|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
Interstellar Murder of Crows
1704
   |
Posted - 2014.02.17 22:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
Powerful, tough and slow war machines that require internal teamwork to be deployed most effectively. Crew Service for all vehicles, not just a few.
Crazy AV options, swarm buff, PLC buff, web prox mines, stealth prox mines.
Crazy AV countermeasures options, ablative plating, chaff, CIWS.
SKILLS NEED TO BE REQUIRED FOR UTILIZATION THOUGH NOT FITTING. No more "I have no points in Vehicles at all but I can hop right in a drive off in a vehicle that I have no training in and no ******* clue how best to use".
Lots more too, just can't think straight currently.
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
1707
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 01:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:Im not going to go into the semantics of it now, but as I have said time and again, in numerous threads across the forums.
I want Tanks to have an equal FORCE STRENGTH to the equivalent amount of infantry.
Tanks (so long as they are piloted by 1 person -and rightly so-) should be considered a niche weapon, like the Mass Driver or LR.
So you're saying that they shouldn't be force multipliers?
To quote a great man:
Whaaaaaaa?
That would completely defeat the entire purpose of vehicles.
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
1710
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 08:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Im not going to go into the semantics of it now, but as I have said time and again, in numerous threads across the forums.
I want Tanks to have an equal FORCE STRENGTH to the equivalent amount of infantry.
Tanks (so long as they are piloted by 1 person -and rightly so-) should be considered a niche weapon, like the Mass Driver or LR.
So you're saying that they shouldn't be force multipliers? To quote a great man: Whaaaaaaa? That would completely defeat the entire purpose of vehicles. To the contrary, as a niche weapon it has somewhere it excels, where its personal force strength beyond 1 so long as it is in that kind of engagement. But will also have alot of places where it will not benifit. You realise force multipliers don't have more forcestrength, they increase the forcestrength of those around them. 1Tank = 1Infantry 1Tank + 5Infantry > 6Infantry
Well, I would still call it a force multiplier since 1 HAV > 1 Infantry. I would go so far as to say that 1 HAV is potentially worth an entire squad of Infantry. Using that as a basis, one squad with 5 Infantry and 1 HAV would be equal to nearly 2 squads of Infantry. One squad with 5 HAVs and 1 Infantry could easily outmatch the entire enemy team with the small match numbers we have currently.
They are far from a niche weapon and I seriously believe that you are attempting to downplay the efficacy and value of having HAVs on the field. If they were a niche weapon, they'd be little used and generally overlooked aside from 1-2% of situations in the game. They're not, they are the go to currently since they are so effective at being Force Multipliers. As it stands now, they allow 1 guy to do the work of many, which is the definition of force multiplier. The guy who calls in the HAV has his "force strength" increased by virtue of being in the HAV.
For example, I was in a match earlier this evening where we were dominating from the gate, both sides were primarily infantry too. About 2/3's of the way through their shields they brought out a full allotment of HAVs and immediately the tide turned. We lost the letter and never recovered. They didn't get more guys in on their side, there was no change to either side except for the addition of 3 80GJ MLT Blasters, 1 80GJ MLT Rail and 1 80GJ PRO Rail to their side.
If HAVs can allow one person to easily do the job of many, they are a force multiplier. If 1 HAV can do the job of nearly an entire squad, then I see no reason that they shouldn't be considered a force multiplier and required to have Crew Service. I am not saying that the entire squad needs to be in it, just that it should require more than 1 person to effectively handle.
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
1710
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 12:18:00 -
[4] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:
It's not really fair to force multiple people to pilot a tank. Who pay's for it? Who needs the Skills to use it?
You can't fairly make a tank that requires multiple people, therfore you should not make a tank more powerful than 1 person.
Q: Who pays for it?
A: Whomever chooses to, you are still viewing the HAV as a personal item rather than an item shared among a crew. I understand how many people get caught up on this, they are used to having their own personal 6k+ EHP safety blanket. This flawed train of thought is really the first major hurdle that people would need to get over.
Q: Who needs the skills to use it?
A: Whomever in your crew is planning to use it. If you've read all of my posts in this thread, you'll notice that I've emphasized that skills need to be disconnected from the fitting process and attached to the utilization process. If you have not spent the skill points on actually unlocking the HAV you should not be able to even get into the "driver's seat" though this should have no impact on what sort of vehicle you wish to design and purchase yourself. You may have only spent skill points on being a secondary gunner, in which case the only seats you should be allowed to cycle to would be those associated with secondary turrets. It really isn't that hard of a concept to wrap your head around once you get over hurdle #1 (see above).
S: You can't fairly make a tank that requires multiple people, therefore you should not make a tank more powerful than 1 person.
R: If this is truly the case then there should be no HAVs in the game that have more EHP than a bricked Heavy, no more damage potential than a single infantry member and are no faster than the fastest infantry, unless these three criteria are met, HAVs will continue to be significantly more powerful than one person and I will continue to advocate for Crew Service.
IMHO, either reduce the power threshold of HAVs to that of a single infantry or admit that a single HAV has significantly more power potential than 2-4 Infantry and accept that requiring no less than two (though still allowing up to four) infantry to operate an HAV isn't asking too much.
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
1710
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 13:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
Heathen Bastard wrote:I still don't understand people saying a tank should need 3-4 specialized pilot guys to run at all. does your suit need 4 other people to be effective? The most "needs a spare guy" suit in the game is the heavy and they don't technically need the other guy if they have ready access to a supply depot.
if my tank requires a quarter of my team to be entirely specialized for it, then how powerful is it? I can tell you. it's steam rolling your entire team. Right now, you're being hurt by tanks. You make them require a quarter of the team then they damn well better perform like it, which means having basically a squad that you can't kill and will mow your entire team down with heavy weaponry in seconds. the only vulnerable time will be when one of them hops out to hack. and even then, you still have 3 guns looking for anyone within 300 meters to rip in half.
Do I call my dropsuit in after I've spawned?
Does my dropsuit provide me with 6k+ EHP?
Who said anything about entirely specialized? One needs to train to drive it, one needs to train into Large turrets and (maybe) two need to train into Small Turrets. If that is entirely specialized then I guess I am entirely specialized in Light Weapons because I can use a Combat Rifle with Proficiency?
Beyond that, there are many other excellent suggestions in this thread. Buffs for AV, the addition of AV countermeasure, reduction in speed and a reduction in the AP efficacy of Large turrets (creating the need for reliance on Small Turrets or Infantry support for AP purposes).
I am willing to concede that Crew Service would increase the deadliness of HAVs, though I honestly believe that in conjuction with other suggestions the community has put forth, a balance could easily be reached.
Currently, V/AV is totally unbalanced and it is hurting the game as a whole, we need to achieve a balance and IMHO, a balance cannot be reach without either Crew Service or nerfing HAVs to oblivion again. I do not want HAVs nerfed into a state where they are inconsequential and marginalized.I do want them to be a force to be reckoned with on the battlefield, though one that requires intelligence and internal teamwork to prosper. I want both sides of the fence here to be required to be intelligent and utilize teamwork to prosper.
Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives
Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten
Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
|
|
|
| |
|