| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2358
   |
Posted - 2014.05.20 19:28:00 -
[1] - Quote
People keep on talking as if it's a binary, " It should take X number of X to kill X", and it should be no other way. I think that's wrong. It should go on a more fluid model:
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, Then the opponent /yourself won't be able do their job, as well as having to flee or be killed soon after. if 2+ are an advantage, the opponent/yourself has a high chance of dying.
There will be those exceptions of course, where a person might not be able to combat the target (no AV weapons, out of ammo, etc.), or one is massively superior than the other, in which warrants a easy victory (which doesn't warrant a kill btw, just you winning the fight).
Thought I'd mention this, as both sides of the vehicle argument thinks this is the only way of going about things, when imo it isn't.
Peace, Godin 
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
501st Headstrong
G0DS AM0NG MEN
General Tso's Alliance
222
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
I agree and disagree.
A tank should not die to a single infantry player, that would mean as a tank, you'd be a glass cannon. Any of 16 players, including other tanks could kill you, thus making it ineffective to run a tank. But not everyone has gun game, so that is segregating and hurting the population. If someone has AV hades and Swarm Launchers at Proto, it should be able to kill a militia tank. However, a player with23 million SP into Tanks should not die to a 23 million Sp player, because then two players with 10 million by your logic could kill him, and that's assuming their role is strictly AV, with points put only into AV gear.
The trick to balancing tanks and infantry is to make it so that running a tank inspires fear. If I saw a tank in actuality, I'd run. Why? It has a cannon that could tear my bones from muscles in one shot. However, players shouldn't have to field 4 soldiers in order to get rid of one, and many don't. People miss 1.6, where you whip out hades, and then fire one Swarm Volley to kill a Madrugar. This would be acceptable if the tank wasn't 1 million Isk, but it was. Players like the done it, do it, did it game, where they are the COD man getting all the kills and making all the booms. Teamwork is absent in their mind.
Use Proxy explosives. Tell a friend. 8 proxies at 750 damage each equates to 6000 damage, enough to blow up Sicas and hardened Somas. All it takes is to tell a friend. But no. People just expect others to do it for them, and so no one does anything. You go up against any sq of Gods Among Men, and we'll have AV.
People need to stop being lazy, and that will solve many QQing. If everyone has some piece of AV, tankers will be wary. a road could have proxies, Forge guns may be lurking, Swarms not equipped to keep out the guise, or nades at the ready with Cloaky RE scouts on the prowl.
Adapt. But I do agree that Somas are extremely powerful in their current state. Hence forth why we need the vehicle variation or 1.6, where a Falchion screwed Somas for breakfast.
Basically, a militia tank should have a Chance against Standard, half chance against advance, and a slim (quarter) chance against Proto, with nearly none against Officer( if we get those)
AV should work in countenance, but it should take at least 2 people, or one fully kitted out a Aver. Example: A Commando with a Proto Plasma Cannon, Boundless Proxies, Swarm Launcher Prof 5, can take out a Proto Tank. However, people come at tanks wrong, firing swarms and forges dead on, where the blaster can see you. Set up choke points, lay proxies behind the tank so when it backs up from incoming fire, he's done.
Congrats, you have just learned my secrets to killing tanks. And most importantly, if tanks are deadly to infantry, have a tank at ready to combat it if infantry is making it hard to get a lock on
Peace, and see you in battle :)
From the Clone Wars I came. Here, I am a man among tamed beasts, and a god...among men.- 501st Headstrong.
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2358
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
501st Headstrong wrote:I agree and disagree.
A tank should not die to a single infantry player, that would mean as a tank, you'd be a glass cannon. Any of 16 players, including other tanks could kill you, thus making it ineffective to run a tank. But not everyone has gun game, so that is segregating and hurting the population. If someone has AV hades and Swarm Launchers at Proto, it should be able to kill a militia tank. However, a player with23 million SP into Tanks should not die to a 23 million Sp player, because then two players with 10 million by your logic could kill him, and that's assuming their role is strictly AV, with points put only into AV gear.
The trick to balancing tanks and infantry is to make it so that running a tank inspires fear. If I saw a tank in actuality, I'd run. Why? It has a cannon that could tear my bones from muscles in one shot. However, players shouldn't have to field 4 soldiers in order to get rid of one, and many don't. People miss 1.6, where you whip out hades, and then fire one Swarm Volley to kill a Madrugar. This would be acceptable if the tank wasn't 1 million Isk, but it was. Players like the done it, do it, did it game, where they are the COD man getting all the kills and making all the booms. Teamwork is absent in their mind.
Use Proxy explosives. Tell a friend. 8 proxies at 750 damage each equates to 6000 damage, enough to blow up Sicas and hardened Somas. All it takes is to tell a friend. But no. People just expect others to do it for them, and so no one does anything. You go up against any sq of Gods Among Men, and we'll have AV.
People need to stop being lazy, and that will solve many QQing. If everyone has some piece of AV, tankers will be wary. a road could have proxies, Forge guns may be lurking, Swarms not equipped to keep out the guise, or nades at the ready with Cloaky RE scouts on the prowl.
Adapt. But I do agree that Somas are extremely powerful in their current state. Hence forth why we need the vehicle variation or 1.6, where a Falchion screwed Somas for breakfast.
Basically, a militia tank should have a Chance against Standard, half chance against advance, and a slim (quarter) chance against Proto, with nearly none against Officer( if we get those)
AV should work in countenance, but it should take at least 2 people, or one fully kitted out a Aver. Example: A Commando with a Proto Plasma Cannon, Boundless Proxies, Swarm Launcher Prof 5, can take out a Proto Tank. However, people come at tanks wrong, firing swarms and forges dead on, where the blaster can see you. Set up choke points, lay proxies behind the tank so when it backs up from incoming fire, he's done.
Congrats, you have just learned my secrets to killing tanks. And most importantly, if tanks are deadly to infantry, have a tank at ready to combat it if infantry is making it hard to get a lock on
Peace, and see you in battle :)
You got the idea actually. If one person uses The right equipment, and positions it correctly, then whatever vehicle it is fighting against (in your case, proxies vs. a HAV), then the guy who put them down (your friend) would win the fight (the HAV goes boom).
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.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
ZDub 303
Escrow Removal and Acquisition
Negative-Feedback
2965
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
If it takes two infantry to kill a tank it should take two tanks to kill a single infantry.
Balance. |
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2360
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:39:00 -
[5] - Quote
ZDub 303 wrote:If it takes two infantry to kill a tank it should take two tanks to kill a single infantry.
Balance.
..............................................
You know what, I'm not even going to......
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Hawk-eye Occultus
ARKOMBlNE
206
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:44:00 -
[6] - Quote
ZDub 303 wrote:If it takes two infantry to kill a tank it should take two tanks to kill a single infantry.
Balance.
http://youtu.be/RA06Z5e1ZFc?t=4s
Shofixti beats an Ur-Quan Dreadnought and a Kor-Ah Marauder.
|
501st Headstrong
G0DS AM0NG MEN
General Tso's Alliance
222
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:50:00 -
[7] - Quote
ZDub 303 wrote:If it takes two infantry to kill a tank it should take two tanks to kill a single infantry.
Balance.
Did you not read a frickin word of my post? Or are you trolling?
From the Clone Wars I came. Here, I am a man among tamed beasts, and a god...among men.- 501st Headstrong.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2869
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:58:00 -
[8] - 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!
|
Hawk-eye Occultus
ARKOMBlNE
207
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 21:59:00 -
[9] - Quote
501st Headstrong wrote:ZDub 303 wrote:If it takes two infantry to kill a tank it should take two tanks to kill a single infantry.
Balance. Did you not read a frickin word of my post? Or are you trolling?
Hush! My child...
It is already to late for the little one...
Shofixti beats an Ur-Quan Dreadnought and a Kor-Ah Marauder.
|
501st Headstrong
G0DS AM0NG MEN
General Tso's Alliance
222
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:03:00 -
[10] - Quote
Hawk-eye Occultus wrote:501st Headstrong wrote:ZDub 303 wrote:If it takes two infantry to kill a tank it should take two tanks to kill a single infantry.
Balance. Did you not read a frickin word of my post? Or are you trolling? Hush! My child... It is already to late for the little one...
Sorry father. I just get annoyed when the schoolkids don't read all my hard work...
From the Clone Wars I came. Here, I am a man among tamed beasts, and a god...among men.- 501st Headstrong.
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2363
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:07:00 -
[11] - Quote
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.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
501st Headstrong
G0DS AM0NG MEN
General Tso's Alliance
222
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:15:00 -
[12] - 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.
I could go with that. However I'd have to argue that this is already the case, and that Railguns are made for open maps, blasters for cities, and missiles for mid range both, but with drawbacks
From the Clone Wars I came. Here, I am a man among tamed beasts, and a god...among men.- 501st Headstrong.
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2365
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:18:00 -
[13] - Quote
501st Headstrong 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. I could go with that. However I'd have to argue that this is already the case, and that Railguns are made for open maps, blasters for cities, and missiles for mid range both, but with drawbacks
They need balancing, and really, it's long medium and short range as it should be, (and the "missiles" are really rockets tbh, so they need a shorter range, and less damage imo, and missiles needs adding).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2869
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:18:00 -
[14] - 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!
|
ZDub 303
Escrow Removal and Acquisition
Negative-Feedback
2967
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:20:00 -
[15] - 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? |
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2365
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:22:00 -
[16] - Quote
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...........
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2869
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:24:00 -
[17] - 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!
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2365
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:25:00 -
[18] - Quote
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...........
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2365
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:26:00 -
[19] - Quote
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.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2871
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:29:00 -
[20] - 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!
|
|
|
ZDub 303
Escrow Removal and Acquisition
Negative-Feedback
2967
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:30:00 -
[21] - 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. |
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2365
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:31:00 -
[22] - Quote
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.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2871
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:38:00 -
[23] - 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!
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2365
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:38:00 -
[24] - Quote
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?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2365
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:39:00 -
[25] - Quote
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.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2871
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:41:00 -
[26] - 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!
|
ZDub 303
Escrow Removal and Acquisition
Negative-Feedback
2967
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:46:00 -
[27] - 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. |
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2871
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:50:00 -
[28] - 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!
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2365
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 22:55:00 -
[29] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote: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.
Then explain how other games done it.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
10256
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 23:04:00 -
[30] - Quote
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.
Markdown:
|
|
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2871
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 23:05:00 -
[31] - 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!
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2365
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 23:18:00 -
[32] - Quote
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.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2365
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 23:22:00 -
[33] - Quote
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
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2872
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 23:29:00 -
[34] - 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 -
[35] - 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!
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2365
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 23:40:00 -
[36] - Quote
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.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2365
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 23:41:00 -
[37] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote: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
a lack of balancing skills by the devs made those things happen, not a lack of logic.............
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Hawk-eye Occultus
ARKOMBlNE
208
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 00:05:00 -
[38] - Quote
FOR GOD'S SAKE!
This discussion of having "everything done by spreadsheet" is STUPID!
Let me ask you one question: Have you ever heard of this thing called "play-testing"? it allows you to see the effects of unquantifiable values (such as cover, terrain and other stuff) in both controlled and uncontrolled conditions.
If a tank was unable to survive attack from a single person, it would be uneconomical to make said tank.
Unlike people, the machines (vehicles) are able to carry much thicker armour plating and are more durable, and they can carry much bulkier weapon systems. In addition, there are many defence systems that protect against exotic anti-vehicle weapons [1][2][3][4][5][6]
Thus, (for a tank), I can only see the Forge Gun as being any major threat, as missiles, rockets, and grenades have many countermeasures against them. This fit in with the motif of tanks being something to be feared; they are the ones who push you over.
This would not be true for dropships, however. As aircraft, they have precious little capacity for armour (or space for shield generators) that can be applied, thus they would be VERY vulnerable to attack by all current AV weapons. They would instead rely very heavily on their speed and agility to outmanoeuvre attack.
LAV's would be similar to dropships (in two dimensions), slightly tougher, but still very vulnerable.
Since we don't have MAV's, I couldn't comment on those.
Shofixti beats an Ur-Quan Dreadnought and a Kor-Ah Marauder.
|
Maken Tosch
DUST University
Ivy League
8671
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 00:13:00 -
[39] - Quote
Just don't let General Motors manufacture the LAVs anymore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6IZ2TroruU&list=FLWAVCGsyDP1eXxAenraZ-KA&index=2
On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2365
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 00:19:00 -
[40] - Quote
Hawk-eye Occultus wrote:FOR GOD'S SAKE! This discussion of having "everything done by spreadsheet" is STUPID! Let me ask you one question: Have you ever heard of this thing called "play-testing"? it allows you to see the effects of unquantifiable values (such as cover, terrain and other stuff) in both controlled and uncontrolled conditions. If a tank was unable to survive attack from a single person, it would be uneconomical to make said tank. Unlike people, the machines (vehicles) are able to carry much thicker armour plating and are more durable, and they can carry much bulkier weapon systems. In addition, there are many defence systems that protect against exotic anti-vehicle weapons [1][2][3][4][5][6]Thus, (for a tank), I can only see the Forge Gun as being any major threat, as missiles, rockets, and grenades have many countermeasures against them. This fit in with the motif of tanks being something to be feared; they are the ones who push you over. This would not be true for dropships, however. As aircraft, they have precious little capacity for armour (or space for shield generators) that can be applied, thus they would be VERY vulnerable to attack by all current AV weapons. They would instead rely very heavily on their speed and agility to outmanoeuvre attack. LAV's would be similar to dropships (in two dimensions), slightly tougher, but still very vulnerable. Since we don't have MAV's, I couldn't comment on those.
You make a good point, and I agree with you, but there shouldn't be a "One is better than the other period", which is the whole point of me making this thread.I think you get that though.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2367
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 00:27:00 -
[41] - Quote
That we can agree on lol
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Hawk-eye Occultus
ARKOMBlNE
209
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 01:00:00 -
[42] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:You make a good point, and I agree with you, but there shouldn't be a "One is better than the other period", which is the whole point of me making this thread.I think you get that though.
I do agree with you on it not being a case of "one is better than the other period." (Even if the post didn't exactly sound like that). But there should still be advantages and incentives to using vehicles over infantry, otherwise vehicles become redundant, useless wastes of resources even.
Balancing vehicles and infantry is a very difficult thing to pin down in 6 000 characters, let alone an entire thread; but it stands to reason the following points:
* Certain AV weapons are necessarily more effective against one vehicle type than another.
* The ability for an AV unit to attack and destroy a vehicle should be proportional to both the difficulty of use, and specialization of the AV ordinance.
* It is basically a requirement to mirror reality that, 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.
Vehicles themselves would also need the following characteristics:
* Specialization:
** A tank with a weapon designed to mow down squads of infantry will fare very badly against an AV Vehicle.
** Conversely, AV Vehicles would be ineffective at attacking infantry (although tank may not be vulnerable, if there are no AV infantry present)
** There must be NO or VERY LITTLE ability for these two rules to be bent or broken EXCEPT IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES.
* Resistance:
** Simple: They are harder to kill than equivalent heavy infantry.
** Still vulnerable to attack and environmental damage (where applicable).
* Cost
** Depending on how superior to infantry vehicles are, vehicles will be more expensive to buy, run, and train for (but not too costly as to be uneconomical in occasional circumstance).
** Also must take into account the fact that vehicles are unable to move through/more restricted in movement while in urban areas, interior spaces, and small overhangs above 5 mile high cliff faces.
On the subject of cliffs; NO INERTIA DAMPENERS for vehicles.
Shofixti beats an Ur-Quan Dreadnought and a Kor-Ah Marauder.
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2367
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 01:09:00 -
[43] - Quote
Hawk-eye Occultus wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:You make a good point, and I agree with you, but there shouldn't be a "One is better than the other period", which is the whole point of me making this thread.I think you get that though. I do agree with you on it not being a case of "one is better than the other period." (Even if the post didn't exactly sound like that). But there should still be advantages and incentives to using vehicles over infantry, otherwise vehicles become redundant, useless wastes of resources even. Balancing vehicles and infantry is a very difficult thing to pin down in 6 000 characters, let alone an entire thread; but it stands to reason the following points: * Certain AV weapons are necessarily more effective against one vehicle type than another. * The ability for an AV unit to attack and destroy a vehicle should be proportional to both the difficulty of use, and specialization of the AV ordinance. * It is basically a requirement to mirror reality that, 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. Vehicles themselves would also need the following characteristics: * Specialization: ** A tank with a weapon designed to mow down squads of infantry will fare very badly against an AV Vehicle. ** Conversely, AV Vehicles would be ineffective at attacking infantry (although tank may not be vulnerable, if there are no AV infantry present) ** There must be NO or VERY LITTLE ability for these two rules to be bent or broken EXCEPT IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES. * Resistance: ** Simple: They are harder to kill than equivalent heavy infantry. ** Still vulnerable to attack and environmental damage (where applicable). * Cost ** Depending on how superior to infantry vehicles are, vehicles will be more expensive to buy, run, and train for (but not too costly as to be uneconomical in occasional circumstance). ** Also must take into account the fact that vehicles are unable to move through/more restricted in movement while in urban areas, interior spaces, and small overhangs above 5 mile high cliff faces. On the subject of cliffs; NO INERTIA DAMPENERS for vehicles.
Only problem I have with this is the part where you talk about turrets (what do you think a turret that is AI friendly vs. AV friendly is?), and the part where you say that there is at minimum, which I think you covered under the "There's exceptions to the rules", so I'll let it slide.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Hawk-eye Occultus
ARKOMBlNE
210
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 01:16:00 -
[44] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Only problem I have with this is the part where you talk about turrets (what do you think a turret that is AI friendly vs. AV friendly is?), and the part where you say that there is at minimum, which I think you covered under the "There's exceptions to the rules", so I'll let it slide.
What can I say?
I'm an expert in ensuring all loose ends are tied down. Keep everything as watertight as you can, saves a lot of bother.
Shofixti beats an Ur-Quan Dreadnought and a Kor-Ah Marauder.
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2368
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 01:37:00 -
[45] - Quote
Hawk-eye Occultus wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Only problem I have with this is the part where you talk about turrets (what do you think a turret that is AI friendly vs. AV friendly is?), and the part where you say that there is at minimum, which I think you covered under the "There's exceptions to the rules", so I'll let it slide. What can I say? I'm an expert in ensuring all loose ends are tied down. Keep everything as watertight as you can, saves a lot of bother.
Well, you left me hanging on the turrets (read my last post again), but otherwise, yea, you did.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Hawk-eye Occultus
ARKOMBlNE
211
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 02:07:00 -
[46] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Hawk-eye Occultus wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Only problem I have with this is the part where you talk about turrets (what do you think a turret that is AI friendly vs. AV friendly is?), and the part where you say that there is at minimum, which I think you covered under the "There's exceptions to the rules", so I'll let it slide. What can I say? I'm an expert in ensuring all loose ends are tied down. Keep everything as watertight as you can, saves a lot of bother. Well, you left me hanging on the turrets (read my last post again), but otherwise, yea, you did.
I will cover turrets tomorrow, as it is sleepy mc dreamtime, and I cannot be bothered to get myself into objective mode.
Shofixti beats an Ur-Quan Dreadnought and a Kor-Ah Marauder.
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2368
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 02:19:00 -
[47] - Quote
Hawk-eye Occultus wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Hawk-eye Occultus wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Only problem I have with this is the part where you talk about turrets (what do you think a turret that is AI friendly vs. AV friendly is?), and the part where you say that there is at minimum, which I think you covered under the "There's exceptions to the rules", so I'll let it slide. What can I say? I'm an expert in ensuring all loose ends are tied down. Keep everything as watertight as you can, saves a lot of bother. Well, you left me hanging on the turrets (read my last post again), but otherwise, yea, you did. I will cover turrets tomorrow, as it is sleepy mc dreamtime, and I cannot be bothered to get myself into objective mode.
roger
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Ayures II
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
652
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 02:22:00 -
[48] - Quote
Yet another **** thread from Godin.
If tanks are solo-able by random infantry, nobody will run a ******* tank. Why risk a 150m tank when some scrub in a 10m suit is just going to come by and pop it like it's nothing?
PC Master Race
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2369
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 02:37:00 -
[49] - Quote
Ayures II wrote:Yet another **** thread from Godin.
If tanks are solo-able by random infantry, nobody will run a ******* tank. Why risk a 150m tank when some scrub in a 10m suit is just going to come by and pop it like it's nothing?
............... And yet again a ******* idiot who doesn't know how to read. I'm not even going to bother...........
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
719
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 06:58:00 -
[50] - Quote
As long as you allow infantry and vehicles to interact, meaning tanks can kill infantry, then you can't have balance unless you balance them as if they were equivalent to infantry. The description Hawk-eye makes of tanks makes no logical, rational or numerical sense but is instead based on an emotional appeal about how fearsome tanks should be. What is lost is that a tank is merely one player, no overwhelming advantage should be given to one player simply because of their chosen role. Haven't you learned this from Dust?
So the options are either don't allow vehicles and infantry to interact in any meaningful way or you balance vehicles 1-1 with infantry. The solution is to make vehicles cheap and comparatively easy to kill. A tank that costs as much as a proto suit should die as easily as that proto suit. Vehicles should be a different way of playing, not an inherently superior way of playing and any build that makes it so that it is not a 1-1 equation is not going to be balanced.
I have seen no argument about why 1 player should be given a huge advantage of other players other than "it is a frikking tank". The idea that balance can be achieved through a rock-scissors flowchart like this
IAV< INF< AIV< AVV< IAV
While it looks like possible balance when written this way, several things are left out. First the symbol (<) doesn't convey much information 1<2 and 1<1000 are both true but not equivalent. In this case the counter to a class is still vulnerable to that class, for example, infantry AV can kill infantry and an anti-infantry vehicle can fight back against an anti-vehicle vehicle, but in the case of tanks both AIV and AVV are totally immune from infantry. So to achieve balance either we have to give complete immunity to IAV and INF or we have to make tanks vulnerable to INF small arms fire and regular grenades. This is something that those biased towards tanks will not accept. Second, but related to the first, The flowchart only shows balance if each counter works equally effectively against its target class, thus infantry AV should be able to take out anti-vehicle AV as easily as AIV takes out infantry, otherwise this is not balance, it is completely imbalanced against whichever class can kill its target easier. Again, the pro-tankers will never accept this because they don't look for balance, they look for tank domination.
I'd really like to hear a rational reasoned argument about this. I have yet to hear one from the pro-tanking side. Their argument always amounts to two things A. I am a tank, I should dominate. B. Tankers spend more ISK. B is a valid argument when it is true, but in Dust, ISK expenditure only gets you a relatively small advantage. You completely break any chance of balance if you simply keep increasing capability with greater ISK expenditure. Why not just allow a 100 million tank that is completely unstoppable? The answer is because it breaks the game and so does this whole mechanic, so don't go down that road.
Because, that's why.
|
|
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2873
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 10:13:00 -
[51] - 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!
|
Hawk-eye Occultus
ARKOMBlNE
213
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 10:19:00 -
[52] - Quote
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.
Shofixti beats an Ur-Quan Dreadnought and a Kor-Ah Marauder.
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2373
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 10:27:00 -
[53] - Quote
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............
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2873
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 10:40:00 -
[54] - 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!
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2373
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 10:44:00 -
[55] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote: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.
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.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2873
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 10:49:00 -
[56] - 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 -
[57] - 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!
|
Hawk-eye Occultus
ARKOMBlNE
213
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 11:54:00 -
[58] - Quote
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.
Shofixti beats an Ur-Quan Dreadnought and a Kor-Ah Marauder.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2873
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 12:42:00 -
[59] - 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 sh*t 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!
|
Leeroy Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
202
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 12:58:00 -
[60] - Quote
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?
No.
I would, however, consider it balanced if you changed it to 'only possible if the heavy suit is outplayed or dramatically out-geared' - like it is now.
MY ACTUAL NAME IS LORHAK
It would seem like wisdom, but for the warning in my heart...
CCP BLOWOUT FOR CPM1
|
|
|
Hawk-eye Occultus
ARKOMBlNE
213
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 12:59:00 -
[61] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote: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 sh*t 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 sh*t 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.
Shofixti beats an Ur-Quan Dreadnought and a Kor-Ah Marauder.
|
ZDub 303
Escrow Removal and Acquisition
Negative-Feedback
2973
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 12:59:00 -
[62] - 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. |
Hawk-eye Occultus
ARKOMBlNE
213
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 13:48:00 -
[63] - Quote
ZDub 303 wrote: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.
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.
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.
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).
Shofixti beats an Ur-Quan Dreadnought and a Kor-Ah Marauder.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2873
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 15:56:00 -
[64] - 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 sh*t 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 sh*t 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!
|
ZDub 303
Escrow Removal and Acquisition
Negative-Feedback
2973
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 16:24:00 -
[65] - 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. |
Hawk-eye Occultus
ARKOMBlNE
214
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 23:01:00 -
[66] - Quote
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.
Shofixti beats an Ur-Quan Dreadnought and a Kor-Ah Marauder.
|
Hawk-eye Occultus
ARKOMBlNE
214
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 23:03:00 -
[67] - Quote
ZDub 303 wrote: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.
I speak of how it should be, not how it currently is.
I don't know why, but I often talk in the present tense when doing these things.
Shofixti beats an Ur-Quan Dreadnought and a Kor-Ah Marauder.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2873
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 08:45:00 -
[68] - 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!
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2393
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 10:40:00 -
[69] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote: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"
That........... that made 0 sense......................
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Hawk-eye Occultus
ARKOMBlNE
214
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 15:41:00 -
[70] - Quote
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)?
Shofixti beats an Ur-Quan Dreadnought and a Kor-Ah Marauder.
|
|
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2875
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 15:51:00 -
[71] - 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!
|
Hawk-eye Occultus
ARKOMBlNE
214
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 16:49:00 -
[72] - Quote
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.
Shofixti beats an Ur-Quan Dreadnought and a Kor-Ah Marauder.
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2397
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 19:33:00 -
[73] - 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.
This guy clearly doesn't get how balancing works lol.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2875
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 23:31:00 -
[74] - 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!
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2399
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 23:41:00 -
[75] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote: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.
You said this entire time before that it was impossible to balance off of terrain, now you are. Make up your damn mind.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Hawk-eye Occultus
ARKOMBlNE
214
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 01:55:00 -
[76] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote: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.
Thank you for bringing up the dropship. Contrary to what you suggest, they do not make tanks useless. You see, if the missile launcher is altered to be... Useful for purpose (i.e. attacking aerial vehicles), tactical use of infantry AV is needed. As an AA platform, I have the concept of it being unable to attack ground targets (as it requires the locking on of an aerial vehicle). Thus AV infantry are able to attack it with ease.
See, I see how you may think I believe that ALL tanks should be following the mechanics we have been discussing. Not at all.
I have a vision of the tanks being split into rigid roles (covered previously), Anti Aircraft (L+¬ missile launcher), Anti Ground-Vehicle (L+¬ railgun), and Anti Infantry (L+¬ blaster, or L+¬ flame-thrower. Flame-throwers are cooler). The AV infantry would be able to attack the first two with basic impunity (as they are not suited to shoot back effectively). The Anti infantry tank would be what warrens the use of AV tanks, which would be able to safely approach and rip it apart.
Loose ends all tied up. Happy?
Shofixti beats an Ur-Quan Dreadnought and a Kor-Ah Marauder.
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2404
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 02:13:00 -
[77] - Quote
Hawk-eye Occultus wrote:Thank you for bringing up the dropship. Contrary to what you suggest, they do not make tanks useless. You see, if the missile launcher is altered to be... Useful for purpose (i.e. attacking aerial vehicles), tactical use of infantry AV is needed. As an AA platform, I have the concept of it being unable to attack ground targets (as it requires the locking on of an aerial vehicle). Thus AV infantry are able to attack it with ease.
See, I see how you may think I believe that ALL tanks should be following the mechanics we have been discussing. Not at all.
I have a vision of the tanks being split into rigid roles (covered previously), Anti Aircraft (L+¬ missile launcher), Anti Ground-Vehicle (L+¬ railgun), and Anti Infantry (L+¬ blaster, or L+¬ flame-thrower. Flame-throwers are cooler). The AV infantry would be able to attack the first two with basic impunity (as they are not suited to shoot back effectively). The Anti infantry tank would be what warrens the use of AV tanks, which would be able to safely approach and rip it apart.
Loose ends all tied up. Happy?
Hold up; that's not necessary, nor does it make sense. You realize that they are all Large turrets, right? Why should a large turret be fixed to a specific target like that, especially when some of those don't even make sense (why would you use a large blaster if you could use a medium and most like do far better, or why use a large rail against a LAV)? Sure, there should be some T II variants to go down a specific path like that (or rather ammo), but locking a turret to a role like that is a very bad idea.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Hawk-eye Occultus
ARKOMBlNE
214
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 02:57:00 -
[78] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Hawk-eye Occultus wrote:Thank you for bringing up the dropship. Contrary to what you suggest, they do not make tanks useless. You see, if the missile launcher is altered to be... Useful for purpose (i.e. attacking aerial vehicles), tactical use of infantry AV is needed. As an AA platform, I have the concept of it being unable to attack ground targets (as it requires the locking on of an aerial vehicle). Thus AV infantry are able to attack it with ease.
See, I see how you may think I believe that ALL tanks should be following the mechanics we have been discussing. Not at all.
I have a vision of the tanks being split into rigid roles (covered previously), Anti Aircraft (L+¬ missile launcher), Anti Ground-Vehicle (L+¬ railgun), and Anti Infantry (L+¬ blaster, or L+¬ flame-thrower. Flame-throwers are cooler). The AV infantry would be able to attack the first two with basic impunity (as they are not suited to shoot back effectively). The Anti infantry tank would be what warrens the use of AV tanks, which would be able to safely approach and rip it apart.
Loose ends all tied up. Happy? Hold up; that's not necessary, nor does it make sense. You realize that they are all Large turrets, right? Why should a large turret be fixed to a specific target like that, especially when some of those don't even make sense (why would you use a large blaster if you could use a medium and most like do far better, or why use a large rail against a LAV)? Sure, there should be some T II variants to go down a specific path like that (or rather ammo), but locking a turret to a role like that is a very bad idea.
It makes perfect sense. Turrets are what define the role of a tank. They each have their own unique purpose. Imagine, if you will that each of the turrets have been substantially modified from what they are now. The Missile launcher would launch Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs).
The railgun would continue as it basically is, with a lower max elevation (for some reason it currently can aim over 20 degrees higher than all other turrets), so it could be used as a very crude AA or AI weapon if need be. The turn rate would also be boosted quite a bit too.
The blaster (or whatever we will replace it with) would be very effective against infantry, but would be very bad for attacking other vehicles.
Size also fits with this. See, small turrets are basicly fit purely for self defence (in the case of tanks); large turrets are the main weapon.
Way I see it, the medium turret would be what you stick on the MAV (probably something like an APC). How exactly would making the turret smaller make it work better?
Shofixti beats an Ur-Quan Dreadnought and a Kor-Ah Marauder.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
10271
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 03:02:00 -
[79] - Quote
Hawk-eye Occultus wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Hawk-eye Occultus wrote:Thank you for bringing up the dropship. Contrary to what you suggest, they do not make tanks useless. You see, if the missile launcher is altered to be... Useful for purpose (i.e. attacking aerial vehicles), tactical use of infantry AV is needed. As an AA platform, I have the concept of it being unable to attack ground targets (as it requires the locking on of an aerial vehicle). Thus AV infantry are able to attack it with ease.
See, I see how you may think I believe that ALL tanks should be following the mechanics we have been discussing. Not at all.
I have a vision of the tanks being split into rigid roles (covered previously), Anti Aircraft (L+¬ missile launcher), Anti Ground-Vehicle (L+¬ railgun), and Anti Infantry (L+¬ blaster, or L+¬ flame-thrower. Flame-throwers are cooler). The AV infantry would be able to attack the first two with basic impunity (as they are not suited to shoot back effectively). The Anti infantry tank would be what warrens the use of AV tanks, which would be able to safely approach and rip it apart.
Loose ends all tied up. Happy? Hold up; that's not necessary, nor does it make sense. You realize that they are all Large turrets, right? Why should a large turret be fixed to a specific target like that, especially when some of those don't even make sense (why would you use a large blaster if you could use a medium and most like do far better, or why use a large rail against a LAV)? Sure, there should be some T II variants to go down a specific path like that (or rather ammo), but locking a turret to a role like that is a very bad idea. It makes perfect sense. Turrets are what define the role of a tank. They each have their own unique purpose. Imagine, if you will that each of the turrets have been substantially modified from what they are now. The Missile launcher would launch Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs). The railgun would continue as it basically is, with a lower max elevation (for some reason it currently can aim over 20 degrees higher than all other turrets), so it could be used as a very crude AA or AI weapon if need be. The turn rate would also be boosted quite a bit too. The blaster (or whatever we will replace it with) would be very effective against infantry, but would be very bad for attacking other vehicles. Size also fits with this. See, small turrets are basicly fit purely for self defence (in the case of tanks); large turrets are the main weapon. Way I see it, the medium turret would be what you stick on the MAV ( probably something like an APC). How exactly would making the turret smaller make it work better?
I cannot say I am a fan of your rigid ideals of turrets.
Markdown:
|
Hawk-eye Occultus
ARKOMBlNE
214
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 03:20:00 -
[80] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:I cannot say I am a fan of your rigid ideals of turrets.
Ohh... I didn't know you dweled in the legion forums too.
But, as I know you are a tanker... Allow me to explain...
Using highly sophisticated technology (which no one could possibly understand), we will be extracting a large portion of your tank, and adding it to our new one.
Of course this change in mass will cause your tank to spin out of control, and drift into the sun where it will explode into a flaming ball of gas; but of course, sacrifices must be made. Thank you for you co-operation.
Shofixti beats an Ur-Quan Dreadnought and a Kor-Ah Marauder.
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2405
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 03:38:00 -
[81] - Quote
Hawk-eye Occultus wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Hawk-eye Occultus wrote:Thank you for bringing up the dropship. Contrary to what you suggest, they do not make tanks useless. You see, if the missile launcher is altered to be... Useful for purpose (i.e. attacking aerial vehicles), tactical use of infantry AV is needed. As an AA platform, I have the concept of it being unable to attack ground targets (as it requires the locking on of an aerial vehicle). Thus AV infantry are able to attack it with ease.
See, I see how you may think I believe that ALL tanks should be following the mechanics we have been discussing. Not at all.
I have a vision of the tanks being split into rigid roles (covered previously), Anti Aircraft (L+¬ missile launcher), Anti Ground-Vehicle (L+¬ railgun), and Anti Infantry (L+¬ blaster, or L+¬ flame-thrower. Flame-throwers are cooler). The AV infantry would be able to attack the first two with basic impunity (as they are not suited to shoot back effectively). The Anti infantry tank would be what warrens the use of AV tanks, which would be able to safely approach and rip it apart.
Loose ends all tied up. Happy? Hold up; that's not necessary, nor does it make sense. You realize that they are all Large turrets, right? Why should a large turret be fixed to a specific target like that, especially when some of those don't even make sense (why would you use a large blaster if you could use a medium and most like do far better, or why use a large rail against a LAV)? Sure, there should be some T II variants to go down a specific path like that (or rather ammo), but locking a turret to a role like that is a very bad idea. It makes perfect sense. Turrets are what define the role of a tank. They each have their own unique purpose. Imagine, if you will that each of the turrets have been substantially modified from what they are now. The Missile launcher would launch Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs). The railgun would continue as it basically is, with a lower max elevation (for some reason it currently can aim over 20 degrees higher than all other turrets), so it could be used as a very crude AA or AI weapon if need be. The turn rate would also be boosted quite a bit too. The blaster (or whatever we will replace it with) would be very effective against infantry, but would be very bad for attacking other vehicles. Size also fits with this. See, small turrets are basicly fit purely for self defence (in the case of tanks); large turrets are the main weapon. Way I see it, the medium turret would be what you stick on the MAV ( probably something like an APC). How exactly would making the turret smaller make it work better?
So, you think everyone will have access to all turrets, especially at endgame/ Do you not realize that the LP store exists, or that not everybody uses all the turrets (I like using blasters because they're Gallente). Your system basically changes that.
Also, not all of the turrets are even in the game yet.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2875
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 05:57:00 -
[82] - 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!
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2405
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 10:48:00 -
[83] - Quote
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.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2875
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 19:59:00 -
[84] - 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!
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2406
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 20:20:00 -
[85] - Quote
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......
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2875
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 23:10:00 -
[86] - 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!
|
Scheneighnay McBob
T.R.I.A.D
Ushra'Khan
5080
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 02:37:00 -
[87] - Quote
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).
Observe the amount of f*cks given
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2408
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 02:39:00 -
[88] - 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).
Someone gets it!
(oh, and not just urban areas, but any area in which has tight moving areas, but I'm sure you know that )
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
ZDub 303
Escrow Removal and Acquisition
Negative-Feedback
2981
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 03:01:00 -
[89] - 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..... |
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2875
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 10:07:00 -
[90] - 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!
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |