DUST Search - Proto swarms Vs 3 rep maddy (video)

Monkey MAC wrote:

Gelhad Thremyr wrote:

1) Lets all agree on one thing, mechanized infantry (tanks) should have high HP and should be able to create opportunities for infantry. With that being said, if the level design of maps doesnt give enough possibilities to get behind cover let say 40-60% of the time (because no one would wage war in open spaces like we did 400 years ago) then tanks would naturally be less of a threat to infantry.

2) We want risk/reward to be balanced (because tanks cost alot, but with the data in hand a single tank can do easily 20 kills, if they are proto, than they netted a kill ISK value of 2 mil ISK alone if each proto infantry suit cost 100k)

3) Tank player alone in his vehicle should not add the equivalent of 2-3 more player in fire power alone. It causes imbalance in firepower on one side. This is clearly been demonstrated in TankBush with Nyain san and Milkman.

4) I would not touch the power of weapons has is, I think number wise the tripple rep madrugar is a kind of a fit, we should keep the customization of builds in this game.

5) If main turrets of tanks would be slower, engaging infrantry would be harder, and would require drivers to have small turrets to handle 20 meters or less infantry, throwing stuff at it. All tanks would suffer the turret slowness and it would make tank engagement better IMO.

6)Conclusion, do not touch the firepower but the hability to quickly kill all around a tank with a single driver, in BF3, tank turret do not allow you to be 100% effective against infantry !

I would agree if it wasn't for the accuracy of the blaster.
No recoil, no dispersion, no muzzle climb, no pre-fire charge time, nothing.

Blasters either need a reduction in fire power, AT LEAST 30%
or it needs to be given dispersion that is about the same as the HMG (scaled up obviously)

This would allow blasters to be better at suppressing infantry yet give AV enough of an oppurtunity that it can at least lock on a swarm launcher without dying.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Gelhad Thremyr Quebec United Caps and Mercs 248	Posted - 2014.04.30 13:36:00 - [1] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Not a dev, just a player. Someone said one AV guy shouldn't be able to solo a tank. Sure I see that. And I can scare one of those guys away in my proAV fit, maybe. But when it's three tanks, you need at least 6 guys to deploy in AV gear, to scare them away unless AV unites against one tank and instapops one at a time. In a pub, that's never going to happen. Every pub game I have played in maps where a tank can truly affect the battle, is won by the team with madrepper superiority. The balance is way better in non tanky maps right now. Sadly I don't see a lot of tank v tank battles either which is probably what tankers desire. This is a difficult problem and I know we have spent a lot of time on this internally 1) KDR of tanker vs non-tanker 2) ISK efficiency vs elite tanker comparable to elite assault player 3a) proto AV vs proto tanker 3b) proto AV vs standard tanker 3c) average AV needed to rapidly destroy a tank without tank recourse (2v1, 3v1, 4v1) 4) measuring the best tankers who are in the spotlight (very few) versus normal tankers who don't so so well 5) efficiency against infantry 6) nades and re's requre non slayer specialization, so AV is pretty inaccessible to majority of players. Instead of more tankers v nontankers, what are some simple ways to balance this? Slow down turret rotations, will put all tankers at the same levels, and tanks wont be used as efficiently as they are now against infantry. Let tanks have the obligation to have a module used for turret speed, so they will not be able to tripple rep. You should also have stacking penalties on ALL modules, as infantry currently suffer. People dont use tanks to battle tanks as much as killing ground troops. Milkman being the best example this post exposeinfantry should be able to dodge a tank at 20 m easily. The advantage of infantry is mobility. Or change your level design to give more cover and remove old map !
Gelhad Thremyr Quebec United Caps and Mercs 248	Posted - 2014.04.30 16:26:00 - [2] - Quote 1) Lets all agree on one thing, mechanized infantry (tanks) should have high HP and should be able to create opportunities for infantry. With that being said, if the level design of maps doesnt give enough possibilities to get behind cover let say 40-60% of the time (because no one would wage war in open spaces like we did 400 years ago) then tanks would naturally be less of a threat to infantry. 2) We want risk/reward to be balanced (because tanks cost alot, but with the data in hand a single tank can do easily 20 kills, if they are proto, than they netted a kill ISK value of 2 mil ISK alone if each proto infantry suit cost 100k) 3) Tank player alone in his vehicle should not add the equivalent of 2-3 more player in fire power alone. It causes imbalance in firepower on one side. This is clearly been demonstrated in TankBush with Nyain san and Milkman. 4) I would not touch the power of weapons has is, I think number wise the tripple rep madrugar is a kind of a fit, we should keep the customization of builds in this game. 5) If main turrets of tanks would be slower, engaging infrantry would be harder, and would require drivers to have small turrets to handle 20 meters or less infantry, throwing stuff at it. All tanks would suffer the turret slowness and it would make tank engagement better IMO. 6)Conclusion, do not touch the firepower but the hability to quickly kill all around a tank with a single driver, in BF3, tank turret do not allow you to be 100% effective against infantry !
Gelhad Thremyr Quebec United Caps and Mercs 248	Posted - 2014.04.30 17:07:00 - [3] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Gelhad Thremyr wrote: 1) Lets all agree on one thing, mechanized infantry (tanks) should have high HP and should be able to create opportunities for infantry. With that being said, if the level design of maps doesnt give enough possibilities to get behind cover let say 40-60% of the time (because no one would wage war in open spaces like we did 400 years ago) then tanks would naturally be less of a threat to infantry. 2) We want risk/reward to be balanced (because tanks cost alot, but with the data in hand a single tank can do easily 20 kills, if they are proto, than they netted a kill ISK value of 2 mil ISK alone if each proto infantry suit cost 100k) 3) Tank player alone in his vehicle should not add the equivalent of 2-3 more player in fire power alone. It causes imbalance in firepower on one side. This is clearly been demonstrated in TankBush with Nyain san and Milkman. 4) I would not touch the power of weapons has is, I think number wise the tripple rep madrugar is a kind of a fit, we should keep the customization of builds in this game. 5) If main turrets of tanks would be slower, engaging infrantry would be harder, and would require drivers to have small turrets to handle 20 meters or less infantry, throwing stuff at it. All tanks would suffer the turret slowness and it would make tank engagement better IMO. 6)Conclusion, do not touch the firepower but the hability to quickly kill all around a tank with a single driver, in BF3, tank turret do not allow you to be 100% effective against infantry ! I would agree if it wasn't for the accuracy of the blaster. No recoil, no dispersion, no muzzle climb, no pre-fire charge time, nothing. Blasters either need a reduction in fire power, AT LEAST 30% or it needs to be given dispersion that is about the same as the HMG (scaled up obviously) This would allow blasters to be better at suppressing infantry yet give AV enough of an oppurtunity that it can at least lock on a swarm launcher without dying. Indeed, Tanks need to be seen as mobile cover also, now they are just dumb fast killing machine. I am not sure about the dispersion, looks kinda silly to have a tank not being able to accurately shoot to another tank because of dispersion, it only creates another problem. Still will hold on my idea about the turret speed as it does'nt create further imbalance, just modify the current game play of tanks. Also, Rail turrets are already a little bit slow, so why not make that the default. Like somebody pointed out, if the blaster is only for infantry suppression, than such a tank should be at a bigger risk against other tanks, and right now a tripple rep armor tank can evade rail tank easily enough so its turret speed will eventually gain advantage against the rail unless the combat is at a medium to long range, wich benefits the rail tank.
Gelhad Thremyr Quebec United Caps and Mercs 248	Posted - 2014.04.30 17:20:00 - [4] - Quote No its impossible number wise, especially with a breach FG which takes forever to charge up, unless you are high up, perched unseen by the tank, even then.... look at its damage, add 60% if you hit the tanks back if I remember correctly... maybe base milita tanks...