|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
Interstellar Murder of Crows
1673
   |
Posted - 2014.02.16 23:58:00 -
[1] - Quote
All of that seems reasonable to me.
I do however, still think that the Driver and Main Gunner should be separate seats in the HAV. Minimum two needed to be able to move and shoot simultaneously. The option for the two secondaries should remain. This would mean that you could run the HAV solo if you liked though you wouldn't be moving and shooting at the same time, if you brought a single friend, you can move and shoot and if you brought more than one friend, you'd have a better chance of killing any infantry resistance.
Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives
Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten
Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
Interstellar Murder of Crows
1673
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 00:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Atiim wrote:True Adamance wrote:Can agree on some points but their solutions do not benefit both side mutually, only AVers. Really? I thought an alarm system, flares, and countermeasures benifited pilots as well. Anything I should add in? Perhaps, I missed the countermeasures. Still I feel that's not consider future medium vehicles and their own lesser shield and armour values.
I would hope that MAV's would have a higher acceleration and top speed as well as better handling to compensate. I am not suggesting that they be faster/as fast as LAVs, but I do think that they should be closer in those regards to LAVs than HAVs.
Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives
Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten
Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
Interstellar Murder of Crows
1674
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 00:45:00 -
[3] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:True Adamance wrote:Atiim wrote:True Adamance wrote:Can agree on some points but their solutions do not benefit both side mutually, only AVers. Really? I thought an alarm system, flares, and countermeasures benifited pilots as well. Anything I should add in? Perhaps, I missed the countermeasures. Still I feel that's not consider future medium vehicles and their own lesser shield and armour values. I would hope that MAV's would have a higher acceleration and top speed as well as better handling to compensate. I am not suggesting that they be faster/as fast as LAVs, but I do think that they should be closer in those regards to LAVs than HAVs. Agreed, but their lower HP values will cause them to suffer if AV receive direct buffs to damage models. This is what most QQing AVers don't consider. As it see it LAV- Light Scout, Anti Infantry Small Turrets. Low ISK, Low SP MAV- Infantry Support, the link between infantry and vehicles. Meduim Turrets, or Utility Vehicles. Medium ISK, Medium SP HAV- Vehicle busting, durable, but slow, requires multiple gunner to have anti infantry capacity. High ISK, HIgh SP
IDK, I think you are underestimating the effects chaff will/could have.
I picture it as being similar to hardeners except that while "active" it will fire off chaff once incoming missiles have reached a distance threshold. So if I am running along in my MAV and I have my Chaff mod active, when Swarms got within 20m or so, it would fire off a number of flares based on the tier of the mod (thinking Swarm equivalency here). Each flare would attract a single missile and pull it off course from the MAV to the flare itself.
There could also be some version of CIWS for vehicles too I would imagine.
Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives
Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten
Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
Interstellar Murder of Crows
1674
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 00:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
NK Scout wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:All of that seems reasonable to me.
I do however, still think that the Driver and Main Gunner should be separate seats in the HAV. Minimum two needed to be able to move and shoot simultaneously. The option for the two secondaries should remain. This would mean that you could run the HAV solo if you liked though you wouldn't be moving and shooting at the same time, if you brought a single friend, you can move and shoot and if you brought more than one friend, you'd have a better chance of killing any infantry resistance. NO
I love how it is always a simple "NO". Never an explanation of why outside of childish demands to have their own solo pwnmobile.
You might as well have just typed "NUH-UH **STAMPS FEET WHILE WALKING OFF**".
I think it is hilarious too since it would amount to a larger buff to vehicles than the one CCP gave in 1.7.
Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives
Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten
Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
Interstellar Murder of Crows
1680
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 03:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
NK Scout wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:NK Scout wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:All of that seems reasonable to me.
I do however, still think that the Driver and Main Gunner should be separate seats in the HAV. Minimum two needed to be able to move and shoot simultaneously. The option for the two secondaries should remain. This would mean that you could run the HAV solo if you liked though you wouldn't be moving and shooting at the same time, if you brought a single friend, you can move and shoot and if you brought more than one friend, you'd have a better chance of killing any infantry resistance. NO I love how it is always a simple "NO". Never an explanation of why outside of childish demands to have their own solo pwnmobile. You might as well have just typed "NUH-UH **STAMPS FEET WHILE WALKING OFF**". I think it is hilarious too since it would amount to a larger buff to vehicles than the one CCP gave in 1.7. No way in hell im lettingnrandoms shoot or drive Im not going to squad up every time in dust, I like playing solo and it makes my framerate better.
Oh so because you want to be able to have your solo pwnmobile when you're playing solo in an admittedly teambased game, that is reason enough to not include something that would encourage teamplay?
Still not hearing rational, articulate arguments, just more of the "IT HAS TO BE THIS WAY BECAUSE I WANT IT THIS WAY WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!"
@True
I thought that "standing apart" was something that most of the community has wanted for Dust from the beginning? I mean, I know it is different, though I don't think that it is nearly so much of a "fun killer" as you put forth.
In fact, I think it would make things more fun, social activities usually are.
Would you rather fap or spend the evening with your gender of choice?
Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives
Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten
Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
Interstellar Murder of Crows
1689
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 14:25:00 -
[6] - Quote
Altina McAlterson wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:
Oh so because you want to be able to have your solo pwnmobile when you're playing solo in an admittedly teambased game, that is reason enough to not include something that would encourage teamplay?
Still not hearing rational, articulate arguments, just more of the "IT HAS TO BE THIS WAY BECAUSE I WANT IT THIS WAY WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!"
@True
I thought that "standing apart" was something that most of the community has wanted for Dust from the beginning? I mean, I know it is different, though I don't think that it is nearly so much of a "fun killer" as you put forth.
In fact, I think it would make things more fun, social activities usually are.
Would you rather fap or spend the evening with your gender of choice?
Arbitrarily requiring 2 people to operate a tank is a ridiculous idea. Although I understand why you think it and don't blame you for feeling the way you do so this isn't a personal attack. But it is a horribly bad idea. It is based on the assumption that at the moment tanks are "OP" because they are dominating Ambush matches, not allowing infantry to really engage each other because they have to constantly flee the tank and are genuinely ruining the fun for everyone not sitting on two treads. But guess what? Tanks are not "OP". They aren't exactly fine, but they aren't OP. They are just extremely effective at dominating ambush matches. We've gone through this whole cycle several times just like Bad Furry said in another thread. You either wind up with tanks that dominate ambush and ruin it for infantry or they become too weak and useless in skirm/dom. Right now if your team has enough brain cells to rub together to start a fire they can handle tanks in a skirmish or domination match. Ambush is another matter entirely and is almost its own thread entirely but my answer as to why I don't like your idea is because there is absolutely no reason to do it. It's an arbitrary and unjustified handicap on a significant-enough-to-matter portion of the game and the playerbase. And that is why it is a bad idea.
Sorry to say though your assumption is wrong, my proposal has absolutely nothing to do the "tanks are OP because they are dominating Ambush matches" assertion you make. Honestly, I only know that tanks are rampant in Ambush because they are cried about by others on the forums, my corpmates practically need to twist my arm to not leave squad when Ambush is queued.
If it had anything to do with that, it would be because most of the matches I have been in have been decided by who pulled out the most HAVs the quickest, no matter the gamemode. I think it is a good idea in general seeing as how it would create more of a squad dynamic. There is also the bonuses in that it would cut down on the number of HAVs on the field at any one time (you have to admit that it is ridiculous how the HAV spam is usually the first thing to occur in most matches) as well as allowing for an even further slight buff. I think we can all agree that having individuals devoting their full attention to one seat in the HAV would result in HAVs that would be buffed as a direct result (without even needing a numerical buff of any kind) of having the Driver and Main Gunner not splitting their attention between driving and shooting. Am I saying that the "attention buff" would be the only one provided? No, simply that it would be the primary buff on the most basic level without need of arbitrary numbers that may well prove to be much more OP than first thought.
I am also curious how exactly you view this as a handicap on tankers? It is a direct buff due to the factors mentioned above, simply requiring that tankers do what they've been telling everyone else to do for a very long time, run in a squad, work together, coordinate. It is the only truly balanced way to approach the subject.
@Lorhak
I've been advocating for a while now that HAVs specifically should require 3 AV Infantry of an equal tier (adjusted accordingly by tier comparison and further modified by the inclusion of damage mods/hardeners) to destroy them. I agree that it should (in 99% of situations) take more than 1 AVer to kill an HAV, all I am looking for is for that to be a two-way street. If AV needs to group up to bring down an HAV, then HAVs should require more than 1 operator to be at full efficacy. I feel that the only way that an HAV should be able to be "soloed" is if it is an STD HAV being hit with PRO AV.
Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives
Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten
Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
Interstellar Murder of Crows
1691
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 16:45:00 -
[7] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:I'm for limiting hardeners to one per vehicle, and I've suggested that myself. But in return, hardeners need to resist more. 80% and 60% for shields and armor respectively.
I should be nigh unkillable while my hardener is up. It should take multiple AV users focusing all the DPs they can muster to break through my hardener.
But when that hardener turns off, I better have killed all the AV, or have infantry support, because I should be relatively easy pickings for one AV person. 80% and 60% could easily break Vehicle vs. Vehicle fights. Additionally, you'd have to decrease the speed of vehicles, otherwise you'll risk creating an even bigger problem simply because a pilot could easily escape without needing to plan ahead.
IMHO, HAVs (with NOS active) should be able to move at roughly triple the max speed for Infantry (think fastest scout with nothing but KinCats in the lows).
If they have no NOS active, they should cap out at double max infantry speed. However, I also am of the opinion that they should be able to muscle over/through most any obstacle that isn't a 90 degree angle that they can get traction with both tracks on.
Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives
Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten
Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
Interstellar Murder of Crows
1691
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 17:08:00 -
[8] - Quote
Ludvig Enraga wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:Atiim wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:I'm for limiting hardeners to one per vehicle, and I've suggested that myself. But in return, hardeners need to resist more. 80% and 60% for shields and armor respectively.
I should be nigh unkillable while my hardener is up. It should take multiple AV users focusing all the DPs they can muster to break through my hardener.
But when that hardener turns off, I better have killed all the AV, or have infantry support, because I should be relatively easy pickings for one AV person. 80% and 60% could easily break Vehicle vs. Vehicle fights. Additionally, you'd have to decrease the speed of vehicles, otherwise you'll risk creating an even bigger problem simply because a pilot could easily escape without needing to plan ahead. IMHO, HAVs (with NOS active) should be able to move at roughly triple the max speed for Infantry (think fastest scout with nothing but KinCats in the lows). If they have no NOS active, they should cap out at double max infantry speed. However, I also am of the opinion that they should be able to muscle over/through most any obstacle that isn't a 90 degree angle that they can get traction with both tracks on. What is you opinion on speed based on? How does it help bring tanks into balance. I think the biggest problem with tanks is not that they are hard, it's that they are fast. They escape too easy instead of paying for their mistakes when they are in a situation where they are taking heavy damage.
It is based solely on the fact that they would then be faster than Infantry could hope to be without being ridiculously fast while still being significantly slower than LAVs.
They should be faster than Infantry, they are after all vehicles, however I don't think that they need to be much faster than Infantry for the sake of balance. It would make them a shorter range, area denial/point defense force multiplier. Drop an HAV in and have it significantly increase the firepower in a moderate radius around an objective while not allowing them to zoom from one end of the map to another at a moments notice.
Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives
Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten
Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
Interstellar Murder of Crows
1699
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 20:08:00 -
[9] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:Atiim wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:I'm for limiting hardeners to one per vehicle, and I've suggested that myself. But in return, hardeners need to resist more. 80% and 60% for shields and armor respectively.
I should be nigh unkillable while my hardener is up. It should take multiple AV users focusing all the DPs they can muster to break through my hardener.
But when that hardener turns off, I better have killed all the AV, or have infantry support, because I should be relatively easy pickings for one AV person. 80% and 60% could easily break Vehicle vs. Vehicle fights. Additionally, you'd have to decrease the speed of vehicles, otherwise you'll risk creating an even bigger problem simply because a pilot could easily escape without needing to plan ahead. Let me clarify. All hardeners should have the same cooldown and uptime. Militia level for example. And as you go up the tiers, the resistance increases. 60% for militia and standard, 70% for advanced, and 80% for proto. I find the best balance is when I double harden my gunnlogi with two standard hardeners. I almost cannot be killed when both of them are up. But I also have to wait a long time for them to finish their cooldowns. I never run one without the other. This to me is the perfect balance. I am godly when it is up, but I must either retreat or be destroyed once they are down, and it takes a long time for them to cool down.
The problem with that is that when you see them start to cycle red, zip there you go right back to being deep in your redline.
Effectively making you invulnerable.
Infantry have no hardeners and even if they did, there is no way in hell that they could escape as fast and efficiently as an HAV.
Totally unbalanced.
Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives
Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten
Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
|
|
|
| |
|