DUST Search - HAV vs. AV: The Real Problems

Samuel Zelik wrote:

Please take into consideration I am a Adv AV GalScout who uses the PLC, Flaylock, AV 'nades, and REs/PEs while reading this. I don't do tanks; I break them.

TL;DR:
Top problems:
1) Player Attitude: I hate to say "git gud", but yea...
2) Lack of Content: Heavies need a real CQC AV weapon. Need more Explosives.
3) Imbalance: It's a thing; however, on AV side, not HAV side

After reading much QQ, listening to reasonable, considering points which actually make sense regarding the HAV vs Anti-Vehicle balance debate, and being a relatively experienced light AV'er, I feel like I have enough of a grasp on things where I can voice an informed opinion.
I want to highlight and explain the top 3 problems I see with AV in order of importance. I will try to be as concise as possible but I tend to have trouble doing that; please let me know how I can improve my writing skills and/or make a clearer argument.

1) Player Attitude
The top problem with AV is no fault of CCP or the game itself. The top problem with AV falls upon the individuals using AV. Sure, AV isn't listed as a Dropsuit like Logi, Commando, Scout, etc. are, but what makes it any less a devoted role?

My role is a Scout, I've dabbled in being a Logi for a long while, and I like to think I'm decent in both those roles because I've put time and effort in learning the trade. I can tell you for certain: slap me in a full proto heavy suit and I'd fail miserably; I simply haven't put time or effort into learning how to be an effective heavy. Likewise, if you mainly play Assault and try to play proto AV without practice, you will fail miserably; gear doesn't make the player. AV is no less a role that must be learned just like every other role.

So what comes along with learning a role? Tactics. People may not notice it, but I'm sure experience players in each role have some quirks, rules, etc. that they use to succeed and have mastered. The AV role is no different; we have our methods. Don't expect to be a pro just because you have proto; gear does not make the player. AV requires tactics; don't expect to be a pro Commando just because you've played Assault before. The same is true for the AV role.

AV shouldn't be impossible to use for everyone else, but the role takes just as much skill to play as every other role.

2) Lack of Content
Resources. We simply do not have the resources. Let's look at the current AV heavy/light weapons: Forge Gun, Swarm Launcher, Plasma Cannon... wow. This is abysmal. Let's look at the ranges each is geared for:

Close: Plasma Cannon(L)
Close-Mid: Flaylock?(S)
Mid-Far: Swarm Launcher(L)
Far: Forge Gun(H)

The problem is simply: there is not enough AV to compensate for the ranges that needed to be covered. Heavies have one AV weapon designed for range combat, there is no speakable mid-range AV, and there is no counter to CQC vehicles besides AV 'nades and REs/PEs, the latter of which isn't really an "active" weapon.

So what are the types of tanks we have now? Blaster for CQC, Missile for Mid-Long, Rail for Long. The current weapons we have provide little-to-no appropriate counters for half the list. This problem, while simple, needs to be remedied for AV to truly be fearsome.

3) Imbalance
Yes, this is a problem, thought it's not THE major problem. I don't really want to go into detail in this; there are plenty of good threads and ideas out there. I want to emphasize, though, that AV is the most imbalanced, not the HAVs. HAV imbalances result from game mechanics, such as stacking hardeners, reps, and the Redline; not problems with HAV themselves.

IMO, Plasma Cannons are pretty good where they stand, although I wouldn't mind a buff. Flaylocks aren't as terrible as everyone says; I won't be using the come 1.8 because Ion Pistol. AV 'nades are pretty good. Need more Explosive Diversity.

Disagree with me as you may; something good may come of it.

While there is no better place to be wealthy than the Gallente Federation, there is no hell worse for the poor either.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Magnus Amadeuss Tal-Romon Legion Amarr Empire 466	Posted - 2014.03.02 20:26:00 - [1] - Quote Samuel Zelik wrote: Please take into consideration I am a Adv AV GalScout who uses the PLC, Flaylock, AV 'nades, and REs/PEs while reading this. I don't do tanks; I break them. TL;DR: Top problems: 1) Player Attitude: I hate to say "git gud", but yea... 2) Lack of Content: Heavies need a real CQC AV weapon. Need more Explosives. 3) Imbalance: It's a thing; however, on AV side, not HAV side After reading much QQ, listening to reasonable, considering points which actually make sense regarding the HAV vs Anti-Vehicle balance debate, and being a relatively experienced light AV'er, I feel like I have enough of a grasp on things where I can voice an informed opinion. I want to highlight and explain the top 3 problems I see with AV in order of importance. I will try to be as concise as possible but I tend to have trouble doing that; please let me know how I can improve my writing skills and/or make a clearer argument. 1) Player Attitude The top problem with AV is no fault of CCP or the game itself. The top problem with AV falls upon the individuals using AV. Sure, AV isn't listed as a Dropsuit like Logi, Commando, Scout, etc. are, but what makes it any less a devoted role? My role is a Scout, I've dabbled in being a Logi for a long while, and I like to think I'm decent in both those roles because I've put time and effort in learning the trade. I can tell you for certain: slap me in a full proto heavy suit and I'd fail miserably; I simply haven't put time or effort into learning how to be an effective heavy. Likewise, if you mainly play Assault and try to play proto AV without practice, you will fail miserably; gear doesn't make the player. AV is no less a role that must be learned just like every other role. So what comes along with learning a role? Tactics. People may not notice it, but I'm sure experience players in each role have some quirks, rules, etc. that they use to succeed and have mastered. The AV role is no different; we have our methods. Don't expect to be a pro just because you have proto; gear does not make the player. AV requires tactics; don't expect to be a pro Commando just because you've played Assault before. The same is true for the AV role. AV shouldn't be impossible to use for everyone else, but the role takes just as much skill to play as every other role. 2) Lack of Content Resources. We simply do not have the resources. Let's look at the current AV heavy/light weapons: Forge Gun, Swarm Launcher, Plasma Cannon... wow. This is abysmal. Let's look at the ranges each is geared for: Close: Plasma Cannon(L) Close-Mid: Flaylock?(S) Mid-Far: Swarm Launcher(L) Far: Forge Gun(H) The problem is simply: there is not enough AV to compensate for the ranges that needed to be covered. Heavies have one AV weapon designed for range combat, there is no speakable mid-range AV, and there is no counter to CQC vehicles besides AV 'nades and REs/PEs, the latter of which isn't really an "active" weapon. So what are the types of tanks we have now? Blaster for CQC, Missile for Mid-Long, Rail for Long. The current weapons we have provide little-to-no appropriate counters for half the list. This problem, while simple, needs to be remedied for AV to truly be fearsome. 3) Imbalance Yes, this is a problem, thought it's not THE major problem. I don't really want to go into detail in this; there are plenty of good threads and ideas out there. I want to emphasize, though, that AV is the most imbalanced, not the HAVs. HAV imbalances result from game mechanics, such as stacking hardeners, reps, and the Redline; not problems with HAV themselves. IMO, Plasma Cannons are pretty good where they stand, although I wouldn't mind a buff. Flaylocks aren't as terrible as everyone says; I won't be using the come 1.8 because Ion Pistol. AV 'nades are pretty good. Need more Explosive Diversity. Disagree with me as you may; something good may come of it. No offense meant, but I REALLY hate the "light AV" thing. IT is not from CCP (actually CCP has corrected us on this before, AV is AV). Is AV equally effective/ineffective versus LAV/HAV/Dropships? Or is AV decently balanced against 1 or 2 classes of vehicles. If 1 type of vehicle clearly is outperforming the others in AV resistance, well then there is an imbalance there. Anyway, I think the biggest issue people have is that they want a role which is purely Anti-vehicle. Meaning it will kill vehicles as easily as vehicles kill infantry. While there is no better place to be wealthy than the Gallente Federation, there is no hell worse for the poor either.