|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15595
   |
Posted - 2014.12.08 19:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
Cat Merc wrote:So, scratching my head about trying to figure out a place for vehicles on the battlefield without making them super dropsuits that massacre infantry without a care in the world, I thought of something.
Vehicles need a role, a reason to exist on the field, and so I thought: "What would make vehicles extremely valuable to infantry without having them be extreme killing machines?"
And then I realized: "Support vehicles"
If tanks are to hunt tanks, those original tanks need a reason to exist in the first place.
That was originally wrecking infantry, but as evidence shows, that's only fun for the pilots.
So we are in a position where vehicles don't really do much but "exist", and nobody bothers to bring their own vehicles to hunt them down since they're either not worth bothering with, or dispatched quickly with AV.
Imagine if Logi vehicles were highly tanky, to the point where infantry AV would require a long time and a lot of concentrated fire to take down.
Now imagine if said Logi vehicles provided powerful bonuses in an AOE to infantry: 100hp/s armor and shield regen, damage amplification, ammo resupply, mobile CRU, mobile supply depot, scanning, etc'.
You would want a way to get rid of them - You would WANT killer vehicles, vehicles designed to hunt other vehicles.
You would WANT to have armored control on the battlefield, so you could bring support vehicles with impunity.
This gives vehicles a reason to exist initially, and provides a target that infantry can't easily dispatch of.
This gives vehicles a reason to hunt down other vehicles.
This gives people a reason to want armored control of the field.
As I see it niche roles in HAV are required to made the role enjoyable.
We need the fundamentals to produce things like
Light Scout Tanks
Heavy Infantry Tanks
Tank Destroyers
APC
and from EVE comparisons
Ewar or Support HAV
Look I appreciate you've now come to realise the horror of HAV first hand and to placate you Pokey Dravon and IWS have compiled massive suggestions, models, numbers for vehicle rebalances including how to define specific tank roles through bonuses, etc, and I have my suggestions about taking the AI out of blasters and making it primarilyy (that mean first and foremost not wholly) an AV weapon.
Keep Calm and Carry on.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15597
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 20:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Cat Merc wrote:True Adamance wrote:Cat Merc wrote:So, scratching my head about trying to figure out a place for vehicles on the battlefield without making them super dropsuits that massacre infantry without a care in the world, I thought of something.
Vehicles need a role, a reason to exist on the field, and so I thought: "What would make vehicles extremely valuable to infantry without having them be extreme killing machines?"
And then I realized: "Support vehicles"
If tanks are to hunt tanks, those original tanks need a reason to exist in the first place.
That was originally wrecking infantry, but as evidence shows, that's only fun for the pilots.
So we are in a position where vehicles don't really do much but "exist", and nobody bothers to bring their own vehicles to hunt them down since they're either not worth bothering with, or dispatched quickly with AV.
Imagine if Logi vehicles were highly tanky, to the point where infantry AV would require a long time and a lot of concentrated fire to take down.
Now imagine if said Logi vehicles provided powerful bonuses in an AOE to infantry: 100hp/s armor and shield regen, damage amplification, ammo resupply, mobile CRU, mobile supply depot, scanning, etc'.
You would want a way to get rid of them - You would WANT killer vehicles, vehicles designed to hunt other vehicles.
You would WANT to have armored control on the battlefield, so you could bring support vehicles with impunity.
This gives vehicles a reason to exist initially, and provides a target that infantry can't easily dispatch of.
This gives vehicles a reason to hunt down other vehicles.
This gives people a reason to want armored control of the field. As I see it niche roles in HAV are required to made the role enjoyable. We need the fundamentals to produce things like Light Scout Tanks Heavy Infantry Tanks Tank Destroyers APC and from EVE comparisons Ewar or Support HAV Look I appreciate you've now come to realise the horror of HAV first hand and to placate you Pokey Dravon and IWS have compiled massive suggestions, models, numbers for vehicle rebalances including how to define specific tank roles through bonuses, etc, and I have my suggestions about taking the AI out of blasters and making it primarilyy (that mean first and foremost not wholly) an AV weapon. Keep Calm and Carry on. It might be because it's late and I need to sleep, but I can't tell if you're for or against my suggestion?
I honestly don't know yet.
I am all for any suggestion that gives tanks a role but I do not like the idea that the role of the HAV is to destroy another kind of HAV that really just panders to infantry and makes them better.
A given definition for a Tank is
"A tank is a large type of armoured fighting vehicle with tracks, designed for front-line combat. Modern tanks are strong mobile land weapons platforms, mounting a large-calibre cannon in a rotating gun turret. They combine this with heavy vehicle armour providing protection for the crew of the weapon and operational mobility, which allows them to position on the battlefield in advantageous locations. These features enable the tank to have enormous capability to perform well in a tactical situation: the combination of strong weapons fire from their tank gun and their ability to resist enemy fire means the tank can take hold of and control an area of the battle and prevent other enemy vehicles from advancing, for example. In both offensive and defensive roles, they are powerful units able to perform all primary tasks required of armoured troops on the battlefield."
I think at some point players need to accept that an HAV is an investment, not something disposable like a dropsuit, and should be treated as a such. It should not be economically viable to run vehicles without a form of supplementary income and as a result a tank, dropship, LAV should be able to function in its intended role to a respectable level.
Now I am not saying I believe HAV should be able to massacre entire teams like they did in 1.7 but they should present a tactical challenge for squads if a player chooses to set up in an advantageous position.
Few people whine half so much about that guy who uses a Dropship to access a roof top position and manages to utterly annihilate entire squads because apparently that guy "was thinking tactically" but if I set up an HAV on the flank of an enemy line, in cover, with clear lines of egress..... I'm OP.
The issue we have to think about in Dust is what we want Tanks to do.
The 3 core tenets of Tanks (arguably) are
- Armour
- Fire Power
- Mobility
Every tank ever designed has had these ideals in mind.
- A tank needs to be able to penetrate the armour of another vehicle or bombard a position from range and with good effect.
- A tank needs to be able to withstand the penetrative power of another vehicle and be able to function effectively.
- A tank needs to be mobile enough to manoeuvre its armament to a position where its fire power will have good effect.
What do we want tanks to do?
- Carry Anti Tank guns on their primary/ main turret?
- Support infantry directly?
- Provide Long Range Support?
- Should Tank guns have AoE explosions?
- How armoured do we want them to be?
- Is the role we are designing for HAV fun for the pilots?
- Is it fun for AV?
- How will it affect infantry enjoyment?
Too many questions to shoe horn them into Anti- Infantry Rep Tanks...... which I can see abused by AVers to no end.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15597
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 21:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
Gabriel Ceja wrote:Cat Merc wrote:So, scratching my head about trying to figure out a place for vehicles on the battlefield without making them super dropsuits that massacre infantry without a care in the world, I thought of something.
Vehicles need a role, a reason to exist on the field, and so I thought: "What would make vehicles extremely valuable to infantry without having them be extreme killing machines?"
And then I realized: "Support vehicles"
If tanks are to hunt tanks, those original tanks need a reason to exist in the first place.
That was originally wrecking infantry, but as evidence shows, that's only fun for the pilots.
So we are in a position where vehicles don't really do much but "exist", and nobody bothers to bring their own vehicles to hunt them down since they're either not worth bothering with, or dispatched quickly with AV.
Imagine if Logi vehicles were highly tanky, to the point where infantry AV would require a long time and a lot of concentrated fire to take down.
Now imagine if said Logi vehicles provided powerful bonuses in an AOE to infantry: 100hp/s armor and shield regen, damage amplification, ammo resupply, mobile CRU, mobile supply depot, scanning, etc'.
You would want a way to get rid of them - You would WANT killer vehicles, vehicles designed to hunt other vehicles.
You would WANT to have armored control on the battlefield, so you could bring support vehicles with impunity.
This gives vehicles a reason to exist initially, and provides a target that infantry can't easily dispatch of.
This gives vehicles a reason to hunt down other vehicles.
This gives people a reason to want armored control of the field. While your ideas do seem interesting and maybe tanks do need more defined roles but that's something to consider for variants(if they ever return) not the current ones available there is a reason you can't find a place for tanks That is because they are already performing their role in the simplest way possible by just being a tank. They can already support the team via destroying installations that are posing a threat to your team. The mere presence of the tank itself keeps the enemies cautious and at bay giving your team to a chance to gain some ground. Also the tank serves a role to support the team by drawing the enemies attention towards it making easier for friendlies to make a move on the objective. So you are wrong to say that tanks just "exist" and calling one out even if there is no enemy tank currently is more of a preemptive move just like how many people start off with having AV out even though there is no vehicles around yet that they know of. As for why no tanks come out to hunt other tanks well sometimes the players may not have the isk or the opposing tank is better than theirs so it is not the tanks fault that no one comes out to challenge it. So yeah that's pretty much it and sorry about this wall of text but it is necessary to shed a little light on someone's perspective who doesn't even use tanks and if you do well I have never seen you in one. Final note : Come on now tanks do not "massacre" as much as they use to, seriously how often does a tank go +40 and 0 these days.
Since 1.7 (and we know they were broken then) I've never scored more than 20 kills but never will 0 deaths....... back pre 1.7 though when AV decimated tanks I was so much better at tanking.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15599
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 22:38:00 -
[4] - Quote
Just to throw this out there one thing I would like to be able to do again in my HAV is if required to be able to "demolish" the map. Aka remove turrets, installations, etc in a meaningful manner.
Turrets once had roughly 750 Shields and 3015 Armour.....this is arguably too little. Currently they have 2500 Shields and something like 10000 Armour...... this is arguably too much.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15635
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 01:05:00 -
[5] - Quote
Honestly the way I see a Logi Vehicle is a simple Low EHP hull with 3-4 remote rep units..... skulking around behind bigger and badder tanks or infantry squads.
Something like.....
Shield Logi HAV Thingy
3x Remote Shield Reppers
1x Complex Extender
1x Passive Shield Ward Field
1x PDU
1x Remote Armour Repper
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15635
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 01:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
The-Errorist wrote:Cat Merc wrote:True Adamance wrote:Just to throw this out there one thing I would like to be able to do again in my HAV is if required to be able to "demolish" the map. Aka remove turrets, installations, etc in a meaningful manner.
Turrets once had roughly 750 Shields and 3015 Armour.....this is arguably too little. Currently they have 2500 Shields and something like 10000 Armour...... this is arguably too much.
I would say no. When a tank wants to, turrets disappear quite quickly. They're supposed to be a roadblock. I agree.
Which is why I've thrown down a suggestion for consideration about Reinforcement Timer so that turrets are never truly destructible.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15689
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 20:27:00 -
[7] - Quote
Cat Merc wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Cat Merc wrote:True Adamance wrote:Just to throw this out there one thing I would like to be able to do again in my HAV is if required to be able to "demolish" the map. Aka remove turrets, installations, etc in a meaningful manner.
Turrets once had roughly 750 Shields and 3015 Armour.....this is arguably too little. Currently they have 2500 Shields and something like 10000 Armour...... this is arguably too much.
I would say no. When a tank wants to, turrets disappear quite quickly. They're supposed to be a roadblock. Quickly? What quickly? An installation falls to a tank with XT-201 missiles on them in two volleys. Problem with the missile? 50m less range than the railgun. It takes 7 rounds from particle cannon to destroy an installation, and that's without any interruption. After resuming, could be from 8 to 10 rounds to finish it. No, they don't disappear quickly. That's rather quick. 
A Missile turret has 3500 DPS....... that's roughly 3.5 times more than the Railgun and Large Blaster...... just want to point that out.
All up that's two seconds to fire your volley @ 3500 DPS and 12 seconds to reload then two more seconds to fire and twelve to reload.
28 Seconds.
Not saying that's wrong to remove a turret from the field..... it would almost be more pleasant if TTK was half that and all I did was set those turrets to reinforced status for a set duration.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
|
|
| |
|