|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Heligg
Bite et Couteau
26
   |
Posted - 2014.05.08 17:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
There is a big fun killer in dust especially for newbies and bad players like me. This is Tank VS Infantry.
-First situation: Everyone is playing infantry. Suddently one guy take his tank and kills everyone. Unfortunatly, on our side we want to play infantry and no one counters. Then you see an other tank on the other side. And If your team wakes up, the guy just has to recall his tank and he goes unpunished.
-Second situation: now I'm in my tank, we are two tanks on each side. A great strategic battle is comming. Tank vs Tank is great. But you have this guy who kills the game with his forgegun. It's his game but he just want to take down a big one. It's not fun!!
So a vehicule attacking infantry must have drawbacks. And the same for Infantry on vehicule. This rule is sometimes respected in dust but they are huge flaws at the moment.
I made this little drawing to make it clearer:
http://imgur.com/RJmG2oY
So every weapon has to be on a "two way scale" .
With that rule, lets get into a situation:
-So if we take a flamethrower tank , we can kill some infantry, but you will have to pay the price when a tank comes to kill you. If you want to use this flamethrower tank you will need some dudes in tanks to protect you. You need to create a strategie.
One imortant thing is that now we have an asymetric strategie. Tanks are a bit more powerfull than infantry, but it's not a problem anymore because this power is unleashed only in the hands of good players. We dont need extemely powerfull anti-vehicules weapons.
The risk with this, is that experienced players come in public matches with great strategies. But if the rules don't allow big squads in public matches. Sometimes you will see a few players randomely creat strategies, but nothing too extreme. And in PC , the best strategies will win.
Then if we add MTACs, the scheme stays approximately the same. |
Heligg
Bite et Couteau
26
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 17:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Leeroy Gannarsein wrote:
Also no, tanks are far more cost-effective than infantry, especially in the hands of an experienced pilot.
I am not discussing that. All my point is to introduce more FUN in dust. For me, cost is not fun, it's interesting.
Leeroy Gannarsein wrote:
I honestly don't see an issue with either scenario; scenario one the team without any AV is punished for being too lazy to do something about the tanks, scenario two the team that actually uses combined arms has the advantage.
But It has been two years now, and we have never found a balance on AVs. One time they are not powerfull enough and people have to cooperate, but they don't and never will cooperate in public matches. An other time they are too powerfull and tanking is not fun anymore. Here we need to change the scheme.
About the second scenario, I agree that combining power is interesting . And in this plan AVs still exist, they are just limited to not be a pain in arse. |
Heligg
Bite et Couteau
26
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 18:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
J-Lewis wrote:The key to successful infantry/armor integration is mutual support. An armored vehicle without infantry should be vulnerable, just as infantry without armored support should be vulnerable.
Why? |
Heligg
Bite et Couteau
26
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 21:26:00 -
[4] - Quote
J-Lewis wrote:Heligg wrote:J-Lewis wrote:The key to successful infantry/armor integration is mutual support. An armored vehicle without infantry should be vulnerable, just as infantry without armored support should be vulnerable. Why? For a bunch of reasons.
These rules don't applly to public dust matches . In any game there is a set of rules.
Dust rules don't have to be Arma(or reality) rules. It is a good start but in Dust we change the objectives and the environnment ( you can considere mainly the environment as the player base here ). So we have to adapt the rules. |
|
|
| |
|