|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Atiim
NoGameNoLife
9440
   |
Posted - 2014.06.14 16:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
Heimdallr69 wrote:
A decent rail can 2 shot any maddy. Their vehicles may be underpowered but their weaponry sure as hell arn't.
And my AV Commando dies easily to an HMG.
Not really sure how that's relevant to the discussion.
Amarrians would prefer you be faithful... I'd rather you be logical.
Proud defender of Ishukone Corporation.
-HAMD
|
Atiim
NoGameNoLife
9441
|
Posted - 2014.06.14 17:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:At least where a gunnlogi is concerned, a forge gun and a swarmer SHRED an unhardened gunnlogi. Mind you both were at proto level, but still, I have a hard time feeling any sympathy for those AVers that complain of unkillable tanks. AV played me, lured me in and eventually cut off my escape and surrounded me with their power. It was quite impressive.
AV really shined last night. While I may have only lost but a few tanks to AV, they proved that they are not nearly as underpowered as they claim to be where a Gunnlogi is concerned. Hardeners, of course, makes a huge difference against swarms. Though when you throw a forge gunner into the mix, you WILL have to limit your engagements severely, even with the hardeners.
GG those AVers that actually try, and use tactics to overcome tankers on the field. It's amazing what you can do when you focus fire and coordinate. And it doesn't take half a team of AVers to do it!
Hmm...
Quote:At least where a [Matari Logistics] is concerned. A [Heavy Machine Gun] and a [Shotgun] would SHRED an untanked [Matari Logistics]. Mind you the [Heavy Machine Guns and Shotguns] were both at proto level, but still, I had a hard time feeling sympathy for any of those [Light or Heavy Frame] users that complain of overpowered [Slayer Logis]. [Heavy Machine Guns and Shotguns] played me, lured me in and eventually cut off my escape and surrounded me with their power. It was quite impressive.
[Heavy & Light Frames[ really shined last night. While I may have only lost a few [Dropsuits] to [Heavy & Light Frames], they proved that they are not nearly as underpowered as they claim to be where a [Matari Logistics] is concerned. [Damage Modifiers], of course, make a huge difference against [Light & Heavy Frame] users. Though when you throw an [HMG] into the mix, you WILL have to limit your engagements severely, even with the hardeners.
GG to those [Light & Heavy Frames] that actually tried, and used tactics to overcome [Slayer Logistics] on the field. It's amazing what you could accomplish when you focus fire and coordinate. And it doesn't tale half a team of AVers to do it!. -It only took about 200% of the manpower I fielded to work :D
Now that I've placed your 'logic' into a different perspective to show the obvious flaws with it, allow me to make some things apparent for anyone who doesn't feel like reading that drivel.
- It took 2 players to destroy you, and you weren't even using hardeners.
- You state yourself that the outcome would not have been the same had your HAV been fit defensively
- You allowed yourself to get trapped by AV; which is an issue of -gross incompetence-
Mind you that the first two points already state an imbalance, and the 3rd point isn't even a credible basis for determining balance.
On a slightly inflammatory note, perhaps you should pilot your HAV better?
Amarrians would prefer you be faithful... I'd rather you be logical.
Proud defender of Ishukone Corporation.
-HAMD
|
Atiim
NoGameNoLife
9441
|
Posted - 2014.06.14 17:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Heimdallr69 wrote:
Armor tanks are meant to suppress infantry therefor they are better at tanking av, shield tanks are dusts "tank destroyers" therefor they can't tank av. Blasters are meant for armor tanks not shields for that very reason same with the railgun it's meant for shield tanks not armor.
Still not sure how that's relevant to the discussion?
Amarrians would prefer you be faithful... I'd rather you be logical.
Proud defender of Ishukone Corporation.
-HAMD
|
Atiim
NoGameNoLife
9472
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 02:48:00 -
[4] - Quote
Pvt Numnutz wrote:
You know I want to ask you a question atiim. Should it take 2 players to destroy a well fit tank or just one?
If one swarm launcher player is able to kill a tank or dropship then what happens when there is two? Or a swarm and a forge? If av was powerful enough to solo vehicles again vehicles would be pretty useless, especially dropships.
It depends on the AVer. If the AVer fighting the well built HAV has a well fitted dropsuit and proper skill investments, yes s/he should be able to with reasonable expectations. Otherwise, you run the risk of said "well fit HAV" becoming a FoTM -which it is now- and removing the risk factor involved in piloting a vehicle. (For reference, see the Triple 'Rep' Madrugar).
If multiple players with AV weapons are coordinating to kill a vehicle, there is no reason as to why they should not be able to kill vehicles in quick succession. If you feel as if you should survive multiple targets working together, I'd suggest playing a single player game.
And it would be equally credible to say that if AVers couldn't solo HAVs, then AV would be worthless. If 2 Dropships get killed by one AVer, it;s because they decided to stay in it's range as opposed to evading, or that they decided to fool around as opposed to working together. Both are issues of player incompetence, which is no way a problem.
Not really sure how other vehicles would be worthless we either. You still have the ability to kill the AVer -by yourself-, and you'd still have the ability to perform the tasks you were doing originally. The AVer would simply be a reasonable and deadly threat (as it should), and you'd have to deal with the target or send infantry to deal with them. (as you should, in the same sense that in order to deal with you, infantry must send AVers.
Let's look at it this way.
- Pilot > Infantry > AVer GëÑ Pilot
This is a balance model where everyone has an equally balanced model and is encouraged to use their class/role as opposed to defaulting to another. Here, everyone has a reasonable chance to counter each-other, leading to a "balance of powers" where one role is not greater than the next, which leads to diversity on the battlefield as opposed to several players using the same item
- Pilot > Infantry > AVer < Pilot
This is a balance model where the pilot has the advantage every-time (what you appear to be suggesting), heavily encouraging the use of the pilot role/class over others. Here, in order to reasonably counter the pilot, you have to become one yourself, of field multiple players. If it requires multiple players to destroy one unit, your forced to field more manpower to destroy a target than the enemy has fielded.
This may work well in a game with no theoretical engagements on how many units can be at an encounter, such as EVE: Online, but in a game where you have a low cap on how many players can be fielded in an engagement, (in this case 16); such as unit will force players to either become that unit themselves, which serves to kill the diversity that this game is supposed to thrive on.
Which one seems healthy for this game?
Now let's look at this from another standpoint.
Why would anyone spend SP into the AV role when it :
- Requires exponential amounts of SP to complete, comparable to that of a vehicle pilot.
- Reduces your viability against Infantry units
- Useful only in select few situations
- Makes you extremely vulnerable to Infantry
As opposed to a vehicle when it:
- Grants invulnerability to 71% of all Infantry Weapons in DUST 514
- 3,000 eHP Increase
- Increases viability against Infantry units
- Useful in nearly all situations
The answer is, they wouldn't. There would be no point to using AV Weaponry, especially over a vehicle. Bar those few sockets and complexes, but even then your starter fits are quite effective, and will be even more so in Hotfix Bravo when more MLT Weapons are added to the marketplace.
Now for my questions to you:
- Do you believe that AVers should have reasonable expectations to solo a vehicle pilot (assuming equally tiered and experienced) and if not, then why?
- How viable should the AV class be compared to the Vehicle class?
- How many players do you believe it should require to destroy yourself, and why?
-HAND
Amarrians would prefer you be faithful... I'd rather you be logical.
Proud defender of Ishukone Corporation.
-HAMD
|
Atiim
NoGameNoLife
9472
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 02:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:
On your point of "gross incompetence," is it then that a heavy player is incompetent when I use a range advantage against him to melt him with my laser rifle? (Or just anyone in general between 90 and 105 meters)
I'd argue that it wasn't the target that was incompetent, but that I was skilled to use a certain attribute to my advantage, because I sure as hell wouldn't go up against a heavy with my LR at 15 meters.
So therefore, there can be AVers that actually know what they're doing to beat a tank, and not that the tanker was incompetent.
Yes, it is an issue of gross incompetence because he made the mistake of traveling out in the open, making him an easy target players like you, especially when he could have used an LAV for transport.
That would be the case if it weren't for the fact that the player willingly placed himself in that situation.
It is very well possible for AVers to outplay vehicle pilots, I and a few other Swarmers in my corp do i t all the time. However, there''s a difference between being outplayed, and willingly placing yourself to be placed in a situation to be destroyed.
Hell, the simple fact that he wasn't tanking defensively (using a hardener) is a blatant sign of gross incompetence.
Amarrians would prefer you be faithful... I'd rather you be logical.
Proud defender of Ishukone Corporation.
-HAMD
|
Atiim
NoGameNoLife
9480
|
Posted - 2014.06.15 14:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
Pvt Numnutz wrote:Good post, I'd just like to ask that as we continue this dialog we could refrain from personal attacks and quips as there has been enough of that in the av/v discussion. I approached you with this question as you are strong supporter of swarms as I am a strong supporter of dropships and would like to keep this civil (and I know how much you enjoy exciting vehicle players) 
Before I begin reading your post, I want to address this part as soon as possible.
I'm not attempting to insult you or attack you personally, and I'm sorry if it seems that way. Though I will agree, this could go quite nicely without insults and slurs on either side.
Amarrians would prefer you be faithful... I'd rather you be logical.
Proud defender of Ishukone Corporation.
-HAMD
|
Atiim
NoGameNoLife
9497
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 06:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
I'm going to attempt to break this down into different segments, so please bear with me.
Pvt Numnutz wrote:
[...]
You raise some valid points and I acknowledge them. Though a few I feel are unfair.
From my experience the current balance model (for dropships/av) is,
Pilot > Infantry > AVer GëÑ Pilot
Though as the different av weapons are well, different I'll break it down as I have encountered it.
Forge guns: very much true, fights against a forge gun are intense and have me at the end he of my seat, one small slip up on either side could mean death. Naturally less skilled forge gunners are easier to kill but then again I'm a seasoned pilot so that makes sense. Really skilled forge gunners scare the hell out of me and if I manage to break contact and limp away I don't return to that area.
PLC: not as true against a dropship but then the PLC is geared more towards fighting ground vehicles and can (in the right hands) solo tanks. It can deal pretty devastating damage and force dropships away, and I have fought some skilled PLC users who fought just as your model describes.
(Not really relevant but it does have better AI ability than other av)
Swarms: can be argued both ways. Swarm knock does give the swarmer the ability to fight off a dropship when its attacking. When coupled with the minmando proto swarms fit your model pretty good. Same sort of situation with the forge gun a mistake on either side could lead to death, I have been downed by some skilled minmando swarms and have barley killed a few as well.
I'm not going to attempt to discuss the Forge Gun or Plasma Cannon and how it relates to AV, as I don't use them enough to make an educated thesis on how effective or ineffective they are on vehicles, or to have a comprehensive discussion/debate involving them.
For the most part, I would agree with you on that. and I have even stated something similar in the past. However, this does not entirely correlate to armored vehicles sporting repair modules. Though this is being addressed in Hofix Bravo, so I'll need time to assess those changes before I can debate that.
My statement was not to say that the first balance model isn't where it is currently (for the most part, it is); It was to show my reasoning behind why I feel that vehicles should be reasonably 'soloed' by a properly equipped AVer.
Pvt Numnutz wrote:The other comment I felt was unfair was the sp requirement. With tiercide a fully speced minmando with swarms and a fully speced python are about the same in sp requirements. Though we can debate that another time. To answer your questions, Yes I do feel av should have a reasonable chance at brining down my ship if they have the same investment in their role as I do. Your going to have to elaborate on this a little. Viable in terms of wp? Av does get points for damaging vehicles so keeping them off ground troops backs could be viable? I wish transporting troops in my dropship was more viable  I feel it should take two av players to down my dropship. Be it proto swarm and milita, two adv swarms, forge and swarm, PLC and swarm etc. I feel this way because my dropship isn't empty, at minimum I have one gunner and that's a skeleton crew. Ideally I have two gunners/shock troopers (usually heavies with forge guns for tanks and suicide ships) a hacker and a another variable shock trooper.
When I say "viable", I mean the ability to kill the target they're fighting. While your Dropship may be empty, it's important to realize that there are many ADS Pilots who don't use gunners and because of such, making it impossible to 'solo' ADSs will lead to an instance of the second balance model, which is bad for reasons I've stated earlier.
Though it should be noted that any Dropship with a competent gunner sporting a 20GJ Railgun can make soloing it nearly impossible, as you have to stand out in the open to fire at it, which can lead to instant death due to the RoF and accuracy of the turret, not to mention the fact that Matari Commandos aren't the best at strafing and jumping.
Pvt Numnutz wrote:My point about dropships (and tanks to a lesser extent) is that they emphasize team work. I will never be able to use my missile turret as good as my gunner because I also have to fly the craft, where as my gunner is focused on one job. I can give him better angles than I can get, he can see infantry and threats better than I can and he doesn't have to worry about flying the dropship. Having a gunner allows me to focus on flying. I usually only use my gun to add DPs on hard targets like other vehicles or installations. (Sometimes forge guns because when I'm banking hard at high speed gunners run the risk of killing themselves)
While they do emphasize teamwork, they do not require it by any means necessary. As long as they don't require teamwork, they should require one player to take down. Otherwise you'll have players like duna2002 or milkman1 abusing the fact that the vehicle designed for "team-play" cannot be soled, and use them as a (for lack of a better term) "solopwnmobile".
With that reasoning, one could also say that a Forge Gunner shouldn't be soloed by vehicles simply because the Sentinel class emphasizes teamwork in the sense that it relies on a Logistics unit for ammunition, rallying (gotta re-spawn on that tower somehow right?), and recovering from a fight against a vehicle, as well as regaining health during an engagement against a vehicle.
However, you and I both know why making Forge Gunners unsoloable is a bad idea.
Amarrians would prefer you be faithful... I'd rather you be logical.
Proud defender of Ishukone Corporation.
-HAND
|
Atiim
NoGameNoLife
9498
|
Posted - 2014.06.16 06:19:00 -
[8] - Quote
Ah nuts. I lost the other half of my reply >.<
Oh well, I'll re-type it in the morning.
Amarrians would prefer you be faithful... I'd rather you be logical.
Proud defender of Ishukone Corporation.
-HAND
|
|
|
| |
|