DUST Search - Av weapons should be sidearms

ZDub 303 wrote:

True Adamance wrote:

Atiim wrote:

How about we make it to where we can purchase and deploy our own installations?

You know, that option that's been sitting in the deployment window since 1.0?

That has been a much awaited feature....I didnt post it because well...ZDubs and .....mockery...and well....etc.

Agreed., in many respects I could really see the battlefield changing shape if turret/ installations could be called in.

Could these then consume vehicle slots? Additionally I would all like to think one day I could deploy in my tank in a similar manner at a squad leaders request....at say the cost of a 15-20 second period where I can neither move, use modules or shoot.

Sure, calling in your own installations will be a fine feature down the road as well. Its just the permanence of destroyed installations in general imo. I don't know if I feel that calling your own installation, when it'll just get popped right away by a rail tank is the right way to do it either. Unless they are dirt cheap... like ~30-50k a pop or something.

To add as well: swarms are useless against shield tanks because they were designed to be. We really need a shield focused AV weapon as well. Heavy lasers and EM missile swarms perhaps.

Racial parity is really important when talking about HAV vs AV imo... moreso than people are thinking.

" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters" - Malleus Malificorum

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8133	Posted - 2014.03.12 03:19:00 - [31] - Quote knight of 6 wrote: I could support light weapon AV as a side arm option. the forge however should stay a primary. obviously rebalencing light AV would need to happen to reflect it's new status. And while that has its benefits it seems needlessly complicated does it not? My question is and I hope someone can answer me. Why are we as a community trying to balance AV against HAV as opposed to HAV against set AV values? " ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters" - Malleus Malificorum
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5626	Posted - 2014.03.12 03:22:00 - [32] - Quote True Adamance wrote: knight of 6 wrote: I could support light weapon AV as a side arm option. the forge however should stay a primary. obviously rebalencing light AV would need to happen to reflect it's new status. And while that has its benefits it seems needlessly complicated does it not? My question is and I hope someone can answer me. Why are we as a community trying to balance AV against HAV as opposed to HAV against set AV values? Indeed. That's why I've been pushing for Light and Heavy Vehicle Hardeners as well. That way we could adjust HAVs without affecting DSs and LAVs. AV > HAV > INF > AV \| Not: HAV > AV GëÑ INF [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
ZDub 303 TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 2352	Posted - 2014.03.12 03:22:00 - [33] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Atiim wrote: How about we make it to where we can purchase and deploy our own installations? You know, that option that's been sitting in the deployment window since 1.0? That has been a much awaited feature....I didnt post it because well...ZDubs and .....mockery...and well....etc. Agreed., in many respects I could really see the battlefield changing shape if turret/ installations could be called in. Could these then consume vehicle slots? Additionally I would all like to think one day I could deploy in my tank in a similar manner at a squad leaders request....at say the cost of a 15-20 second period where I can neither move, use modules or shoot. Sure, calling in your own installations will be a fine feature down the road as well. Its just the permanence of destroyed installations in general imo. I don't know if I feel that calling your own installation, when it'll just get popped right away by a rail tank is the right way to do it either. Unless they are dirt cheap... like ~30-50k a pop or something. To add as well: swarms are useless against shield tanks because they were designed to be. We really need a shield focused AV weapon as well. Heavy lasers and EM missile swarms perhaps. Racial parity is really important when talking about HAV vs AV imo... moreso than people are thinking.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8133	Posted - 2014.03.12 03:28:00 - [34] - Quote ZDub 303 wrote: True Adamance wrote: Atiim wrote: How about we make it to where we can purchase and deploy our own installations? You know, that option that's been sitting in the deployment window since 1.0? That has been a much awaited feature....I didnt post it because well...ZDubs and .....mockery...and well....etc. Agreed., in many respects I could really see the battlefield changing shape if turret/ installations could be called in. Could these then consume vehicle slots? Additionally I would all like to think one day I could deploy in my tank in a similar manner at a squad leaders request....at say the cost of a 15-20 second period where I can neither move, use modules or shoot. Sure, calling in your own installations will be a fine feature down the road as well. Its just the permanence of destroyed installations in general imo. I don't know if I feel that calling your own installation, when it'll just get popped right away by a rail tank is the right way to do it either. Unless they are dirt cheap... like ~30-50k a pop or something. To add as well: swarms are useless against shield tanks because they were designed to be. We really need a shield focused AV weapon as well. Heavy lasers and EM missile swarms perhaps. Racial parity is really important when talking about HAV vs AV imo... moreso than people are thinking. Indeed how can you balance what isn't there " ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters" - Malleus Malificorum
The dark cloud The Rainbow Effect Negative-Feedback 2410	Posted - 2014.03.12 03:36:00 - [35] - Quote You guys think that this would be unbalanced but how many actually specced ino proto swarms or plasma cannons? Allmost nobody does that anymore. And another few points why light AV weapons should be sidearms are: -swarms cannot prevent a hardened shield tank from recharging its shields -swarms deal only half of their damage against dropships and that is without a hardener running. -plasma cannons are 1 shot weapons which have the lowest DPS out of all AV weapons -Fitting proto Rifles and proto AV weapons on a dropsuit is allmost impossible without massive drawbacks -you have to decide what damage mod you gonna use. Either enhance performance as Anti infantry or AV. Cause sidearms require other damage mods. Even if 10 people would shot a hardened gunnlogi with swarms they couldnt stop the shield recharge which negates all incoming damage. Armor tanks could be destroyed but they have more HP and their hardeners run longer. And does any 1 tried to shot a dropship with swarms? Its a futile cause simply due to the fact that swarms deal roughly only 50% of their damage against them. Which means it would take 8 swarm launchers to take down 1 hardened python (if you are lucky). Tanks take the pace out of the game cause once you switched to AV you are allmost a free kill for every 1 wielding a proper gun. I shall show you a world, a world which you cant imagine, a world full off butthurt n00bs at the other end of my gun
C0TS Sebiestor Field Sappers Minmatar Republic 12	Posted - 2014.03.12 03:42:00 - [36] - Quote BL4CKST4R wrote: True Adamance wrote: Not going to lie. Tanks are in a bad place right now. Too powerful. But in other games you balance those AV weapons by class, unsure of titan fall, but these other games do not see you pitting your own assets against other players. If every unit could carry an AV and primary weapon there would be no place for vehicle users on the map. Give Logistic suits (after nerfing them) a special slot for AV only. This is genius. Great idea.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8136	Posted - 2014.03.12 03:44:00 - [37] - Quote The dark cloud wrote: You guys think that this would be unbalanced but how many actually specced ino proto swarms or plasma cannons? Allmost nobody does that anymore. And another few points why light AV weapons should be sidearms are: -swarms cannot prevent a hardened shield tank from recharging its shields -swarms deal only half of their damage against dropships and that is without a hardener running. -plasma cannons are 1 shot weapons which have the lowest DPS out of all AV weapons -Fitting proto Rifles and proto AV weapons on a dropsuit is allmost impossible without massive drawbacks -you have to decide what damage mod you gonna use. Either enhance performance as Anti infantry or AV. Cause sidearms require other damage mods. Even if 10 people would shot a hardened gunnlogi with swarms they couldnt stop the shield recharge which negates all incoming damage. Armor tanks could be destroyed but they have more HP and their hardeners run longer. And does any 1 tried to shot a dropship with swarms? Its a futile cause simply due to the fact that swarms deal roughly only 50% of their damage against them. Which means it would take 8 swarm launchers to take down 1 hardened python (if you are lucky). Tanks take the pace out of the game cause once you switched to AV you are allmost a free kill for every 1 wielding a proper gun. Another fair analysis. But under your model you would put AV in the hands of everyone with an Assault Rifle. There would essentially be no disadvantage in making use of Light AV at that point. At which point how hard would it be for an entire team to run AV assault units with AV to deal with 1 or 2 tanks or dropships. I appreciate that yeah 6 avers should easily waste any vehicle on the map if all firing.....but can the vehicle game hold up to that kind of pressure? And do we want to further the current cheap and disposable, but potent in terms of ISK cost HAV. Yes this could clear HAV from the field.....but could lighter frame vehicles deal with this change to gameplay? Let me come back to you with some proper counter points so we can flesh this discussion out. I'm always interested in well thoughout vehicle vs Av discussion as long as we can keep the bias out. " ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters" - Malleus Malificorum
Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 1517	Posted - 2014.03.12 03:48:00 - [38] - Quote Hammerspace is already being challenged in this game without going full WoW. Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
BL4CKST4R WarRavens League of Infamy 2017	Posted - 2014.03.12 03:54:00 - [39] - Quote True Adamance wrote: BL4CKST4R wrote: True Adamance wrote: Not going to lie. Tanks are in a bad place right now. Too powerful. But in other games you balance those AV weapons by class, unsure of titan fall, but these other games do not see you pitting your own assets against other players. If every unit could carry an AV and primary weapon there would be no place for vehicle users on the map. Give Logistic suits (after nerfing them) a special slot for AV only. Perhaps but why tack that on the logistics class. Could you not simply have a dedicated Anti Vehicle suit type? That would just be a commando, and people will be unwilling to spend SP on such a situational suit, that's why most people don't max don't Av because it's pretty situational (useless now) For the Federation!
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8136	Posted - 2014.03.12 03:58:00 - [40] - Quote BL4CKST4R wrote: True Adamance wrote: BL4CKST4R wrote: True Adamance wrote: Not going to lie. Tanks are in a bad place right now. Too powerful. But in other games you balance those AV weapons by class, unsure of titan fall, but these other games do not see you pitting your own assets against other players. If every unit could carry an AV and primary weapon there would be no place for vehicle users on the map. Give Logistic suits (after nerfing them) a special slot for AV only. Perhaps but why tack that on the logistics class. Could you not simply have a dedicated Anti Vehicle suit type? That would just be a commando, and people will be unwilling to spend SP on such a situational suit, that's why most people don't max don't Av because it's pretty situational (useless now) The commandois perhaps the most adaptive suit available to dusties IMO..... we dont necessarily need to sacrifice what the commando is, a suit designed to roll heavy assault and suppression. But we could suggest the invention of a suit type that received specified bonuses, on a medium frame, to fitting, or AV weapon attributes. " ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters" - Malleus Malificorum

Cody Sietz Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2640	Posted - 2014.03.12 04:34:00 - [41] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Not going to lie. Tanks are in a bad place right now. Too powerful. But in other games you balance those AV weapons by class, unsure of titan fall, but these other games do not see you pitting your own assets against other players. If every unit could carry an AV and primary weapon there would be no place for vehicle users on the map. I think it's more balanced then making a equipment thing(someone said that before) Giving up a sidearm is a pretty big deal(that is one of the major balancing factors for Logis after all) If swarms and the PLC stay the same then they would only be useful as sidearms anyway. "I do agree with you there though. shudders" -Arkena Wyrnspire
The dark cloud The Rainbow Effect Negative-Feedback 2411	Posted - 2014.03.12 15:10:00 - [42] - Quote This would aswell shift the balance from "slayer logis" to assaults and scouts. Cause most logis do not have a sidearm slot. And smaller scale vehicles do just fine cause they have aswell access to hardeners. Just look at the Saga-II it can fit 2 hardeners and take on swarm launchers and even blaster tanks while its activated. And no im not joking im talking from experience. I shall show you a world, a world which you cant imagine, a world full off butthurt n00bs at the other end of my gun
Kigurosaka Laaksonen DUST University Ivy League 589	Posted - 2014.03.12 15:12:00 - [43] - Quote C0TS wrote: BL4CKST4R wrote: Give Logistic suits (after nerfing them) a special slot for AV only. This is genius. Great idea. So you guys support moving AV to Logistics instead of making it a separate role? DUST 514 Recruit Code - https://dust514.com/recruit/zluCyb/ EVE Buddy Invite - Too damn long. Ask me for it.
The dark cloud The Rainbow Effect Negative-Feedback 2411	Posted - 2014.03.12 15:21:00 - [44] - Quote Kigurosaka Laaksonen wrote: C0TS wrote: BL4CKST4R wrote: Give Logistic suits (after nerfing them) a special slot for AV only. This is genius. Great idea. So you guys support moving AV to Logistics instead of making it a separate role? It is allready a sperate role. Thats the problem with it. Making a new suit that has some sort of small bonus to it would be plain stupid. Its allready way too hard for AV to survive the infantry around the tank. I shall show you a world, a world which you cant imagine, a world full off butthurt n00bs at the other end of my gun
Kigurosaka Laaksonen DUST University Ivy League 590	Posted - 2014.03.12 15:44:00 - [45] - Quote The dark cloud wrote: Kigurosaka Laaksonen wrote: C0TS wrote: BL4CKST4R wrote: Give Logistic suits (after nerfing them) a special slot for AV only. This is genius. Great idea. So you guys support moving AV to Logistics instead of making it a separate role? It is allready a sperate role. Thats the problem with it. Making a new suit that has some sort of small bonus to it would be plain stupid. Its allready way too hard for AV to survive the infantry around the tank. And you think making PLC and SL into sidearms would fix that? DUST 514 Recruit Code - https://dust514.com/recruit/zluCyb/ EVE Buddy Invite - Too damn long. Ask me for it.
Jack McReady DUST University Ivy League 1158	Posted - 2014.03.12 15:54:00 - [46] - Quote considering the current effectiveness of the swarm launcher it could aswell go into a sidearm slot. also note that in 1.8 having no sidearm to fall back to is a real drawback because of generally higher TTK and all those sentinel bricks running around.
BL4CKST4R WarRavens League of Infamy 2027	Posted - 2014.03.12 19:58:00 - [47] - Quote True Adamance wrote: BL4CKST4R wrote: The dark cloud wrote: Atiim wrote: I believe CCP is trying to implement a similar mechanic with the Commando suits. I'm not saying no or anything, but I want to see how this plays out first. Commandos are not really good for AV. Too slow, not much of fitting options etc. We need this so that every 1 ranging from the newest player to the oldest vet can contribute in fighting vehicles back. And if you dont believe me then you should see how ambush matches turn out with 7 tanks on one side. They would be good for AV if the damage bonus was for the racial weapons not the rifles. They are for the racial weapons. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=136370&find=unread Nowhere does it expressly say damage bonuses only apply to rifles. We only have 3 AV weapons PLASMA Cannon Forge gun And Swarm launcher Plasma cannon isn't a blaster Forge gun is a heavy weapon And the swarm launcher isn't a rail gun. For the Federation!
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2956	Posted - 2014.03.12 20:02:00 - [48] - Quote lolno Intelligence is OP
Kaughst Nyain San Renegade Alliance 267	Posted - 2014.03.12 20:04:00 - [49] - Quote Sounds like a cool idea. Everyone should have easy access to AV. "That is not how you say my name." "How do you say your name?" "I don't know but that is not how you say it."
Benjamin Ciscko Fatal Absolution 1860	Posted - 2014.03.12 20:06:00 - [50] - Quote Heavy with a rail rifle kills a sh!t ton of people from a distance Sees tank Pulls out FG That would be so balanced. Team carry Prof. IV I need Full Proto and five Proto Bodyguards to be good.

Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5637	Posted - 2014.03.12 20:21:00 - [51] - Quote Benjamin Ciscko wrote: Heavy with a rail rifle kills a sh!t ton of people from a distance Sees tank Pulls out FG That would be so balanced. As opposed to this scenario? Quote: Tanker With Ion Cannon kills a $#!t ton of people Sees AV Turns on Hardener AV > HAV > INF > AV \| Not: HAV > AV GëÑ INF [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Zirzo Valcyn Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 189	Posted - 2014.03.12 20:25:00 - [52] - Quote BF4 is poor example because the assault still does a better job at anti infantry than engineer which makes engineer a specialized anti vehicle role. problem is AV grenades typical of CCP were over nerfed u can ban the troll out of the forums but u can't ban the forums out of the troll.


Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page