|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
654
   |
Posted - 2014.04.06 23:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Echo 1991 wrote:I'd love to see these tankers try and use av as an infantryman. You guys seriously dont know how hard it is to kill a tank with little to no help. Try use a standard fit with standard swarms and tell me that the skills he has listed dont have any use. Smg skill, hell any sidearm you like is necessary when your main weapon only hurts vehicles. The fit he has is a good av fit. You would not be able to make an adv fit as good as this. I do...but I'm not fool enough to try it solo. If I want an HAV dead it will die, our squad will co-ordinate a small AV team to hunt it down and destroy it. Why else would I play a team based game if I didn't want to work with a team.....and before you start accusing me of being a solo tanker I am not. I use on my fits and require 2 gunners to be fully effective against well fit solo battle tanks.
Hence the problem currently with AV and HAV's.
The HAV user gets to have the option. He's perfectly capable of fitting an Anti Tank HAV, that is JUST as effective at killing infantry and all while doing it solo. With ultimate ease. Situational awareness isn't even a necessity. You can use it at its most basic level to survive any situation that doesn't include multiple HAV's.
The AV user is unable to ignore more then half of the assets on the battlefield because he isn't in armor granting him almost total immunity. So he will be more at risk, in far more situations then an HAV would ever be in, under almost any circumstance.
And guess what buddy, if the disparity is this large when its a 1 on 1 scenario, multiplying it with squad mates doesn't magically balance it out. It just makes the situation even worse.
|
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
656
|
Posted - 2014.04.06 23:33:00 -
[2] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Echo 1991 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Echo 1991 wrote:I'd love to see these tankers try and use av as an infantryman. You guys seriously dont know how hard it is to kill a tank with little to no help. Try use a standard fit with standard swarms and tell me that the skills he has listed dont have any use. Smg skill, hell any sidearm you like is necessary when your main weapon only hurts vehicles. The fit he has is a good av fit. You would not be able to make an adv fit as good as this. I do...but I'm not fool enough to try it solo. If I want an HAV dead it will die, our squad will co-ordinate a small AV team to hunt it down and destroy it. Why else would I play a team based game if I didn't want to work with a team.....and before you start accusing me of being a solo tanker I am not. I use on my fits and require 2 gunners to be fully effective against well fit solo battle tanks. What about those that dont have a squad? They should not be allowed to kill vehicles? 1 person should be able to kill a tank. Im not suggesting a militia swarm should kill a well fit tank. But a proto swarm should be able to destroy a tank in 4-5 shots . Regardless of your modules you are still only using a standard tank. If proto tanks came out tomorrow they would not die with the way av is. A squad of av would struggle. You must know this. Frankly speaking then I don't feel like those without the desire to use team work should benefit from buffs to their equipment because they don't care to play with a team. When I get 3 people in my HAV should I get buffs to it? Nope I don't....1 enemy in an HAV can still kill us, 1 AVer can with effort still kill us. You also cannot equate the tiering of vehicles vs AV. You have 4 tiers, 5 on the forge, we vehicle users have 2. You must consider MLT as STD, and STD as ADV. Now if you are demanding buffs and nerfs based on tiering you neither deserve or should get one until all tiers of vehicles are released to be balanced around AV.
Again, using your own words to show you there is a disparity.
You had to add "with effort" on the AV side.
Because it's not nearly as much effort to kill an HAV with another HAV.
If there's not as much effort to kill in an HAV, why in god's name should AV have to put more of an effort, in a FAR more dangerous situation and it be fair?
|
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
656
|
Posted - 2014.04.06 23:39:00 -
[3] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:that's like asking why man needs to reproduce using both genders when god can create life from nothing.
Are you even reading what you are typing, or are you just drunk? |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
656
|
Posted - 2014.04.06 23:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
True Adamance wrote: I am saying that yeah I can take down HAV...but taking down a tank should never be easy, otherwise it would be boring. Are yiy saying you want to be able to break the Vehicle/AV balance by destroying the most expensive, heavily armoured, and durable vehicle easily?
See how easy it is to strawman people? Please refrain from attempting such in future. It contributes so little to the discussion, you assuming you know what I am attempting to explain.
And why shouldn't it be easy if I'm using your only weakness? I'm using guns designed to destroy vehicles. It's an ANTI - VEHICLE weapon.
Pray tell me an FPS that's currently out that has one piece of machinery immune to most of the weapons in the game, takes a squad of multiple units to take down efficiently if they aren't using the same machine, and is it's own viable weakness. Cause that **** doesn't make any sense at all, in any form of balance.
Why also is a tank able to be equally effective at AVing and AP, solo or not, yet you claim its fair that it should involve multiple infantry AV that have to gimp their AP power and drastically lower their ability to shrug off other infantry. Why should an HAV have the best of ALL worlds? Because it's got the name Heavy Attack Vehicle? Because you personally feel you should be safe inside a fantasy game since shelled out 200k more? I could care less what you "feel" a tank should be. I want a game centered around balance, not philosophical idealism.
You know, rock paper scissors. The way the game was intended to be. |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
656
|
Posted - 2014.04.06 23:55:00 -
[5] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Atiim wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I am saying that yeah I can take down HAV...but taking down a tank should never be easy, otherwise it would be boring. Are yiy saying you want to be able to break the Vehicle/AV balance by destroying the most expensive, heavily armoured, and durable vehicle easily?
See how easy it is to strawman people? Please refrain from attempting such in future. It contributes so little to the discussion, you assuming you know what I am attempting to explain.
He's saying that the effort required to destroy an HAV should be equal to the effort required to pilot an HAV. So yeah, basically with extreme ease. that would negate the purpose of having HAVs in battle in the first place.
Why? Because you can die in an FPS game centered around clones dying and being resurrected eternally?
Until this game has more diversity, HAV's need to balanced alongside infantry.
That means one should pop just as easily as the others, and cost the same.
|
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
656
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 00:14:00 -
[6] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Duran Lex wrote:Void Echo wrote:Atiim wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I am saying that yeah I can take down HAV...but taking down a tank should never be easy, otherwise it would be boring. Are yiy saying you want to be able to break the Vehicle/AV balance by destroying the most expensive, heavily armoured, and durable vehicle easily?
See how easy it is to strawman people? Please refrain from attempting such in future. It contributes so little to the discussion, you assuming you know what I am attempting to explain.
He's saying that the effort required to destroy an HAV should be equal to the effort required to pilot an HAV. So yeah, basically with extreme ease. that would negate the purpose of having HAVs in battle in the first place. Why? Because you can die in an FPS game centered around clones dying and being resurrected eternally? Until this game has more diversity, HAV's need to balanced alongside infantry. That means one should pop just as easily as the others, and cost the same. sorry dude but what your describing sounds like an exact copy of call of duty or battlefield. The reason why nobody cares that vehicles are weak in those games is because for COD and BF, vehicle use requires 0 personal investment and nobody gets gimped because they lost a personal asset while in dust you need personal investment in vehicles to even call in a vehicle let alone operate one. when vehicles are no longer in the skill tree and are freely given out like in bf and cod then il stop saying stuff about personal investment.
Sorry dude, but those vehicles in BF are ****** when you first use em. Gotta level them up for them to be any good, I.E. personal investment.
But that's moot point. The real discrepancy between the two is in BF the vehicles are free, as you pointed out in the end.. They are balanced, because they are free.
In Dust, it costing money, brings out varying degrees of peoples opinions on "value".
For instance, many people would agree that running MLT fits when you are low on money is the better thing to do. So why would you have a problem if HAV's cost the same as a dropsuit, where you can make throw away fits until you want to break your wallet. If in return, the only damn weapons in the game could actually kill you as easily as you can kill them.
Are you saying that you don't want it to be just as easy to kill you as you can others? You want to play in a situation where it's noticeably harder to kill you for the sole justification of "I'm in a tank"? You want the game balanced around being the superior asset on the field at all times? |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
656
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 00:20:00 -
[7] - Quote
Oh, and my apologies for derailing the thread.
There were just so many biased comments.... |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
656
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 00:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Atiim wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I am saying that yeah I can take down HAV...but taking down a tank should never be easy, otherwise it would be boring. Are yiy saying you want to be able to break the Vehicle/AV balance by destroying the most expensive, heavily armoured, and durable vehicle easily?
See how easy it is to strawman people? Please refrain from attempting such in future. It contributes so little to the discussion, you assuming you know what I am attempting to explain.
He's saying that the effort required to destroy an HAV should be equal to the effort required to pilot an HAV. So yeah, basically with extreme ease. Dude your assumptions that any one role in Dust requires any more "skill" than any other, in any FPS game ever made is one full of fallacies. You aim you gun, so do I. You claim positioning is important, I position myself as well. You fight tanks, I fight tanks, you are threatened by infantry, and so am I. By that logic is it fair to say you assume you are a better player than me because your arbitrarily place value on a role you personally prefer more, and that is in direct competition with mine? There is no value in discussing whether or not a role inherently makes you a better or worse player, its a weak argument, and ignorant and uninformed, and all together something I am not interested in.
Sir, my assumption in all FPS games is that if i use a direct counter on someone, it should directly counter them.
True Adamance wrote: You fight tanks, I fight tanks, you are threatened by infantry, and so am I.
Holy **** man, talk about being arbitrary. It's not that cut and dry at all, and you know it.
You fight against HAV's and infantry without impunity, and excel at doing both. As an infantry using AV, I sacrifice my ability to perform well against other infantry, to justify my increased threat to vehicles. You are only threatened by infantry carrying AV weapons and other HAV's fitted for Anti Vehicle work. As an infantry AV I'm threatened by every single weapon in the game except the swarm launcher.
Now that is cut and dry. Infantry AV are threatened by every single weapon in the game minus the swarm launcher. You aren't that vulnerable are you?
Now try to use this to bring up an entirely separate argument that I never once mentioned, just to make it seem like you aren't bullshitting your way out of actually answering a question. |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
656
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 00:54:00 -
[9] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Duran Lex wrote:
Sorry dude, but those vehicles in BF are ****** when you first use em. Gotta level them up for them to be any good, I.E. personal investment.
But that's moot point. The real discrepancy between the two is in BF the vehicles are free, as you pointed out in the end.. They are balanced, because they are free.
In Dust, it costing money, brings out varying degrees of peoples opinions on "value".
For instance, many people would agree that running MLT fits when you are low on money is the better thing to do. So why would you have a problem if HAV's cost the same as a dropsuit, where you can make throw away fits until you want to break your wallet. If in return, the only damn weapons in the game could actually kill you as easily as you can kill them.
Are you saying that you don't want it to be just as easy to kill you as you can others? You want to play in a situation where it's noticeably harder to kill you for the sole justification of "I'm in a tank"? You want the game balanced around being the superior asset on the field at all times?
with that said, I must remind you that I retired from tanking when 1.7 hit. what im saying is that when comparing HAVs to dropsuits, logically the HAV will have far superior killing and defensive power. if you make HAVs as strong and weak as dropsuits you effectively eliminate the want to use HAVs. since 1.7 iv been a gallente assault and when I return il have enough sp to expand over multiple fields of play styles. when im talking about balance, im not going to make ideas that suit infantry and just leave vehicles in the dark like everyone seems to do here. I talk about bringing in balance that would make both parties happy, thus keeping both sides from dying off whereas suggestions like yours will only benefit the infantry side and cause vehicles to go extinct, making you look bias towards vehicle pilots.
The problem i see is that most HAV's users have simply become too comfortable with being too large of a force multiplier.
The only sacrifice made to justify that large of a force multiplier, with so few weaknesses is being slightly more expensive.
Everything else in the game has to sacrifice something, somewhere to excel in a specific area. HAV's simply don't. They can take on any force in the game, and can withstand their direct counter longer then anything else in the game.
That is something that needs to be changed. Cause hell, i would love to spend 200k more on my suit if i could multiply my stats as much as an HAV can.
|
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
656
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 00:56:00 -
[10] - Quote
Void Echo wrote: so your choosing to ignore the fact that if a vehicle pilot exists their vehicle, they lose all efficiency because they invested in vehicles, not infantry?
And what does getting out of your vehicle have to do with your capabilities while inside one? |
|
|
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
661
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 19:52:00 -
[11] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Duran Lex wrote:Void Echo wrote: so your choosing to ignore the fact that if a vehicle pilot exists their vehicle, they lose all efficiency because they invested in vehicles, not infantry? And what does getting out of your vehicle have to do with your capabilities while inside one? because your talking about sacrifices, the sacrifice that vehicle pilots pay is their ability to do combat outside the vehicle. basically making them a vehicle, and removing the infantry aspect of their character. if you take a pure vehicle pilot and place him in a situation where has no vehicle and must face a squad of infantry, the pilot will die immediately.
Yea, the problem with that is everyone in the game makes that decision. We either choose to put SP into infantry, thus making us weak inside vehicles. Or we put SP in vehicles, thus making us weak walking around on foot. It's your decision whether or not to use what you are skilling into. If i go pure AV and nothing into any AP weapon, I'm going to ****** when trying to combat infantry aren't I? If you want to be proficient in both play styles, you must put skill into it. Just like I would have to in the case of vehicles.
I'm talking about the sacrifices that create a disparity between the two play styles. An HAV pilot has far more advantages that are FAR larger in magnitude then that of the infantry soldier. More HP, more speed, more ammo, more resistances, being efficient at AV and AP at the same time, and the ability to shrug off the majority of the weapons in the game, just for 200k more then a dropsuit and the inability to chase down your victims that do not have the proper tools to fend you off while on foot.
So sure, you can't stomp people across the entire god damn map. Unless its a map that has mostly open terrain, you know, the majority of the fuckin maps. That's what you sacrifice. Not being the god's of all possible terrain, though you certainly come close. (Note -I'm leaving out being unable to hack objectives. Because until they remove the ability to clone someone for the win, it's entirely moot fuckin point.)
Currently Infantry AV have to give up their rock to use paper. Infantry AP have to give up their paper to use rock. HAV's give up nothing, yet are the rock, paper and scissors from the get go, thus removing the entire concept of the game. When the best counter to combat a force is itself, then there's nothing that is balanced about it.
Edit - I forgot to add something else. Once upon the time the Forge Gun, a weapon that was both able to kill infantry and vehicles alike...got nerfed towards AP because people thought it was unfair for a weapon to be proficient at killing both infantry and vehicles at the same time. You aren't a fuckin exception to the overall balance of the game. |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
662
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 20:12:00 -
[12] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Duran Lex wrote:Void Echo wrote:Duran Lex wrote:Void Echo wrote: so your choosing to ignore the fact that if a vehicle pilot exists their vehicle, they lose all efficiency because they invested in vehicles, not infantry? And what does getting out of your vehicle have to do with your capabilities while inside one? because your talking about sacrifices, the sacrifice that vehicle pilots pay is their ability to do combat outside the vehicle. basically making them a vehicle, and removing the infantry aspect of their character. if you take a pure vehicle pilot and place him in a situation where has no vehicle and must face a squad of infantry, the pilot will die immediately. Yea, the problem with that is everyone in the game makes that decision. We either choose to put SP into infantry, thus making us weak inside vehicles. Or we put SP in vehicles, thus making us weak walking around on foot. It's your decision whether or not to use what you are skilling into. If i go pure AV and nothing into any AP weapon, I'm going to ****** when trying to combat infantry aren't I? If you want to be proficient in both play styles, you must put skill into it. Just like I would have to in the case of vehicles. I'm talking about the sacrifices that create a disparity between the two play styles. An HAV pilot has far more advantages that are FAR larger in magnitude then that of the infantry soldier. More HP, more speed, more ammo, more resistances, being efficient at AV and AP at the same time, and the ability to shrug off the majority of the weapons in the game, just for 200k more then a dropsuit and the inability to chase down your victims that do not have the proper tools to fend you off while on foot. So sure, you can't stomp people across the entire god damn map. Unless its a map that has mostly open terrain, you know, the majority of the fuckin maps. That's what you sacrifice. Not being the god's of all possible terrain, though you certainly come close. (Note -I'm leaving out being unable to hack objectives. Because until they remove the ability to clone someone for the win, it's entirely moot fuckin point.) Currently Infantry AV have to give up their rock to use paper. Infantry AP have to give up their paper to use rock. HAV's give up nothing, yet are the rock, paper and scissors from the get go, thus removing the entire concept of the game. When the best counter to combat a force is itself, then there's nothing that is balanced about it. and when one play style is killed as easy as killing a scout with a heavy, then balance is non existent and thus kills off that play style and giving you nothing to use your equipment for, thus making your role useless as well because you want someone else's play style to be as easy as you want it. Rails should be anti-vehicle as primary, and anti-personnel only with a truly skillful pilot (I am an example of that from when I used to tank with a railgun) blaster should be anti-personal as primary, it does superb against infantry and poorly against other tanks. missiles, I really don't care about.
No it doesn't kill the play style because that's the entire concept of this game. You will ALWAYS have a weakness that can absolutely dominate you no matter what. Rock should almost always beats scissors, paper should almost always beats rock. You should get the idea now.
In the case of the scout VS heavy. The Heavy is the rock, and the scout is paper. The scout will win if he's competent because he has the advantage before skill is even involved. So damn straight that is balanced.
Your changes wouldn't do a damn thing to close the huge gap. What needs to happen is this :
HAV main turrets deal zero damage to infantry. If you want to also kill infantry, equip small turrets that need to be manned by other personnel. This creates a scenario that actually justifies the need for multiple AV to coordinate and take it out. The HAV with no added turrets still gets to enjoy those tank battles, solo or squads of terrible AV will still barely make you notice their existence (if they even bother to try and take you out now since you aren't ruining their life every second of battle), and you can still easily wipe the floor with infantry if you decide to choose that course of action. Yet this system actually makes you choose a role, instead of excelling at them all. |
|
|
| |
|