful as an AI weapon than the forge gun, thanks to practically zero chance of effective retaliation, owing to massive range, damage and having a zoom function. The HMG is not capable of AV. It is therefore far less versatile than the blaster. (also why are you using a blaster against a hardened vehicle?) Happily printing ISK with permahardeners and MLT blasters. Just let me get a couple mil more before nerf, CCP!
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 1476	Posted - 2014.02.04 07:29:00 - [8] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Jebus McKing wrote: +1 Personally, I've never understood why Blaster Tanks are so effective against other tanks. (I'm not a tanker) Why not make Blaster Tanks the ultimate infantry killers but very weak against other tanks? Maybe you could have some sort of rock-paper-scissors systems: (Rail Tanks > Blaster Tanks > Infantry AV > Rail Tanks) The job of the Blaster Tank is to take out infantry. To do so it is relatively hard to kill with infantry AV weaponry. Rail Tanks are mainly used to destroy other vehicles. Very hard to kill by Blaster Tanks even if fighting inside the Blaster Tanks optimal range. Easy targets for infantry AV. Infantry AV weaponry weak to Blaster Tanks but devastating to Rail Tanks. I'm undecided about the role of missile tanks though. Maybe they can serve some kind of middle-ground. Being somewhat effective against all kinds of vehicles, especially DS. Also, buff the Plasma Cannon! (I propose a +100% direct hit damage increase, I'm totally serious! ) Rail tanks shouldn't be their only hard counter. Rails should stay at range, and if a missile tank gets within 100m of the rail tank, I think the rail tank should lose majority of the time, even if it's shield tanked. To do this I first suggest that heat costs need to be increased so you can't just rapid fire until the other tank dies. Second, RoF needs to be reduced to allow the missile tank to close the distance and get under the railgun's tracking. And here's the most important change: charging or holding the charge on a large railgun should immobilize the tank (turret can still turn). If you're at range, you're already sitting still so this won't affect you. This is to allow skilled tanks to outmaneuver rail tanks at CQC. Currently, the rail tank only needs to drive in a straight line and you'll never be able to circle it and get under it's tracking, all while it's still shooting at you and applying its full DPS. I believe that these changes to the railgun will keep it as an intended ranged turret without outperforming the missile turret in CQC. You shouldn't be able to apply full DPS at any range; and because the railgun is a ranged weapon, it should lose its DPS in CQC. I don't think this is a good way to go about the changes; to justify the effective inability to use a railgun at all (i.e. removing the ability to turn the hull) essentially makes it impossible to apply sufficient DPS to actually destroy things. What this would actually do is make it impossible to railgun tank except from the redline. Consequently, not a good fix IMO. Increasing heat consumption is a good idea, and something I've suggested in this thread. Not sure what you're talking about re: tracking? It's quite easy to run rings around even a Gunnlogi; this is actually how I get many of my kills. Even with a blaster it's possible. I don't think the fix is to make railguns less good at AV; I think instead they should be specialised at AV. Blasters should be specialised AI, and missiles should be capable of effectively and efficiently performing both, though to a lesser degree than either of the specialised guns. Making it the most versatile turret is, I think, the best way of giving it both a niche (even if that niche IS versatility) and justifying it's increased SP costs. I also don't think the railgun should suffer from laser-esque DPS falloff. That's silly, and completely illogical. Happily printing ISK with permahardeners and MLT blasters. Just let me get a couple mil more before nerf, CCP!
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 1479	Posted - 2014.02.04 10:44:00 - [9] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: Moved to Feedback/Requests :( I was actually aiming this at the community, rather than CCP. Happily printing ISK with permahardeners and MLT blasters. Just let me get a couple mil more before nerf, CCP!
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 1497	Posted - 2014.02.05 00:42:00 - [10] - Quote And doesn't require CCP to introduce a whole new vehicle, because we know how long that would take. I would edit OP to add this stuff but it's at 250 chars remaining and I can't be bothered editing the whole thing. Happily printing ISK with permahardeners and MLT blasters. Just let me get a couple mil more before nerf, CCP!

Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 1516	Posted - 2014.02.06 11:02:00 - [11] - Quote bogeyman m wrote: Garth Mandra wrote: bogeyman m wrote: I like everything you said EXCEPT: "-Introduce an assault LAV with a pilot controlled turret." I'm not a fan of that suggestion at all. I strongly feel that ALL vehicles should require a pilot PLUS a gunner (if weapon equipped). I don't disagree with you. But that kind of LAV is probably easier for the Dust community to swallow than tanks that require an extra person to use the main gun and getting rid of assault dropships. The main aim is to get a light vehicle that is useful against infantry and will give something for the, now AV, tanks to shoot at. Understood. But don't they already have that? I mean a pilot can shoot whenever they want to, they just have to stop and change seats first. Given the speed and HP advantage vehicles have, I think that is a fair trade off. A solo-piloted LAV is incredibly vulnerable; I'd be happy to sacrifice a main tank slot for being able to operate it like a HAV turret. Even a bricked heavy dies incredibly quickly when LAV-gunning. Happily printing ISK with permahardeners and MLT blasters. Just let me get a couple mil more before nerf, CCP!