|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8019
   |
Posted - 2014.03.08 21:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here?
They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular.
Agreed......but for the most part I feel like aspects in game that would benefit from the use of HAV simply aren't there....
In many historical conflicts HAV have been able to clear that's through urban terrain....yet dust 514 HAV cannot even get past small hand rails....
They also mounted large cannon for anti vehicle and positional fire power and an armoured frame.
My personal interpretation of what HAV should be is durable platforms for ground based anti vehicle fire power and anti position fire power.
As such these HAV would be susceptible to infantry units closing the distance and making use of AV grenades, RE, or at longer ranges simply making use of cover to launch AV projectiles and would require gunners in their seats, and on ground infantry support to last out engagements.
HAV need to be less of a sledge hammer and more of a spear.
Also remove and an all blaster turrets. I hate them and they need to die a terrible death. LONG LIVE THE 80GJ HEAVY PLASMA CANNON!
"War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine."
- Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8023
|
Posted - 2014.03.08 22:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:To breach defences
To **** up infantry if its built like that
To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that
To pin down the enemy
To provide a distraction
To assault objectives
To support ground troops
I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to **** up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them.
"War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine."
- Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8023
|
Posted - 2014.03.08 22:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:True Adamance wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:To breach defences
To **** up infantry if its built like that
To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that
To pin down the enemy
To provide a distraction
To assault objectives
To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to **** up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. If a tank cant **** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners?
I understand but I feel we can achieve a more balanced Anti infantry role without requiring a turret that spits our anti vehicle level projectiles froma 205 capacity magazine at a tremendous rate of fire.
A weapon that more closely resembles a modern tank turret could suffice. There are a number of ways to alter the Blaster to make it more balanced from
- Taking the Battelfield approach, and direct fire cannon with coaxial machinegun
- PS2 where I believe they have fast firing explosives turrets
- Or follow the EVE side model where blasters requiring a cycling time
I agree that in terms of infantry vs Tank combat Tanks are resistant to small arms fire....but is not a tanks primary designation the delivery of large ordinance against a specific entrenched postion or enemy vehicle? I'm not going to deny Tanks have strong anti personell capacity but that is normally in the hands of secondary crew men.
"War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine."
- Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8023
|
Posted - 2014.03.08 22:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
THEAMAZING POTHEAD wrote:Just need to nerf turning speed and damage for large blaster turrets, then bring in MAVs that get bonuses to blasters.
Making Anti Vehicle a tanks job and anti infantry doable with a tank but not nearly as effective as with an MAV.
Do we ever have to keep anti infantry tanks at all when you could consider the MAV an APC and designed to support infantry units with either logistical module options or anti infantry turret options?
"War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine."
- Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8023
|
Posted - 2014.03.08 22:58:00 -
[5] - Quote
Martyr Saboteur wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:True Adamance wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:To breach defences
To **** up infantry if its built like that
To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that
To pin down the enemy
To provide a distraction
To assault objectives
To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to **** up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. If a tank cant **** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? Seriously fuckface. Nobody but you agrees with you. Go away.
Dude don't be a goddamn *******.
If we don't discuss this with knowledgible tankers like Takahiro then we wont get anywhere.
You are honestly the one who needs to leave if you cannot have a reasonable or constructive thing to say.
I can disagree with him, but I still want to hear what he has to say.
"War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine."
- Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8025
|
Posted - 2014.03.08 23:01:00 -
[6] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
If a tank cant **** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno
So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days
I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners?
A Swarm Launcher is no longer capable of turning a corner. Swarm Launchers require the following:
- Timing
- Positioning
- Situational Awareness
- "Gun Game" (Unless you want to be insta-killed by a rifle user)
- Ability to predict flight / movement path of vehicles
80GJ Blasters however, are hit-scan weapons, and simply pressing R1 while the reticule is red guarantees that you will get a hit. Couple that with the fact that Hardners and Armor Repairers remove the need for almost all situational awareness, and you've got yourself a plentiful helping of EZ-Mode. In Uprising 1.7, Swarm Launchers literally require more skill than using an HAV. inb4 You going on a baseless tangent about how Swarm Launchers are actually EZ-Mode and how HAVs are the most talent intensive thing in DUST 514 
Atiim you know for a fact swarms don't require the level of skill you claim they do.
I am not trying to get into a discussion between AV and Tanks.....but you don't have a predict movement paths with a weapon that fires and locks the rounds for you, you also do not need gun game to make use of any weapon that is fire and forget.
Don't presume additionally that these remaining "skills" are not universal to all weapons and aspects of FPS games.
But I see your point and can accept that.
"War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine."
- Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8025
|
Posted - 2014.03.08 23:02:00 -
[7] - Quote
ads alt wrote:True Adamance wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:True Adamance wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:To breach defences
To **** up infantry if its built like that
To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that
To pin down the enemy
To provide a distraction
To assault objectives
To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to **** up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. If a tank cant **** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? I understand but I feel we can achieve a more balanced Anti infantry role without requiring a turret that spits our anti vehicle level projectiles froma 205 capacity magazine at a tremendous rate of fire. A weapon that more closely resembles a modern tank turret could suffice. There are a number of ways to alter the Blaster to make it more balanced from - Taking the Battelfield approach, and direct fire cannon with coaxial machinegun - PS2 where I believe they have fast firing explosives turrets - Or follow the EVE side model where blasters requiring a cycling time I agree that in terms of infantry vs Tank combat Tanks are resistant to small arms fire....but is not a tanks primary designation the delivery of large ordinance against a specific entrenched postion or enemy vehicle? I'm not going to deny Tanks have strong anti personell capacity but that is normally in the hands of secondary crew men. Ps2 has rapid explosive turrets for tanks? Wth all I see is a 1 shot tank cannon
Oh perhaps the footage of the game that I have seen is not what is currently in the game now? My bad, I'll go and watch some PS2 tank gameplay and come back with a better suggestion.
Sorry about that.
"War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine."
- Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8025
|
Posted - 2014.03.08 23:04:00 -
[8] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:True Adamance wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:True Adamance wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:To breach defences
To **** up infantry if its built like that
To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that
To pin down the enemy
To provide a distraction
To assault objectives
To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to **** up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. If a tank cant **** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? I understand but I feel we can achieve a more balanced Anti infantry role without requiring a turret that spits our anti vehicle level projectiles froma 205 capacity magazine at a tremendous rate of fire. A weapon that more closely resembles a modern tank turret could suffice. There are a number of ways to alter the Blaster to make it more balanced from - Taking the Battelfield approach, and direct fire cannon with coaxial machinegun - PS2 where I believe they have fast firing explosives turrets - Or follow the EVE side model where blasters requiring a cycling time I agree that in terms of infantry vs Tank combat Tanks are resistant to small arms fire....but is not a tanks primary designation the delivery of large ordinance against a specific entrenched postion or enemy vehicle? I'm not going to deny Tanks have strong anti personell capacity but that is normally in the hands of secondary crew men. But the secondary crewman has a small turret of whatever which generally cant reach past 150m let alone AV which can be at 200m-300m away and plus they have to be able to see them and also deliver enough dmg to kill or prevent them from getting a shot on which frankly they cannot do If a tank is going to be mainly for vehicles yes you could stick on a LMG for the main gun but then is that really a small turret tbh which frankly isnt worth the slot anyways because of the above reasons To make the HAV more about keeping it clear from vehicles then we need more vehicles to shoot at but right now all i see is infantry and AV infantry which i have to shoot at because they pose a threat
Indeed I suppose that is the case.
There is not enough for Tanks to shoot at while on the field besides infantry units. You might see and enemy HAV and target that but its not really a satisfying game to be reliant on your opposition to deploy armoured units that require countering.
"War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine."
- Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8030
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 04:07:00 -
[9] - Quote
Atiim wrote:True Adamance wrote:Atiim wrote:A Swarm Launcher is no longer capable of turning a corner. Swarm Launchers require the following:
- Timing
- Positioning
- Situational Awareness
- "Gun Game" (Unless you want to be insta-killed by a rifle user)
- Ability to predict flight / movement path of vehicles
80GJ Blasters however, are hit-scan weapons, and simply pressing R1 while the reticule is red guarantees that you will get a hit. Couple that with the fact that Hardners and Armor Repairers remove the need for almost all situational awareness, and you've got yourself a plentiful helping of EZ-Mode. In Uprising 1.7, Swarm Launchers literally require more skill than using an HAV. inb4 You going on a baseless tangent about how Swarm Launchers are actually EZ-Mode and how HAVs are the most talent intensive thing in DUST 514 Atiim you know for a fact swarms don't require the level of skill you claim they do. I am not trying to get into a discussion between AV and Tanks.....but you don't have a predict movement paths with a weapon that fires and locks the rounds for you, you also do not need gun game to make use of any weapon that is fire and forget. Don't presume additionally that these remaining "skills" are not universal to all weapons and aspects of FPS games. But I see your point and can accept that. I have to disagree. You do have to predict the vehicle's movement paths, because the Swarms have significantly slow travel time, and again your Swarm won't turn a corner or evade obstacles, so once the pilot decides to take cover your Swarms are guaranteed to miss. You do need gun-game. Or would you like to explain how easy it is to fight people when your only defense is a sidearm with a range that's less than half someone's optimal? Those who use hitscan weapons should not be talking about fire and forget. Still yet to find another role that forces me into the eHP of a Light Frame, with less than half their AI capability.
I get the Gun game thing since I use a LR and CQC is impossible with it...but it aint hard to outplay someone with a side arm.
"War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine."
- Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
|
|
|
| |
|