|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
R F Gyro
Clones 4u
1333
   |
Posted - 2014.04.28 21:36:00 -
[1] - Quote
Tanks are clearly too strong at the moment; this is evident from the need to arbitrarily limit them in Ambush. At some point CCP will nerf them and they'll become too weak. Then the cycle will begin again.
The HAV / AV balance will swing back and forth forever, as far as I can tell, because it is simply impossible for CCP to find a middle ground that both sides are happy with.
This is because tank drivers believe they should be more powerful than infantry, because of ISK spent and "its a tank".
Infantry, on the other hand, see one player with a massive speed, HP and DPS advantage over other players, in a game where the most scarce resource in any battle is the 16 players per side.
The OP is a sensible suggestion for how to break this cycle, by balancing HAV vs AV around 3 players on each side. I agree, however, that CCP are very unlikely to implement it.
Enjoy the merry-go-round 
RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
|
R F Gyro
Clones 4u
1334
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 21:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:You're playing a Scifi game which has tech thousands of years more advanced than current tech. Deal with it.
That is in no way a valid game balance argument.
RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
|
R F Gyro
Clones 4u
1337
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 09:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:True Adamance wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:
Ok, so what if it was made so that the controls for both were in the hands of the "Main Operator", though they were only allowed to do one or the other at any given time.
Do you want to move? Yes? Well, then you can't shoot.
Do you want to shoot? Yes? Well, then you can't move.
Main Operator can do both, though can only do one at a time, not both at the same time.
A valid suggestion....but that simply does relegate combat to "I saw you first so please die for me". I am simply for a Tank Model that removes Anti Infantry turrets, especially the large blaster. How? If you're moving, you can continue to move out of the LOS of the firing tank. If you're firing, you can shoot at the moving HAV and hope you can kill him before he can swap and kill you. I don't understand how you feel that it relegates combat to "first see, first kill" though I do agree with you that Large Turrets should be totally incapable of AP fire (except for really obvious cases like "He was standing on my HAV right in front of my Turret"). Can you honestly tell me this stop start combat would be enjoyable?
This is one of the most constructive HAV-AV conversations I've ever seen on these forums. There's some fundamental disagreement, but a willingness on both sides to keep the debate rational. Keep going guys.
Personally I think the game needs both solo and crew-only assault vehicles. I'd go with crew-only HAVs and solo MAVs, but there are other viable options. I'd suggest that the skills required to operate the MAV (for solo play) form the basis for HAV work so tankers don't need to make a fundamental choice between the two. I assume it would be important to have the choice, in each battle, of whether to call in a solo or crewed vehicle.
RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
|
R F Gyro
Clones 4u
1337
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 10:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:R F Gyro wrote:This is one of the most constructive HAV-AV conversations I've ever seen on these forums. There's some fundamental disagreement, but a willingness on both sides to keep the debate rational. Keep going guys.
Personally I think the game needs both solo and crew-only assault vehicles. I'd go with crew-only HAVs and solo MAVs, but there are other viable options. I'd suggest that the skills required to operate the MAV (for solo play) form the basis for HAV work so tankers don't need to make a fundamental choice between the two. I assume it would be important to have the choice, in each battle, of whether to call in a solo or crewed vehicle. No a bad suggestion at all.... however I am still inclined to champion single pilot HAV until such a time as a better reasoned or phrased argument....however as always I will try as best I can to remain open to suggestions, and try to respond in an unbiased manner....which admittedly is not always easy.
Do you have any specific objections to the solo-MAV, crewed-HAV model, or does it just need more elaboration?
Here's a brief outline anyway:-
I'd go with two MAVs initially, the Amarr mobile gun platform and the Minmatar squad transport. The squad transport has driver, top (small) turret and 4 extra seats; its almost as fast as a LAV, and has high EHP. The Amarr Mobile Gun Platform is single-seat, is as fast as HAVs are now, mounts a single large turret (only) but doesn't have much EHP.
For HAVs, the driver would get the front (small) turret, along with its field of view. The large turret would get a small field of view. The third-person field-of-view would go to the top (small) turret - this would be for the tank commander, who would run the tank, issuing orders to the driver and main gunner. HAVs would get a slight speed nerf, the guns would remain roughly unchanged, and they could probably get an EHP buff to compensate for the requirement for 3 players.
As for AV, the ISK cost of swarms and forges should be increased significantly, so that a decent fully-fitted AV suit costs about a third of what a decent fully-fitted HAV costs. AV vs HAV should be balanced around 3 competent players each side, both spending as much as they can, and then scaling down from there.
AV vs MAV (gun platform) should be balanced around 1v1, with the MAV being tougher but the AV being able to hide and use cover more effectively. Balance around the AV player winning if he can get into a decent firing position, but getting slaughtered if he can't.
When MAVs are introduced, all players should get the basic MAV skill and as many levels as they have in their best HAV skill.
Oh, and introduce an Amarr laser cannon large turret to go with that MAV :-)
RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
|
R F Gyro
Clones 4u
1337
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 11:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:It is that I am against it, I simply feel that if seats need to be broken down then any vehicle than can both pilot and provide a strong anti vehicle presence should be broken up.
Not sure I understand this, could you clarify? Are you worried about dropships?
Quote:But I stand by my suggest that HAV don't need to necessarily provide pilots with a strong durable frame and AI capacity. A strong frame an powerful AV capacity would suffice, reducing the detrimental effect that HAV can have on infantry gameplay, while still allowing the main pilot to enjoy a specific and active role, at the same time encouraging multiple crew members, and reinforcing the role of the MAV as a troop transport and support vehicle.
I'd probably be willing to support this, but I'd be worried that it would lead to largely independent infantry and tank battles, with infantry and tanks each fighting their own battles (on the same map) and largely ignoring each other.
RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
|
R F Gyro
Clones 4u
1341
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:34:00 -
[6] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:This bad idea once again pops up
In comparision to a LAV lolfail the turret is at the back of the LAV
Also who skills up what? who pays for what? who fits up the vehicle? who calls it in? do i have to use 2ppl for my playstyle all the time? do our skills stacking together? do we get a stronger vehicle since it takes 2 to operate it? will it require 2 AV to kill a 2man vehicle?
This idea doesnt allow soloing as a vehicle pilot, you are punished and are forced to always have to work with someone
Any of the crew can train the fitting skills and then call in the tank. Fitting skills and operations skills would be independent, so a driver would have driving skills, the gunner would have skills to increase DPS.
Whoever calls it in pays for it; the rest of the crew can donate ISK if necessary.
No, you don't have to have a crew all the time. Drive a MAV solo if you want, just don't expect it to have several thousand HP and a large turret.
Yes, HAVs would get stronger if they require a crew (preferably of 3) to operate. But most AV players wouldn't object because balance would be maintained. 3 v 3 is fair.
Quote:Maybe we should do this to infantry, 2 ppl to a dropsuit, 1 person controls the legs and the other controls the gun
Probably best that I ignore this 
RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
|
R F Gyro
Clones 4u
1342
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
Zaaeed Massani wrote:Awry Barux wrote:This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. ^
Is there a link to that CCP statement, out of interest?
RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
|
R F Gyro
Clones 4u
1342
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:52:00 -
[8] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
No we cant
If i stay as a driver and dont fit up any gunnary skills i cannot fit on any guns to it, how can i fit guns to it if i dont have the skills for it?
The fit would be invalid and i wouldnt be able to call it in
If you only train driving skills then, no, you won't be able to run solo. But that would be daft, and you wouldn't do it. As a driver, you'd probably train fairly balanced vehicle fitting and operations skills, but with extra emphasis on the driving ones.
Quote:Also MAV doesnt exist yet
We're talking about the future state of the game, remember. As many tankers have rightly pointed out, completely preventing you from running solo is a terrible idea, and introducing MAVs is the solution to that. You can play solo in a MAV and go 1v1 against AV. Or you can play as a crew in a HAV and go 3v3 against AV.
Quote:Why should you ignore it? that is what your are asking is to do, 2 for our playstyle but only 1 for yours
I should ignore it because if I didn't I'd think you were being petulant and foolish.
RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
|
R F Gyro
Clones 4u
1342
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:56:00 -
[9] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:Here you go again, decrying something because the mechanics for it aren't in game yet, though when it suits, you don't hesitate to bring up the Pilot suit (which, surprise, surprise, the mechanics for it aren't in game yet)
Not sure what you mean. I'm saying I agree with the OP that HAVs should require a crew to operate effectively, but that I think that would be conditional on introducing MAVs to support solo tanking. I thought I was being reasonable.
And I don't recall ever mentioning pilot suits, though I do happen to believe they would be a good idea.
RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
|
R F Gyro
Clones 4u
1343
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 18:55:00 -
[10] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:This was directed at English, not you my lovely Faction fitting.
Doh! My reading comprehension is as good as my gun game
RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
|
|
|
R F Gyro
Clones 4u
1343
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 19:07:00 -
[11] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:If i drive i focus on driving, i wouldnt train up useless skills in the hope that i actually have 1 person willing to go gunner but if i cant even fit up the vehicle or even deploy it then the idea is useless
Currently we cant use anything if we dont have the required skills for it so having a 2nd person with the skills for it wont be able to make the 1st person use it because they dont have the skills
Sorry, I'm really struggling to follow you here.
If you are saying that you don't have any corpmates or friends that you could team up with then you'll clearly need to run solo. I have absolutely no problem with that, and have suggested implementing an entire class of vehicles to support your play style. Just don't expect me to support you having way more DPS, EHP and speed than any infantry player.
My advice though, in the unlikely event that this is implemented, would be to train a basic level of vehicle fitting and operations skills so that you can handle any role reasonably well, then decide on one of the 3 tank crew roles (driver, gunner, commander) and skill up even further in those.
Minmatar Heavy didn't exist until recently. Didn't stop people wanting them. Didn't stop CCP from implementing them.
RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
|
R F Gyro
Clones 4u
1351
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:21:00 -
[12] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:If it were implemented tanks would die off literally because they surve no purpose anymore and their practical use would no longer exist.
Dropsuits should also have this done, one person controls movement, one person controls aiming and the other person controls firing, if you want tanks to require 2 people to drive, then dropsuits should require 3 people to use as well.
Don't be silly.
RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
|
R F Gyro
Clones 4u
1355
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 21:25:00 -
[13] - Quote
Awry Barux wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:Zaaeed Massani wrote:Awry Barux wrote:This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. ^ Blue Tag Link or GTFO? Here you go. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1847233#post1847233CCP LogiBro wrote:Changing HAV control scheme to a LAV-like control scheme - ThreadIt's always been an intriguing idea, one that's been floating around for a while. However, we don't have any plans to do this in the short term. /thread, shut up, all of you.
The way I read that is they are interested in the idea, but its not something they are planning to do in the next few releases. I can understand that, as it would be a significant change.
In the short term I imagine there's more HAV nerfs coming up though. Capping them at 2 per team in Ambush is a pretty clear acknowledgement that CCP accept they are too strong at the moment.
Unless tank drivers start thinking about options that are relatively balanced they are simply going to get ignored in the discussions when the real fix does happen.
RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
|
R F Gyro
Clones 4u
1359
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 09:03:00 -
[14] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:R F Gyro wrote:
The way I read that is they are interested in the idea, but its not something they are planning to do in the next few releases. I can understand that, as it would be a significant change.
In the short term I imagine there's more HAV nerfs coming up though. Capping them at 2 per team in Ambush is a pretty clear acknowledgement that CCP accept they are too strong at the moment.
Unless tank drivers start thinking about options that are relatively balanced they are simply going to get ignored in the discussions when the real fix does happen.
Dude we have half a dozen tankers who have been for months discussion balanced options and out of the box suggestions while taking on board the suggestions of other well thought out AV suggestions.
Sorry, should have been more explicit there - I was responding to one specific person, not saying that tankers in general aren't discussing sensible options.
Quote:However we are invalidated by the sheer number of thread of poorly thought out calls for nerfs by biased and pissed of AVers and Infantry.
For Chirst's sake we DONT NEED NERFS, instead we need rebalances.....
I agree that rebalancing is required, but I'm still seriously concerned that balance isn't possible because there is no consensus on what "balanced" means. The best that CCP can do with the current approach is make sure that both sides of the debate are equally unhappy.
I'm also not going to accept an unsubstantiated "we don't need nerfs" on this. Of course tankers tend believe tanks shouldn't be nerfed. That's basic human nature.
But CCP did feel the need to apply a sledgehammer nerf to tanks in Ambush by limiting the number to 2.
Quote:Perhaps altering Modules cool down timers, altering their effects, making Armour Repair modules active, Turret tracking alterations, damage efficiency modules depending on where tank is hit, AV damage efficiencies and functionality, etc.
NOT hard nerfs or buffs to anything.
I'm personally not arguing against any of those suggestion, I just don't think it will be sufficient.
I think we (tankers, infantry and CCP) need to address the fundamental issue that the most limited resource in Dust battles isn't ISK or SP, it is number of players: there is a hard cap of 16 on that for each side. Any solution that allows one of those 16 to be fundamentally better than the others isn't going to be balanced. Most tank/AV discussions I've seen seem to be largely about how much better than an infantry suit a tank should be.
If the tank-AV game is balanced on number of players, then that means that a single AV player, who's job is to kill vehicles, should generally be expected to kill a single HAV.
That means that tanks (HAVs) don't work as "awesome masters of the battlefield", which I think is a loss to the game. That's why I'm suggesting MAVs take on the solo role, so that HAVs can retain their awesomeness, while remaining balanced in terms of player count.
RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
|
|
|
| |
|