|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ZDub 303
Escrow Removal and Acquisition
Negative-Feedback
2965
   |
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
If it takes two infantry to kill a tank it should take two tanks to kill a single infantry.
Balance. |
ZDub 303
Escrow Removal and Acquisition
Negative-Feedback
2967
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
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? |
ZDub 303
Escrow Removal and Acquisition
Negative-Feedback
2967
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:30:00 -
[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? single user vs single user.
Should an assault rifle 1v1 a tank? Lolno, im all for that.
Why should a single player command that much force? If tanks were still 1 million isk I could see a point.
Everything should have a counter of appropriate investment. For everyone thinking im being an idiot, I can appreciate your standpoint but im playing devil's advocate for a second here. Convince me why a single player in a tank should require multiple players of any form to take him down.
There needs to be a balancing factor. ISK - nope, tanks are, in many cases cheaper than proto fit dropsuits.
SP? Not really, a fully core skilled proto AV player gets pretty close in SP investment to a decently fit tank.
So what is it? Why should the only counter to a tank be another tank? In any other game, or any other facet of this game that would be considered unbalanced.
Why do tankers deserve special treatment?
If a tank requires 2-3 operators for max efficacy I would be 100% for them taking even 4-5 players to take them down (2-3 players working in unison is no small feat and deserves a power differential for it). We're talking 1 player vs 1 player, why does the tank deserve invincibility in that situation?
Remove large blasters from the game or nerf it to be as effective against infantry as a rail and im 100% for 2-3 AV users taking a tank down as well. As the efficacy of large rails and large missiles against infantry aren't great... there is balance.
Otherwise, its 1v1 - its the same as a heavy vs a scout or any other situation. 1 player vs 1 player. |
ZDub 303
Escrow Removal and Acquisition
Negative-Feedback
2967
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:46:00 -
[4] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:ZDub 303 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? single user vs single user. Should an assault rifle 1v1 a tank? Lolno, im all for that. Why should a single player command that much force? If tanks were still 1 million isk I could see a point. Everything should have a counter of appropriate investment. For everyone thinking im being an idiot, I can appreciate your standpoint but im playing devil's advocate for a second here. Convince me why a single player in a tank should require multiple players of any form to take him down. There needs to be a balancing factor. ISK - nope, tanks are, in many cases cheaper than proto fit dropsuits. SP? Not really, a fully core skilled proto AV player gets pretty close in SP investment to a decently fit tank. So what is it? Why should the only counter to a tank be another tank? In any other game, or any other facet of this game that would be considered unbalanced. Why do tankers deserve special treatment? If a tank requires 2-3 operators for max efficacy I would be 100% for them taking even 4-5 players to take them down (2-3 players working in unison is no small feat and deserves a power differential for it). We're talking 1 player vs 1 player, why does the tank deserve invincibility in that situation? Remove large blasters from the game or nerf it to be as effective against infantry as a rail and im 100% for 2-3 AV users taking a tank down as well. Otherwise, its 1v1 - its the same as a heavy vs a scout or any other situation. 1 player vs 1 player. 1: Did I ever say that it should take multiple players to take down a single HAV? NO. Learn to read. 2: Let's see: Going into Legion, a Pilot will have to skill for: Pilot dropsuit modules to put on pilot dropsuit T I HAV of race's choice T II HAV of choice (to keep it equal with infantry using a T II suit) modules to fit on HAV That makes it around 2x the SP for a pilot to max out it's specialization, but for one type of vehicle (there's more than just HAV's, and yes, it's not all about HAV's in this thread). But to be fair, well just stick with just one, otherwise, the difference would be insane  3: Whoever said that you needed to kill the HAV?
1: So you'll agree then that a single player should be able to take down a single tank? Okay we're getting somewhere at least. fwiw my comment was directed at 501st who said it should. Then you said its not the same thing, when in fact its exactly the same thing. 1v1 should be balanced as long as both players have the appropriate tools.
2: Pure speculation - my only comment would be that if an HAV is a solo-operated vehicle in legion then there should exist the tools for an anti-vehicle specialist to destroy an HAV solo. If it takes a similar SP investment from both players that is completely fine, that would be balanced.
3: As long as you concede that the HAV shouldn't be able to kill infantry either. |
ZDub 303
Escrow Removal and Acquisition
Negative-Feedback
2973
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 12:59:00 -
[5] - 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.
In the end it doesnt matter though, you cannot make a tank that requires multiple infantry to destroy if that tank is only operated by a single player.
It is, functionally, exactly the same as saying a heavy suit should require multiple infantry to kill. Does that not sound overpowered? Because its exactly the same from a game balance standpoint, exactly. It is a single player wielding enough power to require multiple players to kill him, no matter the graphic you apply to it.
Just because you 'feel' that a tank should require multiple players to kill because it 'makes sense' does not mean it automatically balances it for gameplay.
Just look at ambush, if one team has two tanks and the other side does not, guess who wins?
The only reason tanks are somewhat balanced in some domination maps and some skirmish maps is because the map design excluded them from the objectives. Seriously, it was balanced because tanks weren't allowed to be there. Can you seriously not see the imbalance?
In the end it all revolves around the Large Blaster.
Tank vs Tank is finding balance (though damage mods are waaaay too strong atm) and turrets like the rail and missiles are fine against infantry. If the Large Blaster didn't exist, then it would be completely reasonable to expect a minimum of two coordinated infantry to take down a tank. Why? Because a similar effort would be require from the tanker (given you would need a small turret operator as well for anti-infantry). There does exist the possibility that a large rail and large missile turret cam kill infantry on its own but they are not that effective so its generally fine.
You have balance it so that the TTK of a tank from specialized AV is similar to the TTK of an infantry person from the Large Blaster. Either nerfing the large blaster vs infantry or buffing AV vs vehicles. We've already tried the latter in 1.0-1.6 and it didn't seem to work well so I guess the former is up next. |
ZDub 303
Escrow Removal and Acquisition
Negative-Feedback
2973
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:24:00 -
[6] - Quote
Hawk-eye Occultus wrote:
Never said anything about them being operated by one player.
You could easily have the main cannon being operated by a second player (thus requiring an actual "tank crew" of at least 2)
Also in my post summarising vehicles (in this very thread, I might add), I actually covered numbers needed to kill.
Be carefully suggesting such heresy...
Sure if a tank requires multiple operators you can do that then, and it will be balanced that way as well.
Hawk-eye Occultus wrote: [...] unless in the case of traps set by individuals (with RE's Proxies, Mines, et al.), very special weapons, or simple lack of parity (a prototype/officer Anti-Vehicle Vs. Militia Vehicle); there must be a minimum number of infantry that work together to defeat a vehicle. [...] And, you just saved me a lot of time with this one: ZDub 303 wrote:[...] Just look at ambush, if one team has two tanks and the other side does not, guess who wins? [...] Your experiences with tanks have been due to the fact that ambush is almost always on open ground, where tanks are supposed to excel. Come the possibility of tightly packed environments and urban settings in Legion, tanks will not be able to capitalize on it's open ground advantage so easily. The imbalance lies not with the tank, but with the map design.
I feel its poor game design if your 'balancing' is done by designing your maps in such a way that you are excluding tanks from portions of the map.
I understand the premise behind it, and I wont say its wrong but it severely hinders map design - and I don't want to count on map designers to be the counter-balance to tank power.
Hawk-eye Occultus wrote:
As for the blaster turret, it should be that if you are using that, then it works very poorly against other vehicles, thus requiring either Infantry or Vehicle AV support. Small turrets are more for self-defence only, not really for mounting an attack (at least for something as slow as a tank, which should be slow, not the lightning fast things we see).
So that is the current food chain.
Infantry kills AV infantry kills AV tanks kills blaster tanks kills infantry.
And that is not bad on its, its okay. The problem is that some of those are soft counters and some are hard counters. If tanks are going to have seriously infantry killing potential then infantry must have serious tank kill potential. Either separate them entirely or the street has to go both ways.
As already said in another post.
An AV infantry can hold its own against AI infantry, its not optimal but its possible.
A blaster tank can hold its own against a rail or missile tank, its not optimal but its possible.
AV Infantry pretty much cant do **** against a blaster if that blaster is even half cognizant, I've never lost a blaster tank to infantry that didn't have a rail with them.
AI infantry cannot touch tanks at all... not even scare them away. AV grenades did that before but have been nerfed into uselessness.
An AV tank is sort of okay against infantry AV depending on the situation, but in the end its extremely easy to just drive away.
The problem is the tank gains too many pros and doesnt have to accept many cons for that power.
So we either remove blaster tank from the equation or we buff AV and AV nades again significantly.
Or we go a different route and rebalance # of operators.
No matter what, a solo operated tank cannot be 'unsoloable' by infantry as long as the blaster exists as anti-infantry. |
ZDub 303
Escrow Removal and Acquisition
Negative-Feedback
2981
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 03:01:00 -
[7] - 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).
That would work if map design actually supported it..... |
|
|
| |
|