|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
2073
   |
Posted - 2014.04.21 17:38:00 -
[1] - Quote
There is an inherent design imbalance between vehicles and infantry. Vehicles do more damage, survive better, fire faster, move faster, and distinctly fewer players can kill them. While a vehicle can easily kill infantry in one shot, infantry can rarely ever kill vehicles in one shot.
Due to the way the game is currently played, vehicle drivers are inherently "better" than infantry. In a game that's 16v16, that should never be the case. One player needs to be as good as one player. This means a single AVer, who's sole purpose is to kill vehicles, should be relatively successful at killing vehicles. Vehicles should expect to have infantry support to help them kill AV.
The solo tanker who can farm kills off infantry is a game design that needs to die.
I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
|
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
2075
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 18:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
Indeed. The essential issue is that in a 16v16 game, one player should always equal one player, more or less. It's unfair for one player to play a class that it takes multiple players to effectively combat. I feel there are three avenues to fixing V/AV balance in a responsible way. I am not suggesting CCP implement all of these, just one of them:
1. Ensure that one tank can be easily killed by one AV. - This solution means that an AV player, one who has sacrificed their ability to combat infantry to go after vehicles, should be effective at killing vehicles. Tanks should have a hard time defending themselves against AV without infantry support. AV is the natural counter to vehicles, so vehicles should die to them. Tanks would likely need to be cheaper so that a tank + pilot suit combo wouldn't cost more than an infantry role.
2. Ensure that tanks require multiple players to be effective. - This solution would suggest decoupling the main gun from the driver's seat, so that tanks are most effective with two or three players in them. In that way, it'd be fair for two or three AV to be required to take them out. This prevents solo tankers from being very effective, but maintains the high cost and power of tanks.
3. Remove anti-infantry from the tank's bag of tricks. - This solution is more of a game-changer. Removing tanks ability to effectively take out infantry ensures that even if they remain powerful and hard-to-kill, that they can't abusively slaughter infantry, and can be balanced around anti-vehicle and anti-installation roles. In the current mechanics, this wouldn't give tanks enough to do, often. Ideally, tanks should have more tank-specific things to do in a game, like taking down barricades and shield bubbles.
I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
|
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
2076
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 19:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro wrote:Number three is a clear cut above the rest. They should be there to support infantry, not the other way around. I think defense, heal, or attack boosting bubbles would give tankers a reason to push forward and keep a presence. I played a PC where an enemy blaster just sat at their home objective. We didn't get time to push that far back as they had 6 tankers to our two, but that defensive tanker was impossible to siege for anything else but another tanker. Sure it's a tactic, but that player really just didn't want to risk death to a better sneakier player. He didn't take the tank to fight another tank, he took it to 1 v 1 infantry. Maybe we just should adopt that tactic too though, but it would change anything.
Option three is indeed ideal, however, it's not a practical hope in the short term. Ideally, the entire game mode should be changed to an attacker/defender model, where tanks, as heavy artillery, make the bulk of the power in breaking down the defenses and pushing into the base, while infantry on the attacking team handle infantry on the defending team, to prevent them from killing the tanks. But I doubt we'll see that any time soon.
I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
|
|
|
| |
|