DUST Search - vehicles vs. infantry

All Channels

General Discussions

vehicles vs. infantry

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2869	Posted - 2014.05.20 21:58:00 - [1] - Quote In computer science when consodering the complexity of certain tasks, we use the Big O notation, it allows us to effectively ignore small constants and such things, it allows us to break things down to its base components. This all we are doing, stripping the equation down to It's most basic components, you can't account for difference in terrain or skill, so you always create a scenario where it's 1 person vs another on flat coverless ground. Because you can CALCULATE it, so yes it should take X number of Y's destroy a Z because it's basic maths. The world is all about maths, weapon balancing is no different. Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2869	Posted - 2014.05.20 22:18:00 - [2] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: In computer science when consodering the complexity of certain tasks, we use the Big O notation, it allows us to effectively ignore small constants and such things, it allows us to break things down to its base components. This all we are doing, stripping the equation down to It's most basic components, you can't account for difference in terrain or skill, so you always create a scenario where it's 1 person vs another on flat coverless ground. Because you can CALCULATE it, so yes it should take X number of Y's destroy a Z because it's basic maths. The world is all about maths, weapon balancing is no different. Actually, you can. It's not that hard actually. You want to know how? Design each thing around set strengths and weaknesses. For example, a vehicle is much better in a open environment vs. a infantry unit, but will suffer when in a closed in or tight environment with lots of foliage, rocks, etc. Damage types, and even the weapon that is being used is another example. Please I would love to see how you show AV having plenty of cover without giving it to HAV's how do you CALCULATE tanks getting stuck in tight corners, damage types and weapons are numbers so yes they can be calculated. Your still missing my point, if you start adding terrain advantages that don't have quantifiable values, you can't balance properly, just look at the repdrugar, it's designed to rep through damage at shorter ranges, but it works just as well with just a molehill between them, you can see it just from the maths. That is why you break it down. Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2869	Posted - 2014.05.20 22:24:00 - [3] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: ZDub 303 wrote: To anyone in this thread: If I changed this quote Godin Thekiller wrote: As far as a 1v1 infantry vs. vehicle, that's only possible if the vehicle messes up constantly, just overall sucks, or the infantry gets lucky. Otherwise, it'll be a stalemate. to: As far as a 1v1 medium/light vs. heavy suit, that's only possible if the heavy messes up constantly, just overall sucks, or the infantry gets lucky. Otherwise, it'll be a stalemate. Would you consider that balanced? It's not the same thing........... Why isn't it? Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2871	Posted - 2014.05.20 22:29:00 - [4] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: ZDub 303 wrote: To anyone in this thread: If I changed this quote Godin Thekiller wrote: As far as a 1v1 infantry vs. vehicle, that's only possible if the vehicle messes up constantly, just overall sucks, or the infantry gets lucky. Otherwise, it'll be a stalemate. to: As far as a 1v1 medium/light vs. heavy suit, that's only possible if the heavy messes up constantly, just overall sucks, or the infantry gets lucky. Otherwise, it'll be a stalemate. Would you consider that balanced? It's not the same thing........... Why isn't it? Because a vehicle is not a suit, nor should it be treated like one. Mathmatically it is, 1 man in a tank is no different to a man in a suit, you have health, a weapon. You even have the same stats! Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2871	Posted - 2014.05.20 22:38:00 - [5] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Mathmatically it is, 1 man in a tank is no different to a man in a suit, you have health, a weapon. You even have the same stats! Again, put the spreadsheets down and think about it. You see though your missing it, it's all in the spreadsheets, not just the spreadsheet that shows how the battle goes down but the big picture, what happens whem something requires more than 1 person to take down. When a Tank named X > Infantry Y X > Y X = 2Y X + Y > 2Y 6X + 10Y > 16Y 6X + 10Y = 32 Y Does that not seem grossly unbalanced? Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2871	Posted - 2014.05.20 22:41:00 - [6] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: In computer science when consodering the complexity of certain tasks, we use the Big O notation, it allows us to effectively ignore small constants and such things, it allows us to break things down to its base components. This all we are doing, stripping the equation down to It's most basic components, you can't account for difference in terrain or skill, so you always create a scenario where it's 1 person vs another on flat coverless ground. Because you can CALCULATE it, so yes it should take X number of Y's destroy a Z because it's basic maths. The world is all about maths, weapon balancing is no different. Actually, you can. It's not that hard actually. You want to know how? Design each thing around set strengths and weaknesses. For example, a vehicle is much better in a open environment vs. a infantry unit, but will suffer when in a closed in or tight environment with lots of foliage, rocks, etc. Damage types, and even the weapon that is being used is another example. Please I would love to see how you show AV having plenty of cover without giving it to HAV's how do you CALCULATE tanks getting stuck in tight corners, damage types and weapons are numbers so yes they can be calculated. Your still missing my point, if you start adding terrain advantages that don't have quantifiable values, you can't balance properly, just look at the repdrugar, it's designed to rep through damage at shorter ranges, but it works just as well with just a molehill between them, you can see it just from the maths That is why you break it down. So you're saying that all combat ever has to be on flat ground to be balanced? Oh sweet Jesus, put the spreadsheets down and just think about it........... No but you can't account for it any other way, its just not possible to do so, Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2871	Posted - 2014.05.20 22:50:00 - [7] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Mathmatically it is, 1 man in a tank is no different to a man in a suit, you have health, a weapon. You even have the same stats! Again, put the spreadsheets down and think about it. You see though your missing it, it's all in the spreadsheets, not just the spreadsheet that shows how the battle goes down but the big picture, what happens whem something requires more than 1 person to take down. When a Tank named X > Infantry Y X > Y X = 2Y X + Y > 2Y 6X + 10Y > 16Y 6X + 10Y = 32 Y Does that not seem grossly unbalanced? Never said it took more than one person to take a HAV down, learn to read. Then what are you saying? Should it, shouldn't it? If 1 person can kill it, in one scenario, they can potentially kill it any scenario, hence the open field! You cannot balance off of skill, amd terrain, it's not possible. Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2871	Posted - 2014.05.20 23:05:00 - [8] - Quote Godin Killer wrote: Quote: Quote: Never said it took more than one person to take a HAV down, learn to read. Then what are you saying? Should it, shouldn't it? If 1 person can kill it, in one scenario, they can potentially kill it any scenario, hence the open field! You cannot balance off of skill, amd terrain, it's not possible. Then explain how other games done it. They haven't, because you don't need to, if your balancing a shotgun you give high damage, short ramge and low accuracy. That's it, no terrain, cover or player skill involved, just pure and simple maths. If it is a short ramge weapon it should have the highest mathematical chamce of killing an opponent in the shortest time for that range. THAT IS IT, that is literally how weapons are balanced. In every game ever. Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2872	Posted - 2014.05.20 23:29:00 - [9] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Godin Killer wrote: Quote: Quote: Never said it took more than one person to take a HAV down, learn to read. Then what are you saying? Should it, shouldn't it? If 1 person can kill it, in one scenario, they can potentially kill it any scenario, hence the open field! You cannot balance off of skill, amd terrain, it's not possible. Then explain how other games done it. They haven't, because you don't need to, if your balancing a shotgun you give high damage, short ramge and low accuracy. That's it, no terrain, cover or player skill involved, just pure and simple maths. If it is a short ramge weapon it should have the highest mathematical chamce of killing an opponent in the shortest time for that range. THAT IS IT, that is literally how weapons are balanced. In every game ever. WE're not talking about just weapons, we're talking about hulls, as turrets, and their relationship between them. Yes, there's math involved making them, but you make it to where the said thing is good situation, and bad for another. Good against a said setup, bad against another. Good in X terrain, bad in another. Your own example even proves that, as you said it's a CQ weapon, which implies that it exels in CQ, but does **** all at range. I'll say it again, put down the spreadsheets and think about it. EDIT: Warthunder has done it by the way. As well as any DOTA copy game. Close Quarters is not an environment/terrian it is a range a quantifiable number, I can kill you in an open field with a shotgun, if Im at the ramge the shotgun is built for, but shotguns aren't meant to be used I that kind of terrain are they? Yet I can. Because you don't balance by terrain it is physically impossible. A shotgun is built for short range, it excels at short range. Short range is not an environment. Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2872	Posted - 2014.05.20 23:32:00 - [10] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: On equal grounds (skill, SP, equipment, positioning, numbers), a infantry player should be able to fend off against a vehicle, or vice versa. They would cancel each other out, If one of things becomes an advantage Gameplay wise this makes sense...... Logically it is seriously flawed. Sometimes logic doesn't make good balance imo Logic makes for perfect balance, it's a lack of logic that Allowed RR to have DPS comparable to the AR Allowed pretty much every weapon to out class a shotgun Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!

Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2873	Posted - 2014.05.21 10:13:00 - [11] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Logic makes for perfect balance, it's a lack of logic that Allowed RR to have DPS comparable to the AR Allowed pretty much every weapon to out class a shotgun I ask you a question: what environment does a shotgun do better than any rifle? Also, why does it? By answering that question, you will see what I mean. If not, That's a shame Also, a shotgun has a disadvantage in open field combat vs. a rifle. Answering the above question with rifles will tell you why. The weapon itself has no favour towards any particular enviroment, it simple favours close range, the enviroment this engagement takes place jn is neither here nor there, stop trying to bring me round to your logic and listen. A shotgun can kill just as well in an open field as it can a complex, the operation of use does not change dependent on the enviroment. I can stand in a field at 5m and kill you with a shotgun just as well as I can kill at you 5m inside a complex. Environment does not make the weapon more effective, what your probably trying to say is that shotguns favour complexs because it is easier to find someone in a favourable position. This does not effect balance though, because this engagement has already been balanced out on the coverless flat field. In short environment does not change the maths of the engagement! Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2873	Posted - 2014.05.21 10:40:00 - [12] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Logic makes for perfect balance, it's a lack of logic that Allowed RR to have DPS comparable to the AR Allowed pretty much every weapon to out class a shotgun I ask you a question: what environment does a shotgun do better than any rifle? Also, why does it? By answering that question, you will see what I mean. If not, That's a shame Also, a shotgun has a disadvantage in open field combat vs. a rifle. Answering the above question with rifles will tell you why. The weapon itself has no favour towards any particular enviroment, it simple favours close range, the enviroment this engagement takes place jn is neither here nor there, stop trying to bring me round to your logic and listen. A shotgun can kill just as well in an open field as it can a complex, the operation of use does not change dependent on the enviroment. I can stand in a field at 5m and kill you with a shotgun just as well as I can kill at you 5m inside a complex. Environment does not make the weapon more effective, what your probably trying to say is that shotguns favour complexs because it is easier to find someone in a favourable position. This does not effect balance though, because this engagement has already been balanced out on the coverless flat field. In short environment does not change the maths of the engagement! You still answered the question, you just disregarded the truth. and no, a shotgun is not as good in a open field as in a complex, as a shotgun user can much more easily close the gap in a closed in environment to get to its optimal rather than a open field. You're a lost cause it seems............ Doesn't change the engagement though does it, think about it! Would you really find it more difficultmto kill someone with a shotgun at 5m in an open field than at 5m inside a complex? "as a shotgun user can more easily close the gap in closed enviroment" exactly the chamces of finding a favourable engagement is increased, but the engagement does not change at all. Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2873	Posted - 2014.05.21 10:49:00 - [13] - Quote Hawk-eye Occultus wrote: If tanks are so easy to kill, what Is the point of having them? You seem to be mistaking my argument as an emotional pro tank one for some reason. Know that I am nether a tanker nor emotional. Let's say you are the leader of some faction. And you get the report from your advisers that all those tanks you ordered to be built have no greater a survival rate or effectiveness than infantry. You'd have to be stupid to keep making those tanks if that were the case, as production of vehicles is a costly process. It needs factories, operators must be specially trained, all the materials to make the tank... Point is, making 1-1 Infantry Vs. Vehicle makes no sense. As I said before, this is not an emotional argument. Tanks are designed to be hard to kill war machines. Ever heard of the British main battle tank; the Challenger 2? There is only 1 of the 466 made that was ever destroyed (and that was due to a friendly fire incident with another Challenger 2). One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs, and was completely unaffected. Given the current AV weapons set, I reiterate, that the only weapon that I believe may be suitable for 1v1 is the forge gun. Not because I'm a heavy. Not because I'm a tanker. Because of physics. Have a read of the forge gun description, it's great. If Tanks are more survivable and effecient than infantry, you get linear escalation, which is what we see in DUST at the moment, each team simply deploys as many HAV's as possible and whoever gains superiority will eventually win the match. You need circular escalation, so this means somewhere along the line something must be weak to infantry. Logically this is AV infantry, however if AV infantry isn't stronger than something else in the foodchain you end up with linear escalation again. Infantry AV < Infantry AI < (HAV AI < HAV AV) < Infantry AV Until we get more vehicle classes this is how it needs to be. Eventually this can be expanded with other classes, but even then something, whatever is at the top of the foodchain must be weak to what is at the bottom of the food chain. Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2873	Posted - 2014.05.21 11:02:00 - [14] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: I ask you a question: what environment does a shotgun do better than any rifle? Also, why does it? By answering that question, you will see what I mean. If not, That's a shame Also, a shotgun has a disadvantage in open field combat vs. a rifle. Answering the above question with rifles will tell you why. The weapon itself has no favour towards any particular enviroment, it simple favours close range, the enviroment this engagement takes place jn is neither here nor there, stop trying to bring me round to your logic and listen. A shotgun can kill just as well in an open field as it can a complex, the operation of use does not change dependent on the enviroment. I can stand in a field at 5m and kill you with a shotgun just as well as I can kill at you 5m inside a complex. Environment does not make the weapon more effective, what your probably trying to say is that shotguns favour complexs because it is easier to find someone in a favourable position. This does not effect balance though, because this engagement has already been balanced out on the coverless flat field. In short environment does not change the maths of the engagement! You still answered the question, you just disregarded the truth. and no, a shotgun is not as good in a open field as in a complex, as a shotgun user can much more easily close the gap in a closed in environment to get to its optimal rather than a open field. You're a lost cause it seems............ Doesn't change the engagement though does it, think about it! Would you really find it more difficultmto kill someone with a shotgun at 5m in an open field than at 5m inside a complex? "as a shotgun user can more easily close the gap in closed enviroment" exactly the chamces of finding a favourable engagement is increased, but the engagement does not change at all. You skip out on the entire engagement process. Do you just happen to always be within spitting distance of your enemy? Nope. It's quite the opposite. You have to get to them first. and in a open area, there's less of a chance that you'll get close enough before dying. That is not my opinion, that is fact, and you know it. Stop trying to fight me, as your argument looks only at pure numbers for balancing things, which doesn't work when there's actual variation to environments. No I merely startmthe engagement at the correct time, if you are in cover this is the same as not engaging the enemy since neither of you are firing upon each other, you are between engagememts. You do not need to consider enviroment if balance across a varied set of ranges, because each time you duck in and out of cover you reset the engagement, it's simple, your just to dense to see what Im getting at. But I will give it 1 more try. If an engagement starts at 5m in open field what is the difference from engagement that starts at 5m in a complex? None The range is the same, the accuracy is the same, the damage is the same, the ammo is the same. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2873	Posted - 2014.05.21 12:42:00 - [15] - Quote Hawk-eye Occultus wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: No I merely startmthe engagement at the correct time, if you are in cover this is the same as not engaging the enemy since neither of you are firing upon each other, you are between engagememts. You do not need to consider enviroment if balance across a varied set of ranges, because each time you duck in and out of cover you reset the engagement, it's simple, your just to dense to see what Im getting at. But I will give it 1 more try. If an engagement starts at 5m in open field what is the difference from engagement that starts at 5m in a complex? None The range is the same, the accuracy is the same, the damage is the same, the ammo is the same. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE There is a difference. As anyone teaching an a modern or even ancient school of warfare will tell you. Ever heard of Hannibal? Hannibal is famous, of course, for his many victories in battle against the Roman Empire. Critical in his battle plans were use of the terrain to ambush or trap his opponents or to offer a defensive advantage. At the time, Romans were a very technologically superior foe, Hannibal had to rely on cleverness and cunning to win the day. There is little question that, had he just met the Romans on a flat, open field, his army would have been slaughtered by the Romans... Oh wait, that did happen. Don't try to get off by saying "oh but that was before guns 'n ***"; because these same tactics are still taught and analysed in MODERN settings. Additionally, cover offers PROTECTION, flat ground does not. this is why D-Day had so many INFANTRY dead on the beaches (with no cover), where they were mowed down by machine gun fire from entrenched bunkers. In conclusion, terrain is EVEN MORE IMPORTANT with the advent of firearms, artillery, and all that stuff. True, but there is also no maths involved in real life, 1 shot will kill a man, therefore it comes down to can he shoot me back? Here in DUST we have DPS, EHP, Range all effecting the time it takes to kill. IRL it doesn't matter if I shoot you at 10yrds or 100yrds the bullet will still incapacitate you IRL it doesn't matter how big my sword is, 1 slice can kill you. IRL it doesn't matter how big the bullet is, most of them will incapacitate you IRL it doesn't matter how many bullets hit you, the first one will incapacitate you. In DUST all of these things matter. However flanking, sneak attacks and all that jazz can still easily be mathematically expressed. But so long as you can shot at your enemy, the enemy has the same chance of shooting back. Hence Maths. The problem is unless you have done an extensive amount of physics the idea of a simplified model is difficult to understand. So I will try to explain it as best I can. When you calculate the the trajectory of a projectile, you do not concern yourself with how or why the projectile is doing what it is doing, you do not care how it got in the position it is in. You only care about the information you can gleen from that snap shot in time. In terms of a single engagement between two people it doesn't matter how/where/why those people are in the positions they are in, they could be in any situation that gives the same parameters and will still pan out the same way. If I have a gun that does 400DPS and an accuracy of 60%, it doesn't matter how much sht is between me and my target, or where I am, the DPS does not change, the accuracy does not change. I could be in the cold void of space and the maths would still play out the same way. Therin you do not need to account for the terrain when balancing objects in a game because, if I can kill a guy at 5m with a shotgun, it doesn't matter where that 5m is (Space, the center of black hole, an open field, a corridor in a complex) I can still kill him just as well. Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2873	Posted - 2014.05.21 15:56:00 - [16] - Quote Hawk-eye Occultus wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: True, but there is also no maths involved in real life, 1 shot will kill a man, therefore it comes down to can he shoot me back? Here in DUST we have DPS, EHP, Range all effecting the time it takes to kill. IRL it doesn't matter if I shoot you at 10yrds or 100yrds the bullet will still incapacitate you IRL it doesn't matter how big my sword is, 1 slice can kill you. IRL it doesn't matter how big the bullet is, most of them will incapacitate you IRL it doesn't matter how many bullets hit you, the first one will incapacitate you. In DUST all of these things matter. However flanking, sneak attacks and all that jazz can still easily be mathematically expressed. But so long as you can shot at your enemy, the enemy has the same chance of shooting back. Hence Maths. The problem is unless you have done an extensive amount of physics the idea of a simplified model is difficult to understand. So I will try to explain it as best I can. When you calculate the the trajectory of a projectile, you do not concern yourself with how or why the projectile is doing what it is doing, you do not care how it got in the position it is in. You only care about the information you can gleen from that snap shot in time. In terms of a single engagement between two people it doesn't matter how/where/why those people are in the positions they are in, they could be in any situation that gives the same parameters and will still pan out the same way. If I have a gun that does 400DPS and an accuracy of 60%, it doesn't matter how much sht is between me and my target, or where I am, the DPS does not change, the accuracy does not change. I could be in the cold void of space and the maths would still play out the same way. Therin you do not need to account for the terrain when balancing objects in a game because, if I can kill a guy at 5m with a shotgun, it doesn't matter where that 5m is (Space, the center of black hole, an open field, a corridor in a complex) I can still kill him just as well. Worry not, I have a keen grasp on physics (including that of projectile motion and the like). I do have an issue with what you just said here though. Monkey MAC wrote:* If I have a gun that does 400DPS and an accuracy of 60%, it doesn't matter how much sht is between me and my target, or where I am, the DPS does not change, the accuracy does not change. I could be in the cold void of space and the maths would still play out the same way. Problem with that is, it doesn't matter how many bullets you are shooting; if the target has positioned himself such that there is a large block of industrial rebar and steel plate between him and the barrel of your gun, then he will be safe from attack. But, if you assume he has a mass driver, he can shoot over, and attack you. Cover and terrain must be taken into account. Lets go to your example of the shotgun that you are continuously using. Sure, it is true that it works just as well in a plex as outside on paper. But that does not take into account the constraints of these terrain types. On a perfectly flat surface, with no cover, a man with a rifle can kill our shotgun man from over 500m (far outside the effective range of said shotgun). If we have a large cover filed battlefield, with trenches, buildings and all that; the rifleman may not be able to see* the shotgun man, and also may not be able to attack him even if he knows where he is. This allows shotgun man to get closer to rifle man, and shoot him at point blank. The behaviour of weapons and tactics still has to be taken into account, otherwise, your model is flawed. Not quite because if cover is being used, your are in effect out of combat, as far as the math is concerned, so continuing with the shotgun. The 500m engagement at 500m is won by the rifle, so you end that engagement and restart it later, when the parameters are more in your favour. Your stopping and starting, it easier, mathematically to calculate it this way than doing a continual engagement starting at 500m with a tonne of cover. Do you see what I mean? You don't need to balance around the idea of cover and terrain, because you just restart the engagement each time you leave cover. Hence the shotgun only needs to balanced with the range, not with the terain, because in terms of the weapons use or operation, it is unchanged. Terrain facilitates you reaching the favourable engagement, it does not actually change the engagment. Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2873	Posted - 2014.05.22 08:45:00 - [17] - Quote Hawk-eye Occultus wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: As with weapons like the MassDriver you have to be out of cover in order to shoot the target, in cover you must out of cover to do so, as such you can assume the enemy will take the logical option and shoot back, or move out of the blast radius which has the same chance of happening with or without the cover. Have you ever used a Mass Driver? or a grenade launcher in other games? It works just like a mortar, allowing you to do this neat trick called: Shooting OVER the cover. Cause, ya know, the projectile arcs. So yeah, you DONT have to be out of cover. Prof 5 in Mass Drivers my friend, if the person is stupid enough to take multiple explosions to the face that has nothing to do with balance of the weapon. We almost had it earlier, like you said on paper it will not work any better inside or outside a complex. Therein when you a balancing something with maths the terrain can be excluded from the simplified model. As such you can't balance tanks vs infantry on the premise that infantry can hide in complexes, because any positives he infantry gains from the complex can also be used by the tank for his favour, if a weapon can kill a tank in a complex, in a single engagement then there is no reason why the same weapon won't be capable of killing the tank on any other terrain at the same range, thereby if the tank kill the AVer out in a field there is no reason he can't use the same weapon to kill me inside a complex. Thereby you cannot say "Tanks should only really be killed by infantry inside a complex", you can however say "Tanks shouldn't really be killed by infamtry at longer ranges" At which point I would agree and say "only if the force strength required to destroy the tank is equal to the force strength the tank currently possess" Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2875	Posted - 2014.05.22 15:51:00 - [18] - Quote Hawk-eye Occultus wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: [...] you can't balance tanks vs infantry on the premise that infantry can hide in complexes, because any positives he infantry gains from the complex can also be used by the tank for his favour [...] Just watch this, man... Just what benefit will the tank gain from being in a tiny street where it may not even be able to rotate it's barrel (without ripping it off)? 1) In-game tanks can rotate the turret irrespective of position. 2) dragons don't self heal 3) dragons don't take cover or wait until you move out to fire 4) If DUST Tankers were that dum, we wouldn't be having this converstation Basically it's all well and good saying "just stay in the complex" but if I can't kill him, I am achieving nothing more than hiding. And if I can kill him in the complex, then killing him outside the complex will be just as easy. The only weapon that can do what the video shows, is the forge gun, which is tethered to a heavy suit, the time it takes to move out, aim (because how many tankers are dum enough to remain stationary?), fire, move back into cover, is longer than it takes a blaster to find you rotate, and kill you. Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2875	Posted - 2014.05.22 23:31:00 - [19] - Quote Hawk-eye Occultus wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Hawk-eye Occultus wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: [...] you can't balance tanks vs infantry on the premise that infantry can hide in complexes, because any positives he infantry gains from the complex can also be used by the tank for his favour [...] Just watch this, man... Just what benefit will the tank gain from being in a tiny street where it may not even be able to rotate it's barrel (without ripping it off)? 1) In-game tanks can rotate the turret irrespective of position. 2) dragons don't self heal 3) dragons don't take cover or wait until you move out to fire 4) If DUST Tankers were that dum, we wouldn't be having this converstation Basically it's all well and good saying "just stay in the complex" but if I can't kill him, I am achieving nothing more than hiding. And if I can kill him in the complex, then killing him outside the complex will be just as easy. The only weapon that can do what the video shows, is the forge gun, which is tethered to a heavy suit, the time it takes to move out, aim (because how many tankers are dum enough to remain stationary?), fire, move back into cover, is longer than it takes a blaster to find you rotate, and kill you. Look at the above post (that I made), it was edited before you posted with a quote of the old one, and thus does not accurately reflect what my thoughts were. Edit accordingly. My apolgies, yes that is different, it also very easy to express mathematically. However you now bring a new point to the table tha must be discussed. If AV is only useful when the target cannot figt back, how do you transport troops across the ground? Furthermore how do assault a complex surrounded by open ground on all sides? You can either connect all complex's together, so that infa try never needs to leave them, this however marginalises tanks to the point of uselessness. Or you can take the high road literally and use aerial transport this once again marginalises tanks. Even if you split null cannon points evenly between tank and infantry controlled areas, you reach a stalemate where both sides have superiority in a specific theatre. Trying to solve that by skewing the results in favour of either theatre marginalises the other. Tanks and Infantry need to be working together across all theaters of war, otherwise those piloting tanks might as well be playing a different game. Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2875	Posted - 2014.05.23 05:57:00 - [20] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: [quote=Hawk-eye Occultus][quote=Monkey MAC][quote=Hawk-eye] Just watch this, man... Just what benefit will the tank gain from being in a tiny street where it may not even be able to rotate it's barrel (without ripping it off)? 1) In-game tanks can rotate the turret irrespective of position. 2) dragons don't self heal 3) dragons don't take cover or wait until you move out to fire 4) If DUST Tankers were that dum, we wouldn't be having this converstation Basically it's all well and good saying "just stay in the complex" but if I can't kill him, I am achieving nothing more than hiding. And if I can kill him in the complex, then killing him outside the complex will be just as easy. The only weapon that can do what the video shows, is the forge gun, which is tethered to a heavy suit, the time it takes to move out, aim (because how many tankers are dum enough to remain stationary?), fire, move back into cover, is longer than it takes a blaster to find you rotate, and kill you. No Godin, I explained when you look at stats there is simply no need to include terrain in your calculations. What is being described above can easily be expressed with maths, WITHOUT adding terrain to the equation. "If AV is balanced only when the Tank cannot retaliate" @Hawk-Eye, I don't even need to answer that question, they have done so for me, typecasting tanks by turret so stringently is not the best way to achieve balance. Infact doing this marganilises vehicles to the point of, why are we bothering? Tanks, irrespective of turret, need a general purpose. They need to be force multipliers, the act of deploying a tank, should improve the force strength of those around you. Suppressing enemy turrets or entrenchments allows infantry to be more effective, destroying high value targets such as CRU's and Supply depots stops the enemy from holding a position. Using rails as LOS artillery This is in the end of it all an infantry driven game, as such infantry will/must be involved in all facets of war, irrespective of terrain. Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!

Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2875	Posted - 2014.05.23 19:59:00 - [21] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: No Godin, I explained when you look at stats there is simply no need to include terrain in your calculations. What is being described above can easily be expressed with maths, WITHOUT adding terrain to the equation. "If AV is balanced only when the Tank cannot retaliate" @Hawk-Eye, I don't even need to answer that question, they have done so for me, typecasting tanks by turret so stringently is not the best way to achieve balance. Infact doing this marganilises vehicles to the point of, why are we bothering? Tanks, irrespective of turret, need a general purpose. They need to be force multipliers, the act of deploying a tank, should improve the force strength of those around you. Suppressing enemy turrets or entrenchments allows infantry to be more effective, destroying high value targets such as CRU's and Supply depots stops the enemy from holding a position. Using rails as LOS artillery This is in the end of it all an infantry driven game, as such infantry will/must be involved in all facets of war, irrespective of terrain. Hummm...... I guess you're for real a lost cause then Also, I assume you plan on driving a LAV through a ocean, or a jungle. If I drive it fast enough, and if I drive slow enough respectively! Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2875	Posted - 2014.05.23 23:10:00 - [22] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: No Godin, I explained when you look at stats there is simply no need to include terrain in your calculations. What is being described above can easily be expressed with maths, WITHOUT adding terrain to the equation. "If AV is balanced only when the Tank cannot retaliate" @Hawk-Eye, I don't even need to answer that question, they have done so for me, typecasting tanks by turret so stringently is not the best way to achieve balance. Infact doing this marganilises vehicles to the point of, why are we bothering? Tanks, irrespective of turret, need a general purpose. They need to be force multipliers, the act of deploying a tank, should improve the force strength of those around you. Suppressing enemy turrets or entrenchments allows infantry to be more effective, destroying high value targets such as CRU's and Supply depots stops the enemy from holding a position. Using rails as LOS artillery This is in the end of it all an infantry driven game, as such infantry will/must be involved in all facets of war, irrespective of terrain. Hummm...... I guess you're for real a lost cause then Also, I assume you plan on driving a LAV through a ocean, or a jungle. If I drive it fast enough, and if I drive slow enough respectively! Now I think you're just trolling me...... If you know I am trolling you, does that take the troll to a new level? Ill try and say what im saying one more time. When you are modifying stats (DPS, Range, etc) the effects of your terrain (amount of available cover, likelyhood of reaching favoured range) are both difficult to calculate and redundant in their inclusion. Basically as far as the maths is concerned, if can't be simulated using as few parameters as possible, then its overly complicated. ON PAPER a shotgun performs no better in specific environments. This means so long as a tank can kill you in one place, he has just as much opportunity to kill you elsewhere. Therein in order for complexs to be run purely by infantry, tanks and other vehicles need to be incapable of damaging infantry, YET infantry would still be able to attack vehicles. As such all complexs can be constructed too open and require complete re-design. However this just causes to instances of linear escalation, you either own the complex's or you own the ground around, doing both is logistically difficult bodering on impossible. Therin if you have a 4 point map, 2 points in compelexs and 2 on open ground, the result is those who use 6 tanks get open ground superiority, yetmthe remaining 10 men are no match for 16 men from the other team. The result both teams has 2 points and a stalemate is reached based on whomhacks the points fastest. In the event of 3/5 point map, the theatre with most null cannons is considered the highest priority and the other effectively marginalised! This poor dynamic gameplay. What needs to happen is that Tanks are killing infantry, infantry are killing tanks, tanks are killing tanks and infantry are killing infantry. This is circular escalation, there is no one item (or set ) that unequivocally owns a specific theatre. Instead you do rock,paper,scissors. If I send rocks, you send paper, so I send scissprs and you send rocks. Eventually a combination of all three are present on the field and you get balanced all out warfare. Whichnis altogether much more fun. Am I making sense, I understand I was probably a bit confusing earlier, but Im currently sitting a metric sh*ttonne of unoversity exams, you can hardly blame me! Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2875	Posted - 2014.05.24 10:07:00 - [23] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: What I hate is that people talk about vehicles vs AV in terms of rock-paper-scissors. It shouldn't be. While a sentinel is a heavy frame, an HAV, for example, should be thought of as a VERY heavy frame. What the HAV has in firepower, the sentinel makes up for in mobility- you aren't going to see a vehicle walking through a doorway and climbing a set of stairs to the roof. Essentially, saying it should take several AVers to kill an HAV is like saying it should take several scouts to kill a sentinel. In more coherent english, vehicles should usually win in situations that favor vehicles (open areas), while infantry should usually win in situations that favor infantry (urban areas). However this just causes two instances of linear escalation, you either own the complex's or you own the ground around, doing both is logistically difficult bodering on impossible. Therin if you have a 4 point map, 2 points in compelexs and 2 on open ground, the result is those who use 6 tanks get open ground superiority, yetmthe remaining 10 men are no match for 16 men from the other team. The result both teams has 2 points and a stalemate is reached based on whomhacks the points fastest. In the event of 3/5 point map, the theatre with most null cannons is considered the highest priority and the other effectively marginalised! This poor dynamic gameplay. What needs to happen is that Tanks are killing infantry, infantry are killing tanks, tanks are killing tanks and infantry are killing infantry. Light ~< Assault ~< Heavy ~< Light Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.