|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
1026
   |
Posted - 2014.02.19 13:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
Tank Balance is about more than numbers.
I've said this many times.
Heavy Attack Vehicles are supposed to be hard to kill and hard hitting. What makes them too effective is the lack of map balance (search the term, it's frequently described) where HAVS are the 'dominant' power for roughly 20-30% of the map (open plains, mountain perches) have roughly equal footing for another 20-30%, and for the final % they are ineffective, or overpowered by other units.
Also the fact that the only counter Infantry (being Infantry Specific here)has to Heavy Attack Vehicles is Anti-Vehicle. In 'real-world' Main Battle Tanks are mitigated by numerous environments (they are less effective in urban environments as infantry can move around to positions where the Main Battle Tank cannot) and by effective blocking solutions such as gates, walls, barricades, and numerous other impositions.
Before we attack the numbers of AV Vs. HAVs, or HAVs, Vs. Anything. Lets ensure that they playing field we have is equalized first. Main Battle Tanks are effective in numerous roles Real Life AND in other Vehicle Infantry Combination Games, but are neutralized by much more than just the ability to destroy / drive them off with Anti-Vehicle.
Map balance also denotes much more restricted access to certain areas, meaning that things like Dropships are chosen over LAVs for transport because they can get up a cliff face to the fortification at the top faster, while both the LAV and the HAV have to work their way up.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
1028
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 21:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
Eskimorris wrote:Psychotic Shooter wrote:. obvious troll is obvious obvious troll is also obvious scrub. please articulate your concern. Are you saying tanks are fine and need no balancing? Please day something less idiotic k thx.
I'll say it.
Tanks are fine... Maps are not.
Open Maps = Tank dominance. As it would be. If infantry have nowhere to hide from Tanks, and no where to strike at tanks where tanks cannot reach, Tanks will win unless they are weak as crap. Which, even as you said, they should have the advantage 1v1.
The advantage of infantry Vs. Tanks is their ability to get into places where tanks cannot. Have a larger Field of Fire from high places than tanks have, and are generally able to avoid incoming blasts by taking cover, or turning a corner.
At the moment, tanks can chase you wherever you can go, and if they physically can't get to you with their hull, they can generally shoot you from another vantage point.
Infantry needs to be more effective via map design first, before numbers, altered mechanics, or other ill considered changes are made to the entities themselves.
Also stating Tanks should have more vulnerable sections like Side / Top Armor / Shields and Rear Armor / Shields being weaker by gradual %. giving infantry the ability and notion to actually position themselves to take out enemy HAVs. Also included would be the lack of, or weak, underside armor / shield making proximity mines (that should not beep) more effective.
What I'm saying is that the maps always favour HAVs over Infantry. Tanks can dominate over half of every map. I'm a tanker, and I know where I can go to get angles on every spot I want to, or at the very least, prevent people from moving from one socket to ANY other socket (as effective as killing them in the socket).
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
1030
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 12:03:00 -
[3] - Quote
You state that maps 'may' be flawed. And they are. But they are 'what we have' at the moment.
Now let me relate to you a scenario.
You rule out 'fixing maps' in favour of tweaking HAV / AV numbers. Making it possible for a single AV to take out a Tank.
Now you have 'numbers balance' according to 'current meta-game view' in which the 'hard counter' to anything should be able to destroy said countered entity in 1v1.
This would be considered a 'balance pass'. In which you go back, tweak numbers, to get the 'correct effect'. Assuming you get it right, you get the balance pretty right. Now in the near future, CCP revamps the maps in accordance with.. well, almost every other FPS out there that combines Vehicles and Infantry Combat to 'Map Balance'. This is a pretty large task, much more work than tweaking the numbers, however you suddenly get an imbalance.
- Tanks are now 'equally' effective in Open Fields Vs. Infantry.
- Tanks are weaker Vs. Infantry in what would be considered 'equal' territory due to numbers.
- Tanks are laughable in over 50% of the map. Reducing them to ridiculous levels. Making running a Tank not worth the time.
Some may rejoice at this, but it takes away from diversity, takes away from the potential the game has, and makes it another free-to-play run and gun game.
Now we wait another 3-6 months (assuming Sony and CCP can agree on the update timetable) to get another small 'numbers' tweak in order to bring HAVs and other vehicles back 'into line' with the Balance. All in all, two number tweaks, and a map rebalance may take up to one year.
Now let's look at another way. We tweak the maps. Yes, it may add another 2-3 months onto the release timetable of the balancing patch, but keeping current statistics on HAVs will mean they are truly battle-tested, and it's a known factor. Map Design can be based on that now.
- Map Balance allows HAVs to dominate some parts of the maps.
- HAVs are now 'equalized' in so designated areas.
- HAVs are near useless, or grossly ineffective in up to a third of the map, but do not need to operate in those regions.
After this, you have another balance pass, minor in probability by comparison, to iron out any 'kinks' in the system.
The first option, with 3 'large' changes (probably including some minor ones too) would require a possible development time of 6-9 months (dependant on the new release schedule and Sony's Approval Process). The Second Option with 2 Large Changes to the mechanics, could require a possible 3-6 months development time (also dependant on the new release schedule and Sony's Approval Process).
Now to head off the immediate rage attacks. You say something like 'They'll make numbers adjustments when they rebalance maps!'
Indeed, they will. But it is a proven fact that making two changes to a single entity or interaction always causes imbalance requiring another pass.
Now on to an even more impactful change that will affect the Infantry / Vehicle Balance.
Deployable structures.
While we may not know exactly what we will get (turrets are about the ONLY thing confirmed in some measure) we can guage the impact of various structures on the balance.
For example. Deployable Infrastructure will free up the 'AV Requirement' to take down or keep HAVs at bay. Why?
Imagine you can deploy 2 Railgun Turrets on a vantage point overlooking a Road. Imagine they can be fitted, and when manned, have active modules. The people on these Railguns need not be AV specced. They may, in fact, be hackers, or point guards for another nearby point.
Imagine if you will, a deployable 'hedgehog' barricade. Now these would be destructible, but have HP equivalent to a Supply Depot. Meaning that AV is no longer required to deny Vehicles access to an area.
tl:dr
In conclusion I believe before NUMBERS are altered to impact HAV balance, Infantry require the myriad of options they SHOULD have to deal with Vehicular Threats beforehand.
The current reliance on AV as the 'sole' counter to HAVs is causing the imbalance. The Map Designs that are far to open and accessible by HAVs is causing the imbalance. Not the Numbers themselves.
Once you go Black, you just never go back!
|
|
|
| |
|