Team A in a Skirmish is defending a Point accessible by Northern, Eastern, and Southern routes. They need to free up some forces to move on to the next point, but 3 access ways is alot of ground for 1 or 2 men to cover. So they deploy some defences. The Northern Path is wide enough for a Heavy Attack Vehicle to get in and cover the point (or seriously impact the ability to hold the point) so they lay out 3 strategically placed Hedgehogs. This will slow down Heavy Attack Vehicles who must destroy the Hedgehogs in order to penetrate the defender's position. Each hedgehog has HP equivalent to a Supply Depot, so they are not easy to kill.

The Eastern route is a covered walkway. The soldiers deploy 2 'Cover Shields' to allow 2 people to stand and fire with some easily accessible cover nearby. The third route is he landing platform. Accessible only by air. So they deploy 2 Automated AA Guns to deter aerial assault.

Now you have a point, highly defensible, with the ability to counter the 'most likely' threats from each position. The Northern Route can still be traversed by Infantry and the Eastern Route is heavily Defensible from Infantry. Taking apart these defences would require more than just rocking up in a Heavy Attack Vehicle or Dropship. The two infantry defenders do not need to carry any particular equipment to counter threats (making personal choice once again matter), but would be advised to carry at least 1 repair tool to keep the defences from being destroyed or overrun too easily.

Bump, this needs to happen...Dust 1.9 should, in my opinion, absolutely be focused on THIS. ONLY.

We need better deployable equipment to shape the terrain, give the players the ability to shape the maps and leave out CCP force feeding us what they 'think' we need.

1.9 would be nice but as Awry already said, it is a lot of work. Honestly it requires a rework of all maps and sockets plus equipment to accompany it. While not a programer myself, I would still find that difficult.

Perhaps part of the problem stems from the fact that CCP eventually wants their maps random/customizable. So on public matches you never fight in quite the same place twice and in PC you can customize what you have for structures.
If you consider other games, their maps are very much set in stone. Each one is carefully thought out and balance with portions that allow for a mixture of play styles and benefits, but that is hard to achieve when you also want the ability to free form map design.

Ex: Instead of painting a picture for everyone to enjoy CCP has instead decided to create a jigsaw puzzle that allows the creation of several different pictures. So they must balance each piece so that, by itself, it does not create an imbalance and still fits in with several other pictures while not causing imbalances there either.

I have little envy for CCP decision in map design, however if accomplish will create some of the best game play possible by simple virtue of diversity.

I think that the idea is very good, but needs a couple tweaks/additions.

1.) A way to stop spamming of installations.

a.) I foresee many maps being transformed into a giant mess of Bolases dropping walls everywhere. This would make the map inaccessible to tanks.

b.) A squad limit wouldn't work, because you can have up to 15 squads, so what if one person/squad put all the teams installations in very bad places?

c.) Perhaps make the hedgehogs have less than the health of a supply depot. Maybe 10k health? Also, make them available to be shield, armor, or balanced with their health design.

2.) AA guns shouldn't be deployable since drop ships are very easy to kill anyways. (and assault drop ships have to dodge enough)

Overall I think if you took the idea and shrunk it down in order to be more manageable and not abused, it would work wonders to improve gameplay and not make every match the same.

Funny, CCP/Shanghai wanted tanks to be simpler and have to play to a very specific play style. They accomplished that with 1.7, not that I agree with anything in their goals, solutions or methods but it has been accomplished: Tanks are easier to use. Simpler to operate and cheap enough to play early on.

This makes it better for a F2P game as New Berries can decide if they want to skill into vehicles without wasting the huge amount of SP required to do so.

The numbers balancing idea is just the clueless grasping at straws. It will make no difference in the short term nor the long term.

We have no information except the seat of our pants QQ-ing from so many Kittens. CCP keeps all the information secret as they don't want any other company to find out the monetary value of Dust514. At least one might suggest that regardless of the fact is we don't believe there are enough Mercs to matter all that much. The only value that matters is how much RWC (Real World Cash) is being spent at the PS store.

All the QQ in the world will make no difference if their income is enough or goes up.

So basically you are just asking for more divers maps that hold player interaction and to be able to call down buildings/fortification. Hmm you know we have something like that in the game called Starthawk but I see where you are going with this because I have seen something similar to it done before and it worked well to fight off vehicles and infantry it really made people have to work as a team or they would all die no matter how good they were.

I have seen Starhawk also, but it was not actually the original inspiration for this idea... but could be held as an example of how such a system could be done, and has been done.

Thanks for making a comment to me about that also I have a idea that you might like here is a link to it https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=143952&find=unread

The idea of introducing NPC allies into a warzone is a nice one. One that could potentially be epic.

However... first off it's not in CCPs general overall designs. They try to make things as player centric as possible. EVE is mostly player run with NPCs almost exclusively being hostiles or mission givers.

Secondly, each one of those Ai entities would have a brain... brains require calculation, calculation requires memory. With everything that currently draws on memory already causing technical issues, I don't think it would be advisable as yet.

Now good point here, is that it expands conflict, allows players to delegate an NPC 'Squad' to do something, freeing them up to do other things. But where do you stop? If you're equipping these NPCs why can't you outfit your entire 'squad' in Tanks? Can you imagine the infantry rage if suddenly full teams could be augmented by full squads of tanks on top of the team, rather than using one of the team to drive said tanks? Or Assault Dropships?

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.

It seems CCP disagrees, as a numerical change was their solution to the problem.

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Damn, dude, you drop one-liners like I drop orbitals.

Constantly.

The fact that I don't feel utterly hopeless on today's battlefield suggests to me that the vehicle balance, while not as good as some of the outspoken tankers seem to believe, isn't as bad as some players are suggesting.

The main problem is that their domain on the maps needs to be limited. With vehicles dominating open landscapes, more of the installations and null cannon interfaces need to be placed inside facilities where infantry have a chance both to make a stand and to fulfill a purpose beyond playing tag-along with tanks. Vehicles should be supporting infantry, rather than infantry filling in holes where vehicles aren't effective. Most structures are too small, too open, and too simple. With better map design, infantry could dig in for a long siege where having vehicle supremacy would definitely confer an advantage but wouldn't dictate the entire conflict.

Take, for example, the three-tiered in-ground facility with the CRU on the second floor and the null cannon at the bottom. If this were re-designed to put the CRU at the top (within reach of vehicles), a supply depot on the second floor and the null cannon at the bottom, having a vehicle above would enable enemy infantry to capture the top spawn point, even while the defenders are still able to spawn through the null cannon. The supply depot could then be used to refit into AV to push back the tanks and re-capture the topside CRU. In this way a single null cannon is transformed into a three-stage conflict: (1) capture CRU to permit infantry spawn, (2) capture supply depot to cut off AV and secure topside position, and (3) capture null cannon. And this is not one of the largest or most complex facilities.

This is exactly where vehicles need to be: Vehicle superiority is advantageous when it comes to entering into a facility, but once you're there you will still need strong infantry--not just one or two players with the ability to throw grenades into foxholes. This separates the vehicle gameplay from the infantry gameplay to a certain extent, so that vehicles mostly fight one another and infantry mostly fight one another, but the overlap is significant enough that they both impact the ability to win any given match.

Limiting the ability of tanks to engage infantry solves nearly every other problem, and does it without artificially limiting the sandbox: players won't want to play tanks as much because there are a lot of places they can't go; teams with too many vehicles won't be able to take points as easily and will be unable to defend their points if enemy infantry manage to break through; vehicles will still be tough and still serve an important function in the game; and players could still viably do all-vehicle battles (provided the number of vehicles doesn't need to be limited for performance reasons).

AV still requires some buffs to be viable even in this circumstance, but in the current iteration we have to accept that infantry AV today is primarily about pushing vehicles back from a position and less about destroying them. With respect to this, creating tactical positions that are specifically useful for AV to fight vehicles will be important. These tactical positions would generally be elevated, accessible from inside a structure, and provide cover that is occluded against vehicle splash damage. These again increase the variety in gameplay by providing positions that are exposed to infantry but protected from vehicles--a map-based rock-paper-scissors scheme that mitigates AV players' relative weakness against vehicles but still leaves them open to infantry assault.

TL;DR: The maps are too open, so that if vehicles dominate they are able to dominate everything. Re-working maps to limit the ability of tanks to engage infantry solves every other problem, and does it without artificially limiting the sandbox or returning tanks to paper-thin status. Infantry AV still requires buffs that can be made partly through map design, but its role has fundamentally changed from destroying vehicles to routing them.

The ability to drop installations was at one point going to be given to a field commander role who plays the game more as an RTS than as a shooter. I'm not sure whether that role is still planned for the future, and if so, I can't see how it would exist outside of controlled corp matches (e.g., PC). But at least hypothetically they would have designed the game with the expectation that at some point a player would be able to manually drop in an installation.

i only find vehicles being a problem in ambushs. they can be dealt with in domination and skirmish maps are bigger and u have a ncc to spawn from to request a vehicle. y i think they shouldn't allow vehicles in ambush.

I'm just going to leave this here. A lot of my ideas about map balance and how it makes play more interesting.



The ability to drop installations was at one point going to be given to a field commander role who plays the game more as an RTS than as a shooter. I'm not sure whether that role is still planned for the future, and if so, I can't see how it would exist outside of controlled corp matches (e.g., PC). But at least hypothetically they would have designed the game with the expectation that at some point a player would be able to manually drop in an installation.