|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alena Ventrallis
Vengeance Unbound
Dark Taboo
1871
   |
Posted - 2014.10.04 19:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
I expect lots of people to disagree with me, but frankly I can't be bothered to give a damn anymore. I'm pretty positive the changes I want to see are possible in a hotfix, and even if not I'm gonna post em anyway.
SO, vehicles. Been out of balance in one direction or the other since closed beta. Especially now that my ADS has been neutered, I feel like we need to address the problem of vehicles in general. And the problem is: vehicles have no purpose. There is nothing my tank or ADS can do that a dropsuit can't. No barriers only my tank can bust for instance. It may be able to do some things better than a dropsuit like move faster or have more health, but in the end a tank or ADS brings nothing to the table that a dropsuit can't, save the DS able to move in the air. Therefore, since they bring nothing truly unique to the table, if they are to be priced higher than a dropsuit they should be more effective than a dropsuit. I think the amount of dedicated AV to quickly kill a vehicle (ie: the current vehicle TTK or faster I would consider quick) should increase with the size, and price, of a vehicle. Yes, I am agreeing with the first half of spkr's dreaded and ******** statement "teamwork for thee, but no teamwork for me!" It should break down like this:
LAV: 1+ AV to kill quickly
MAV: 2+ AV to kill quickly
HAV: 3+ AV to kill quickly
Yes, yes, let your rage froth and foam, AV players! It should take teamwork for me to kill a vehicle?! HE'S AGREEING WITH SPKR?!? WAILING AND GNASHING OF TEETH!! But before you cherrypick my idea, I also believe that as the number of AV required to destroy increases, so should the amount of people required to operate said vehicle.
LAV: 1 to operate (driver can control the rear turret much like the current tanks do)
MAV: 2 to operate (one pilot, one gunner. Yes to INCLUDE THE ADS)
HAV: 3 to operate (one pilot controls the front gun, one controls the main turret, one controls the top gun)
In this way, a vehicle can be a huge force multiplier, with MAVs and especially HAVs taking a coordinated effort to destroy, meaning up to 3+ people must leave the infantry fight (which imo is the main focus of the game, capturing objectives is the primary goal and only infantry can do that) in order to counter a vehicle on the field. However, the other team must give up an equal amount of people in order to fully operate that vehicle.
I don't like calling people out on the forums, even for a compliment; but Dergle and Boss SobanRe, two of my good friends on this game, are a perfect example on how an ADS should work. Dergle can thread a needle with his ships, and Boss is constantly feeding him intel, marking targets for him to move on so Boss can eliminate the threat, the two are the best dropship team I have ever seen. They are the perfect example for how an ADS should be. The two together accomplish more than any solo pilot could. This is how vehicles should operate. "Teamwork for thee, and teamwork for me!"
To realize this goal of mine, I would implement these changes.
LAV: I would tether the back turret to the driver, much like the main turret of the HAV is now. This means one person can operate this vehicle completely, but it is still destructible by a single swarmer or forge with ease. 1 magazine of swarms or 1-2 forge shots should down a LAV.
MAV: standard DS already have this behavior set up, with the pilot flying and a side gunner shooting. We should apply this behavior to ADS as well. Untether the front turret from the pilot and add another seat to the ADS that puts the gunner inside the ADS, protecting him from rifle fire. This change comes with a buff to hp, regen, and fitting meaning it will take two swarms or two forges to quickly kill a dropship (ie: two swarmers shooting one magazine each, 2 forges shooting 1-2 shots each in unison or very quick succession or perhaps a breach landing 2-3 solid hits.) which is the same amount of people that are now required to operate that ADS. One dedicated AV can possibly down a dropship, assuming the dropship sits around and let's it hit, but it's going to take awhile and a good chunk of the AVs ammo to do so.
HAV: Large buff to health, moderate buff to regen and fitting. This thing should be indestructible to a single dedicated AV. 2 AV should have a chance to destroy it, but it will be an uphill struggle even in ideal conditions. 3 AV can crack it in a single magazine or 1-2 forge shots from each fired in unison or in very quick succession. This is in line with the number of people operating a tank. One person in a tank is kind of worthless. 2 people and the main turret comes into play. Add a 3rd for that top gun with 360 visibility, and you got yourself a monster of a vehicle, fearing only a coordinated AV effort or another equally manned tank.
As far as changing these things in a hotfix, only the front turret of the HAV for the driver poses a problem I think. But everything else already has some precedent. LAV turret for the driver has the behavior of the HAV, simply copy and paste it over, and perhaps tweak the camera angle some. ADS can simply copy the behavior of the side gunners onto the front turret, change the angles the turret can look up and down with a 360 field of view (or copy the HAV top turret behavior onto the ADS front turret and angle it down some) And all we need do for the main turret of the HAV is give control of it to someone else, and give control of movement to the front turret slot. The top turret already behaves properly. All in all, we have vehicles that that teamwork to operate and teamwork to kill. Now vehicles can be as powerful as they should be while being balanced with the limited team size we are stuck with until legion comes out.
Flame away, I got me some shades. 
Listen to my muscle memory
Contemplate what I've been clinging to
Forty-six and two ahead of me
|
Alena Ventrallis
Vengeance Unbound
Dark Taboo
1872
|
Posted - 2014.10.04 20:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Apparently Gallenteans aren't the only ones who need their keyboards confiscated.
Now to point out the many problems with this:
(1) What stops HAVs from only fitting 1 Small Turret and still having the power of 3?
(2) What stops teams from fielding 6 HAVs and winning due to the enemy not being able to deal with them?
(3) What incentives would be in place to use anything other than HAVs?
(4) What would be the counter to HMG Sentinels in HAVs?
I could point out other issues, but I need not as everyone who clicks on this link knows that this won't happen.
1) the front turret is not worth it now, having the driver use won't suddenly make it more useful.
In addition, this leaves the tank very vulnerable to attack from the rear, so anything that isn't a straightforward rush into its face will get the drop on it. It would need gunners in order to cover its back and allow it to fire the main turret and move at the same time (there's the teamwork for me)
2) the fact that a) again, the front turret is kind of worthless on its own b) it can't catch objectives and that's how you win, and c) imposing an hav specific limit would stop this tactic.
3) the fact that a) again, HAVs cannot capture objectives b) there are areas that HAVs cannot reach that ADS and arguably LAVs can, for instance anywhere above the front turret means AV can fire with impunity, which would force the tank driver to switch turrets, meaning he couldn't move his tank allowing a scout to easily place remotes on it (there's that teamwork for thee) ADS can reach the top of buildings, HAV can't.
4) this is an issue with exit mechanics, and not inherent to HAVs. An exit timer solves this issue, although I'm not sure if its feasible without a client side update.
Listen to my muscle memory
Contemplate what I've been clinging to
Forty-six and two ahead of me
|
Alena Ventrallis
Vengeance Unbound
Dark Taboo
1873
|
Posted - 2014.10.05 01:39:00 -
[3] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:I've been saying this for a very long time. I'd love to make HAVs into a team vehicle, that yes, requires a team to kill. I've often said the driver should be the front small gun, because it's limited firing arc means infantry can actually flank it.
The primary issue with tanks has always been that a single player can wreck the entire enemy team with a HAV.
This is what I want to see. I want it to take a team to kill my tank, but it should also take a team to man it, and be that much more effective for it. It encourages teamwork to fight with it and fight against it.
Listen to my muscle memory
Contemplate what I've been clinging to
Forty-six and two ahead of me
|
Alena Ventrallis
Vengeance Unbound
Dark Taboo
1873
|
Posted - 2014.10.05 01:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
Thurak1 wrote:Nope
If you really want to have a tank require 3+ av players said tank should cost at least 3 proto AV fittings and require several million SP to use said tank.
I take it you haven't run vehicles before.
Listen to my muscle memory
Contemplate what I've been clinging to
Forty-six and two ahead of me
|
Alena Ventrallis
Vengeance Unbound
Dark Taboo
1874
|
Posted - 2014.10.05 02:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:Soraya Xel wrote:I've been saying this for a very long time. I'd love to make HAVs into a team vehicle, that yes, requires a team to kill. I've often said the driver should be the front small gun, because it's limited firing arc means infantry can actually flank it.
The primary issue with tanks has always been that a single player can wreck the entire enemy team with a HAV. This is what I want to see. I want it to take a team to kill my tank, but it should also take a team to man it, and be that much more effective for it. It encourages teamwork to fight with it and fight against it. Alena, we agree on a thing. :D
THE END OS NIGH!!! 
Listen to my muscle memory
Contemplate what I've been clinging to
Forty-six and two ahead of me
|
Alena Ventrallis
Vengeance Unbound
Dark Taboo
1876
|
Posted - 2014.10.05 04:19:00 -
[6] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote:You people really know how to frack up a good thing and instances like these are part of the reason that this game has been in a negative for a long time now , because of un necessary " enhancements " that actually ruin game play then enhance it .
Leave vehicles the way that they are and leave it " optional " for the pilot's or users to equip turrets if they like and not be forced to , to have an effective fit or vehicle .
This is just a bad idea . Here's what it comes down to: Vehicles are OP. There are two good solutions. 1: Make HAVs equal in power and survivability to a dropsuit. 2: Make HAVs require multiple players, so they can be more powerful than a single dropsuit. I'm sure you like it the way it is now, but that's because the way it is now is broken and OP.
And again, there is nothing vehicles do that a dropsuit can't. All there is is to slay. And if it is the same in power as a dropsuit, why have it at all? So therefore, vehicles should be more powerful than a dropsuit. But in order to balance that power, it must therefore require more than one user to operate, in direct proportion to how much harder it is to remove from play.
Listen to my muscle memory
Contemplate what I've been clinging to
Forty-six and two ahead of me
|
Alena Ventrallis
Vengeance Unbound
Dark Taboo
1876
|
Posted - 2014.10.05 06:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
Joel II X wrote:In that case, here are the number of Mercs required to operate vehicles:
LAV: 1+
MAV: 2+
HAV: 3
And if you read the OP, you will see the entire second half is about doing just that.
Listen to my muscle memory
Contemplate what I've been clinging to
Forty-six and two ahead of me
|
Alena Ventrallis
Vengeance Unbound
Dark Taboo
1879
|
Posted - 2014.10.05 18:45:00 -
[8] - Quote
Here's the thing about vehicles. If they are as effective as one dropsuit, why have them? Why not just have a dropsuit? Especially for their price which can easily triple a proto dropsuit with proto weaponry, why would it be economically feasible to run them if they have the same power as a dropsuit? We could reduce their price to dropsuit levels, but then we return to why have them at all? The solution is that vehicles must be worth more than a single dropsuit. Now, there is a point where vehicles get so much more effective than a single dropsuit that there is no reason to run a dropsuit. This is where they become OP, like tanks in 1.7. What we need is a balance that is admittedly hard to find, where a vehicle is worth more than a dropsuit, but not so much that dropsuit become obselete.
The solution, then, is to require vehicles to take more and more people to operate them, in proportion to how much more effective they are than a dropsuit. This balance is tricky, because if a 3-man tank crew is perfectly equal to 3 infantry, then we again run into why have the tank at all? The 3 man tank crew MUST therefore be more effective together in their tank than running around on the ground. But then this can become OP, because then why run 3 infantry when a 3-man tank crew is better?
The root of all these problems is VEHICLES HAVE NO DEFINED PURPOSE. There are no barricades only a tank can punch through, or an objective only reachable by drop ship. All vehicles can do is slay. That's it. So we must limit them in other areas so that a 3-man tank crew is better than 3 infantry in some ways, but 3 infantry are better than the tank crew in others.
For instance, a 3-man tank crew should have the killing power of, say, 5 infantry in terms of potential damage they can reliably cause. But the tank should suffer in acceleration and top speed, meaning they cannot chase down retreating infantry or escape a scout with remotes easily. So while a 3-man crew has more killing power than 3 infantry, those 3 infantry can more easily maneuver into position and reach areas a tank cannot. Also, the tank needs infantry support because it has difficulty escaping a scout with REs or avoiding sustained AV attack, needing the infantry to maneuver and deal with these threats to allow the tank to continue to operate.
All in all, if I as a vehicle pilot am to cost more than a dropsuit, in sp and isk, then I should be more effective than a dropsuit. But the dropsuit should have advantages over me, so we have to work together to complement our weaknesses and be stronger than the sum of our parts.
Listen to my muscle memory
Contemplate what I've been clinging to
Forty-six and two ahead of me
|
|
|
| |
|