|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1040
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 19:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
a class who carries av as a specialised piece of equipment and not as a main weapon (this includes rl)
dust is the only one i can think of that makes you carry it as a main weapon. that is why we will never have balance on tank/av issues. because what it boils down to is why carry a weapon that struggles to kill a single guy in a vehicle when i can carry a weapon that is excellent at killing his 15 friends not to mention that a mlt weapon is far more efficient killer than for instance a few guys with proto SL with 3 complex damage mods each
until light av is made into a secondary role which everyone can use with their normal fighting ability then there can be no balance
this has always been the issue.
pre 1.7 every team had 1 or 2 SL players because that was all that was needed. there was no need for more as it was highly effective and there was plenty of combat troops available to protect these users. problem with that was if made tanks weak and promoted a huge buff to tanks and a reduction to effectiveness to av. this then had its own problem as now it needs more av to kill a tank but there is not enough of it on the field. the reason for this is fitting av weapons leaves you at a massive disadvantage to all infantry and even the tanks you are trying to kill. to field enough av to kill 1 tank now means far less infantry to protect these players and they are completely destroyed within seconds of firing the first shots. the reason for this is everyone knows now av players are defenceless with their sidearms against every light weapon user so enemy will actually go out of their way to kill av players for easy kills.
what we need is av weapons to be secondary to all normal weapons either by becoming sidearms or equipment because they are completely situational. in doing this i see no reason why ccp couldn't keep tanks and av as they currently are including the hardener stacking etc as there would be potential for everyone to carry av with them at all times meaning more players to counter tanks
I will logi the s* out of you
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1040
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 19:23:00 -
[2] - Quote
Knight Solitaire wrote:No, AVing needs to be a role. If you want to keep your Rifle and Swarm Launcher, get a Commando suit. They're being buffed.
this is precisely the point. in every other game av guy carries av weapon as a specialised piece of equipment meaning if he needs it he can go av but if not he can still be effective in combat. what dust has is balance which means av is not effective solo and anyone carrying it is not effective in normal combat either. this is the underlining issue with av
I will logi the s* out of you
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1040
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 19:26:00 -
[3] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:You know for the most part most anti vehicle weapons in this modern age, and please do correct me if I am wrong, are far to heavy just to slight across the back, with full combat gear, and a rifle, side arm, grenades, basic survival and medical equipment, etc.
AV does not need to be changed, it is sitting in a strong place. Vehicles have to be changed to be balanced against AV.
most av in rl which is effective in the ranges of dusts maps is man portable and carried as standard by multiple members of a squad
I will logi the s* out of you
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1044
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 20:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
Pvt Numnutz wrote:Av did this to themselves to be honest. Tower camping all the time, blowing up very expensive vehicles for pennies on the dollar from insane range. The tanks really went overboard tho. Anyway if every infantry had av, and from the sound of it you want them to be 1.6 strength then we should just remove vehicles now. There should be dedicated av, just like there are dedicated vehicle pilots (granted right now anyone can be a tanker) yes it needs to be stronger, or have more options, but not as strong as it was in 1.6. There was a justifiable argument from vehicle pilots that av was too strong. Let's not go there again.
you are missing the point i'm trying to make. you cannot be effective at av if you cannot defend yourself against anything and be weak against everything. fact is av while it is much needed when tanks are about is not needed when they are not and this leaves a huge imbalance as how can a av player afford to run with av gear just incase vehicles appear. most players are happy to just forget about tanks and hide while killing and with balance as it is that makes the av role pointless. its too expensive, fitting intensive and weak. this means that to roll with it all the time as a role is completely impractical and costly.
there needs to be a way for av to move with the battle regardless of if tanks or vehicles are about so that when they do appear players can react accordingly. its completely wrong to expect a player to take av and die stupid amounts of times when no vehicles are about so they can be ready to fulfill their role when there are. the same goes for why should players have to die before spawning in av gear.
fact is AV and assault should be working together. av players carries the av and assaults carry the ammo hives and when needed they support each other. this is the allround balance av needs in order to balance it with vehicles.
I will logi the s* out of you
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1044
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 21:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
there is a reason av in every other combat game is balanced and that is down to availability. its in no way effective by itself but if there are enough of you with it then it works. there is no way for av and i mean all av to become a role when there is not enough of it about. and with costs, fitting requirements and its inability to stand up against any other role there will always be a lack of it meaning the perception of op tanks or weak av.
the current build is based around many players using av to take out vehicles which would be fine if many players could live long enough to actually use it. other games get round this by creating classes similar to assaults with just a different set of equipment. with dust this should be a no brainer as we have so much customization but the problem is all that specialised equipment is a main weapon so in order to use it you have to give up your assault ability which for a medium frame is your life line.
last thing we need is for the lack of av use to make ccp buff av weapons to a point where now they are so good only a few need to use them and tanks are back to being stomped again and then the circle of buff nerf continuing. with having the ability to carry while not needing it there will always be av support somewhere so we are at a better place for this whole team effort taking out tanks.
I will logi the s* out of you
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1045
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 21:38:00 -
[6] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:True Adamance wrote:You know for the most part most anti vehicle weapons in this modern age, and please do correct me if I am wrong, are far to heavy just to slight across the back, with full combat gear, and a rifle, side arm, grenades, basic survival and medical equipment, etc.
AV does not need to be changed, it is sitting in a strong place. Vehicles have to be changed to be balanced against AV. most av in rl which is effective in the ranges of dusts maps is man portable and carried as standard by multiple members of a squad Still requires set up time though.
i remember firing a few LAWS when i was serving. they were heavy but they could be fired within a few seconds and you never missed. now we have ILAW which is super fast and just as effective and very lights and more deadly i believe. there are 2 types of av in modern warfare. the squad systems like milan, javelin etc but there are far more versions of single person, single use and reloadable ones
I will logi the s* out of you
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1045
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 21:52:00 -
[7] - Quote
INFINITE DIVERSITY IDIC wrote: Commandos arent defenseless with sl, they just suck.
i have a problem with the "commandos are av suits" argument. they have been branded with the role because nothing else can fit it. how can we ever have a balanced game if we just ignore items or push them onto suits that can do the job better than others but still be weak to the task.
we are just ignoring the problems hoping the problems will fix themselves but they won't and all we will ever have is ineffective roles unless we do something about it
I will logi the s* out of you
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1045
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 22:53:00 -
[8] - Quote
Pvt Numnutz wrote: No I understand your point. I just don't think its a good point. To get vehicle destroying power you make yourself vulnerable to other infantry, like a forge gunner. That's balanced because av kills vehicles, infantry kills av, vehicles kill infantry, they all have counters. If the av player is with out a squad that can support him then he probably won't be doing very well sure, if he stays back behind a heavy and assault player he's not going to be fighting the enemy with his sidearm.
Infantry av has the added perk of infantry skills applying. So its a lot easier to also skill into other infantry roles. The suit you use for av can also be used for other infantry rolls. I don't understand why you say its unacceptable for an av player to be running a cheap infantry fit when there is no vehicles, then when there is run to a supply depot or if he dies switch to his primary av fit, That seems reasonable to me. When I was learning to fly in chrome I had to run on the ground to get isk for my dropships (no transport wp, no pilot gun, hardly anyone wanting to get into the death traps) and since I wanted to be a dropship pilot I had all my sp invested in my dropships. On the ground I ran my starter fit logi praying the heavy i was repping would stay alive. The same argument you make here could also be applied to the dropship pilot role, its too expensive, fitting intensive and weak but you could also add sp intensive.
My point is, av doesn't have to always be running around in their av suits. They are in a good position to also use suits like other infantry. If they are needed they can switch, if they have a squad they can be protected. Vehicles are a role, and the counter to that role is the av role, why should every infantry player be able to whip out a swarm and deny the vehicle player his role? Because av suits are weak against suits designed to kill infantry? I'm sorry that's not a good enough reason for me to agree with you. Destroying vehicles is a role, it requires the av player to think about how vehicles operate to destroy them while watching out for their counter like every other role in the game they shouldn't be exempt from a counter. There is a way to field both av and infantry weapons, its called the commando suit. Its not as effective at destroying vehicles as a dedicated av suit but it can deny an area to a vehicle if the squad encounters one right then and there.
Your post was very confusing because at the end you got it right, av players should be working with other infantry, they protect the infantry from vehicles and the infantry protects them from other infantry. Rock paper scissors.
you are missing the point.
that circle of killing doesn't work in dust at all.
tank kills infantry and av players, infantry kills av players, av players can't kill tanks because they are 1 shot as soon as they attack by snipers,tanks,other infantry, this means more tanks killing more infantry. infantry get pissed off and hide indoors or switch to sniping. snipers pick of more av as they attempt again to take out tanks. av player gives us playing av.
the whole notion of team av is flawed because as more go av then there is no one left to protect them.
tank is harassing team so they go av, now tank is no threat but the entire enemy team of infantry is. you respawn infantry and "oh another tank" this is the issue that's plaguing the game. players having ranged av as a backup while forge and tanks fulfill the main role is just common sense. there is no reason why it couldn't be balanced.
also your wrong to imply that av should be a role but then say they should run infantry when not needed. thats like saying all logis should not run repairs or ammo. they should wait for someone to be taking damage. then run back to the resupply, get a repair, then run back to heal the guy taking damage. its either a role or it isn't. if you can't be in it all the time its not a role and the fact is av setups are so weak and situational you cannot use them for anything else.
you also say av doesn't need to be always in av.... well most of the time they do. there are so many tanks,ds,lavs about now its a must have but to use swarms or plc to some extent means death and not for the tank you shoot at. how can av with the lowest life expectancy and the highest fitting cost after logi be a viable role especially if its only effective if there are more of you and with guards who cant protect you from snipers or light weapon fire or even the tanks themselves.
its not a role as it stands now. if it takes a group of players to make it work and a group of players to protect you as you do it then its broken. we see how its broken every day yet player choose to ignore it.
the fix is not as simple as a nerf or buff to either side.
I will logi the s* out of you
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1045
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 22:56:00 -
[9] - Quote
the problem we have in dust is we keep balancing this against that and then repeating or doing the opposite when what we should be doing is marking it all down as broken and then taking the whole thing in a different direction.
I will logi the s* out of you
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1048
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 23:03:00 -
[10] - Quote
Darken-Soul wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: the problem we have in dust is we keep balancing this against that and then repeating or doing the opposite when what we should be doing is marking it all down as broken and then taking the whole thing in a different direction. CCP has trouble making progress in one direction. I dread the day they try to fix more than the things they broke.
thats the issue. they knew tanks were not working so they completely reworked them. the only problem is they barely touched av which was also broken. reworking or buffing/nerfing an item against a broken item doesn't fix any problems
I will logi the s* out of you
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
|
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1051
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 23:19:00 -
[11] - Quote
right everyone is starting to get sidetracked here and going of topic.
the topic is about the fact it takes more av to take out a tank which it should but there is no way for players to field more av without being swatted by everything before they have a chance to do anything.
weak av solo is not av. weak av as a group is good av and with what ccp has done with tanks its should be doable but it is not because no one can live long enough to do anything.
yes we have 1 commando suit with a bonus to explosive damage. so does that mean the entire role should be restricted to that suit if its going to be effective. thats just wrong. sure we have the magsec coming. what makes you think that if its going to be as powerful as you all think its not going to be nerfed to oblivion.
fact is none of the new stuff is going to make much of a difference because the underlining problems are still there. the problem is not av damage or range. its lack of av on the field at the right time. this can be fixed without any buffs to damage or range etc by simply making av easier to fit to suits
I will logi the s* out of you
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1051
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 23:29:00 -
[12] - Quote
Joel II X wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Knight Solitaire wrote:No, AVing needs to be a role. If you want to keep your Rifle and Swarm Launcher, get a Commando suit. They're being buffed. this is precisely the point. in every other game av guy carries av weapon as a specialised piece of equipment meaning if he needs it he can go av but if not he can still be effective in combat. what dust has is balance which means av is not effective solo and anyone carrying it is not effective in normal combat either. this is the underlining issue with av Sidearms. You can still do decent against Infantry with them. Just don't expect to wipe out a whole squad.
we have sidearms now... if they were actually any good within the av role against light weapon using assaults then don't you think there would be more av about
an assault fits damage for 1 weapon and falls back on his sidearm. a av user fits for av damage and falls back on his sidearm. who is at a massive disadvantage at all ranges. its the av player.
i often come up against swarm users while im logibroing and they just melt every time to my unmodded cr,rr and anything really
I will logi the s* out of you
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1051
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 23:41:00 -
[13] - Quote
logi is a role assault is a role, heavy is a role, scout is a role, tank driver is a role, dropship pilot is a role, not sure what commando is
av is not a role. its a piece of equipment or a weapon just like hives or scanners. yet when you fit a piece of av you are automatically branded an av player and expected to die fast and do little damage.
its a situational piece of equipment. its not treated as such and thats a problem in itself
I will logi the s* out of you
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1052
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 07:46:00 -
[14] - Quote
Nothing Certain wrote:I think one obvious answer is making land turrets permanent, they are great AV weapons, art. Int. should be removed so that they must be manned to do anything and they can be disabled but also repairable. The other thing is just giving WP for damage, that alone will change the dynamics as people will want to run AV instead if having to run AV. Of course, hoe damage is measured needs changes or no CRU or supply depot would survive.
this just hides the issue. damage wp wont mean more av, it will just mean more cheap ineffective av farming wp from a distance. we will always have issues with getting enough av players on the field unless ccp makes it easier to carry enough of it
I will logi the s* out of you
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1087
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 22:46:00 -
[15] - Quote
bump
I will logi the s* out of you
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1152
|
Posted - 2014.04.03 19:31:00 -
[16] - Quote
bump
I will logi the s* out of you
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1248
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 10:04:00 -
[17] - Quote
bump
I will logi the s* out of you
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
|
|
|
|