Awry Barux
Ametat Security
Amarr Empire
2401
   |
Posted - 2014.04.30 16:10:00 -
[1] - Quote
Maximos Forcus wrote:NAV HIV wrote:Ridire Greine wrote:Forge Guns are actually great sources of AV, anyone who says otherwise doesn't use them.
The thing that makes them great is that unlike other sources of AV you can target a tank's weakspot for a 160% Damage rating, nerfing tanks would only make tank Vs tank battles even worse.
PLC needs a buff, and the SL needs a slight buff, and REs are great at what they do. RE's are not for Tanks... The fact that JLAV is the best AV right now, explains the balance between AV vs Tanks... I found a Madrugar last night, some blue dot left it there... I jumped in, pushed towards the redline... 3 guys were swarming it... After being hit 3 times, i jumped out and went to shoot the swarmers... With the help of other team mates i we killed those swarmers... Got back in the tank with FULL hp on it... Some balance that is... ...so it had reppers. What is the point you are trying to make? I once got shot in my MLT heavy suit, hid behind cover a while, and everything was back to 100%. Unbalanced?
Oh my god.
*ULTRA FACEPALM*
In the heavy suit, you have to hide and avoid getting shot, or you'll die in 2 seconds, 3 at most.
The tank can literally sit there not moving and just eat the shots.
Nerdier than thou
|
Awry Barux
Ametat Security
Amarr Empire
2428
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 22:03:00 -
[2] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:SoTa PoP wrote:MarasdF Loron wrote:So...
1. You want tankers to give up Large Blaster Turrets or make them ineffective against infantry.
2. You want to be able to kill HAVs just as easily and fast as you kill other infantry.
So, in return...
1. Can we tankers have the ability to fit small turrets as main turret for our HAVs?
2. Can we tankers have the ability to drive HAVs indoors and in tight spaces generally?
3. Can we tankers have the ability to hack points and deploy/use equipment with our HAVs?
4. Can we tankers have the ability to turn our turrets and hulls as fast as you can turn your dropsuits and aim to all directions?
Or do you just want to take everything and give nothing in return?
So, which thing do you want us to give up and what are you willing to give back in return?
Pick 1-2 from each category (but the same amount of options from both). Do you really believe this crap? I've been gone, away from the debates, but, really? You guys know you cost way too little for your effectiveness, what defense could you possibly say? If you want to stay cheap - then buff AV. One or the other, pick. Which is it? Somethings I agree with, others not so much. We do cost too little for too much efficiency. No a Tank should not go down too easily, or be too durable or their value diminishes and disappears, they become OP, respectively. But Tanks need a purpose on the field and I feel most players are simply too frustrated or biased to even begin considering more than "NERF IT". What I want HAV to be are proper tanks, with powerful main cannons designed to deal with other ground vehicles and HAV, with gunners, or co-axial turrets to engage infantry (can be split up into seats if required). Now HAV should be durable units either through passive armour/shield, or active modules, but solo-able none the less. I don't like large blasters, even though I like using them Tank Vs Tank, as they fundamentally unbalance infantry combat.....however let tanks keep their durability and shift their focus to anti vehicle combat I believe we will see much more diverse and skilled vehicle users, more lighter frame vehicles and in future MAV and MTAC. However if AV want to talk balancing tweaks they need to come to the table not demanding, or they get unreasonable response, they need to come saying "Tanks are fundamentally broken, however they do this right.... let them keep doing that, but instead of X they should now do Y"
The issue is that right now, HAVs have no possible role other than chewing up infantry or preventing enemy HAVs from doing the same. There is no Y, and X is only "kill infantry". Yes, when MAVs and MTACs appear, HAVs can have a proper AV niche, but that's a long way away. In the mean time, the most durable unit on the field is also the one with the most anti-infantry power, and that's just a recipe for (justified) rage.
IMO, the solution is to make tanks very fragile while equalizing their cost to that of equivalently-tiered AV dropsuits. STD tank with a STD turret and STD modules? 10-15k ISK. A maxed-out AVer vs a maxed-out HAV should be just as even of a toe-to-toe battle as two maxed-out HMG heavies coming face to face- tactics and gun game will determine the victor, and ISK lost on death on each side is equal.
The current system of a proto turret tank costing 2-3 matches of ISK payout creates huge balance issues- tanks, justifiably, demand that they should be durable, yet this means that in the hands of a competent player, the tank is nearly invincible- if they can survive two matches in a row, there's nothing to stop them from surviving 100 in a row. We've tried having fragile, expensive tanks- that sucked. We've tried having cheap, durable tanks- that sucks. The solution, therefore, is extremely cheap, fragile tanks.
When the vehicle lineup gets rounded out appropriately, HAVs can return to being extremely durable, and be appropriately specialized as AV platforms. Until then, I don't see any good balance option other than what I've suggested above.
Nerdier than thou
|