I'll leave this here. Also, the idea of having these ways of blocking HAV's and slowing their process is good.say wait for a HAV to wonder into a compound, and the enemy closes the gates, and you have to send in a team via hot drop to rescue the infantry or HAV, unless the HAV can eat through a gate fast enough.

I have been arguing against the numerical 'nerf hammer' being cried for by people all over the forums in relation to Vehicles. Specifically Heavy Attack Vehicles which are 'dominating the field' at the current time.

This has earned me many bad looks, an opinion that I favour HAV and Vehicle Drivers over Infantry. An allegation that is false, misleading, and completely innacurate.

I do believe, however, that a 'quick fix' numerical balance will not solve the inherent problems in Vehicle Vs. Infantry Gameplay, but simply 'patch it' until another change comes along. What I'm campaigning is a more permanent fix which may include a numerical alteration, but not as the be all and end all of the discussion.

First, the Maps MUST be balanced. Currently every map has at least 80% or more coverable by Vehicles. Heavy Attack Vehicles account for 60-70% dependant on the map, with an overlap for Assault Dropships making up the additional coverage.
A well-designed map has greater variance in each unit's ability to perform it's job. Open Plains with scattered cover favor Heavy Attack Vehicles. This is where they 'dominate'. A cluttered installation interior, with buildings (interiors included) and gaps too small for a Heavy Attack Vehicle to get through (and fire through effectively) favors the Infantry when combating Heavy Attack Vehicles.

Dropships are capable of three dimensional movement, and thus are greatly desired if maps are designed with steep up and downs, such as cliffs, valleys, and hills that ground units find hard to traverse.

Currently, there is little actual diversity in the overall map. If a Heavy Attack Vehicle cannot get to the point itself, there is alot of open space around each point that they can cover. Effectively covering the point strategically and tactically. Anyone in there is unlikely to be able to get out to support their allies, and reinforcements are unlikely to get in.

Secondly. Infantry need more options to deal with Vehicular Threats. Currently non-Anti-Vehicular Equipped Infantry have a mere handful f options. All involving damage and / or destruction (AV Grenades, Flux Grenades for Shield Tanks, Proximity Explosives, Remote Explosives, and already deployed, but non-replaceable Turret installations).

What is needed is content designed to allow infantry to shape the battlefield to their advantage. Things such as Hedgehogs, Walls, Deployable Turrets, Shield Generators and Gates. Not only would these add greater options to dealing with Vehicles, they would also introduce multi-level theatres.

As an example (I wont say quick, because my examples never are quick):



Giving us the options and the tools to counter both lethally and non-lethally Vehicles and / or other threats makes the game far more complex, involved, and allows balance by proxy. Maps, deployable installations, and being able to 'dynamically change' the battle field on the fly make for a much more interesting gameplay experience than a simple numeric balance.

A simple numerical balance right now will not solve the long term issues that having vehicles and infantry on the field at the same time will have. Nor will complex mechanics restricting Heavy Attack Vehicle usage. It's quite simply a case of getting the content to balance tanks, the maps to balance tanks, and not touching the numbers until this is in place.

I'll leave this here. Also, the idea of having these ways of blocking HAV's and slowing their process is good.say wait for a HAV to wonder into a compound, and the enemy closes the gates, and you have to send in a team via hot drop to rescue the infantry or HAV, unless the HAV can eat through a gate fast enough.

I have been arguing against the numerical 'nerf hammer' being cried for by people all over the forums in relation to Vehicles. Specifically Heavy Attack Vehicles which are 'dominating the field' at the current time.

This has earned me many bad looks, an opinion that I favour HAV and Vehicle Drivers over Infantry. An allegation that is false, misleading, and completely innacurate.

I do believe, however, that a 'quick fix' numerical balance will not solve the inherent problems in Vehicle Vs. Infantry Gameplay, but simply 'patch it' until another change comes along. What I'm campaigning is a more permanent fix which may include a numerical alteration, but not as the be all and end all of the discussion.

First, the Maps MUST be balanced. Currently every map has at least 80% or more coverable by Vehicles. Heavy Attack Vehicles account for 60-70% dependant on the map, with an overlap for Assault Dropships making up the additional coverage.
A well-designed map has greater variance in each unit's ability to perform it's job. Open Plains with scattered cover favor Heavy Attack Vehicles. This is where they 'dominate'. A cluttered installation interior, with buildings (interiors included) and gaps too small for a Heavy Attack Vehicle to get through (and fire through effectively) favors the Infantry when combating Heavy Attack Vehicles.

Dropships are capable of three dimensional movement, and thus are greatly desired if maps are designed with steep up and downs, such as cliffs, valleys, and hills that ground units find hard to traverse.

Currently, there is little actual diversity in the overall map. If a Heavy Attack Vehicle cannot get to the point itself, there is alot of open space around each point that they can cover. Effectively covering the point strategically and tactically. Anyone in there is unlikely to be able to get out to support their allies, and reinforcements are unlikely to get in.

Secondly. Infantry need more options to deal with Vehicular Threats. Currently non-Anti-Vehicular Equipped Infantry have a mere handful f options. All involving damage and / or destruction (AV Grenades, Flux Grenades for Shield Tanks, Proximity Explosives, Remote Explosives, and already deployed, but non-replaceable Turret installations).

What is needed is content designed to allow infantry to shape the battlefield to their advantage. Things such as Hedgehogs, Walls, Deployable Turrets, Shield Generators and Gates. Not only would these add greater options to dealing with Vehicles, they would also introduce multi-level theatres.

As an example (I wont say quick, because my examples never are quick):



Giving us the options and the tools to counter both lethally and non-lethally Vehicles and / or other threats makes the game far more complex, involved, and allows balance by proxy. Maps, deployable installations, and being able to 'dynamically change' the battle field on the fly make for a much more interesting gameplay experience than a simple numeric balance.

A simple numerical balance right now will not solve the long term issues that having vehicles and infantry on the field at the same time will have. Nor will complex mechanics restricting Heavy Attack Vehicle usage. It's quite simply a case of getting the content to balance tanks, the maps to balance tanks, and not touching the numbers until this is in place.

I have to agree but map design is not the only problem its also the role currently HAV and Infantry have basically the same role, that's why HAVs are so much more powerful in the eye of Infantry men.

Now throw in ridiculous movement options for HAVs (they can in some maps climb hills that even infantry can't climb and get to positions that should be restricted to infantry)

I completly agree with the tank ideas as well with the map balances/changes you want. I do not know the style of maps you talk about in ArmA. I would rather prefer more big maps in style with PS2 (havent played it thou, just heard it is a big map).

Now a question, how the laser tank will function? Will it be a sustained beam of light like laser rifle or a rail gun but instead of rail munition and animation be lazers?

Your post gave me the chills, Kal.

Black Jackal, I agree with most of your turret ideas, but I would simplify first and later add some ideas likes missiles and Pulse/Beam. Better combine them at first. I honestly like them all but do not know if they would be balanced.

I also agree with your view about the maps. Maybe im thinking of longer gameplay in each map. Add more time or more objectives, thus making the map bigger. Also adding the "Command Nodes" and "Defense Relays" to the maps and doing something that adds secondary objectives would be interesting.

One thing that's simple and I feel makes all tanks hard to kill now is how modules actively were changed. Yes active modules once down leave a vehicle extremely vulnerable. But all modules are the same in effectiveness except for their recharge time. So a fully fitted militia tank can role up sucking the damage of a proto tank as get just as many kills but has to pull back longer for longer recharge times. The recharge times are sensible to be better the higher lvl of operation the module is. But CCP made all modules do the same level of resistance or damage. Adding a difference in efficiency from militia to proto would also help even the odds sensibly for AV facing tanks. This would make only proto tanks seem OP because they are fully protod and have the experience and skill to wreck havoc.

I have been arguing against the numerical 'nerf hammer' being cried for by people all over the forums in relation to Vehicles. Specifically Heavy Attack Vehicles which are 'dominating the field' at the current time.

This has earned me many bad looks, an opinion that I favour HAV and Vehicle Drivers over Infantry. An allegation that is false, misleading, and completely innacurate.

I do believe, however, that a 'quick fix' numerical balance will not solve the inherent problems in Vehicle Vs. Infantry Gameplay, but simply 'patch it' until another change comes along. What I'm campaigning is a more permanent fix which may include a numerical alteration, but not as the be all and end all of the discussion.

First, the Maps MUST be balanced. Currently every map has at least 80% or more coverable by Vehicles. Heavy Attack Vehicles account for 60-70% dependant on the map, with an overlap for Assault Dropships making up the additional coverage.
A well-designed map has greater variance in each unit's ability to perform it's job. Open Plains with scattered cover favor Heavy Attack Vehicles. This is where they 'dominate'. A cluttered installation interior, with buildings (interiors included) and gaps too small for a Heavy Attack Vehicle to get through (and fire through effectively) favors the Infantry when combating Heavy Attack Vehicles.

Dropships are capable of three dimensional movement, and thus are greatly desired if maps are designed with steep up and downs, such as cliffs, valleys, and hills that ground units find hard to traverse.

Currently, there is little actual diversity in the overall map. If a Heavy Attack Vehicle cannot get to the point itself, there is alot of open space around each point that they can cover. Effectively covering the point strategically and tactically. Anyone in there is unlikely to be able to get out to support their allies, and reinforcements are unlikely to get in.

Secondly. Infantry need more options to deal with Vehicular Threats. Currently non-Anti-Vehicular Equipped Infantry have a mere handful f options. All involving damage and / or destruction (AV Grenades, Flux Grenades for Shield Tanks, Proximity Explosives, Remote Explosives, and already deployed, but non-replaceable Turret installations).

What is needed is content designed to allow infantry to shape the battlefield to their advantage. Things such as Hedgehogs, Walls, Deployable Turrets, Shield Generators and Gates. Not only would these add greater options to dealing with Vehicles, they would also introduce multi-level theatres.

As an example (I wont say quick, because my examples never are quick):



Giving us the options and the tools to counter both lethally and non-lethally Vehicles and / or other threats makes the game far more complex, involved, and allows balance by proxy. Maps, deployable installations, and being able to 'dynamically change' the battle field on the fly make for a much more interesting gameplay experience than a simple numeric balance.

A simple numerical balance right now will not solve the long term issues that having vehicles and infantry on the field at the same time will have. Nor will complex mechanics restricting Heavy Attack Vehicle usage. It's quite simply a case of getting the content to balance tanks, the maps to balance tanks, and not touching the numbers until this is in place.

Bumping to keep it above the 'nerfhammer' requests.