Aeon Amadi
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
7458
   |
Posted - 2014.12.15 20:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
My main issue with this is that they're being designed as a Vehicle versus Vehicle option to a game in which vehicles ultimately have no other purpose than quick destruction of neutral installations and infantry killing. There -HAS- to be a reason for these things to exist beyond just killing other vehicles when there is no other reason HAVs to exist in the first place. The problem with the 1.7 vehicle rebalance is that they were only considered for 'Vehicle vs Vehicle' play and there were no intentions of accepting 'Vehicle vs Infantry' feedback into account at the time. Thusly, problems occurred.
If anything, I think the Falchion is going to wind up being a long-range ADS killer while the other vehicles just act as Suped-Up HAVs that are going to be just as efficient at infantry murder as their normal counterparts while having the added benefit of being harder to kill.
The problem I see with Turret Tracking and Turn Speeds is that they have to be considered one in the same. You can sort of bypass the turret tracking restrictions just by turning the vehicle itself unless the turret movement is completely separate of the vehicle (meaning, if I turn the vehicle right without touching the right analog stick, the turret does not move at all).
Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:I'm not sure a Vayu can effectively counter a Falchion if the Falchion can instapop it with 'quick aiming' (countering the Vayu's main defensive ability of circling to avoid being tracked), and long range means a number of benefits which mean that it would be unlikely to actually get engaged by a live Vayu.
Also, I feel that the enforcers should not be particularly expensive. If they are, that'll likely lead to a lot of frustration given how weak they apparently are.
I'll echo Arkena's concerns as it's much easier to go stationary and aim at a threat than it is to both maneuver around a target while trying to keep a steady aim on it. If the Vayu has to worry about traversing terrain, beating the target's tracking, and staying on target when the Falchion only has to worry about getting that one shot off... There's going to be problems.
Not even going to bring up the propensity for Redlining with a Falchion.
Varoth Drac wrote:How about giving marauders a bonus to small turrets, to emphasise their role as more anti-infantry? I am assuming this role since destroyers seem to have the AV role, even though I know marauders will be AV as well.
Cat Merc wrote:Again, what role should HAV's fill on the battlefield?
If it's just slaughtering infantry, we will never reach a point where both vehicle pilots and infantry are satisfied.
Both of these are very good suggestions/concerns to bring up and I think it'd be better if we started with an Anti-Infantry Platform that is powerful, while having another platform designed to counter it.
I could see and anti-infantry variant having additional Small Blaster damage / reduced heat build on the Gallente, and on the Caldari having increased Splash Radius on Small Missiles. Small Missiles already have very good damage so there's no reason to increase that and having it become just another AV option.
Whereas the AV platform would have increased Large Turret damage to better counter the AI platform.
Long-Term Roadmap
More Hard Questions
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
7936
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:04:00 -
[2] - Quote
I haven't dabbled in HAVs much (used to in closed beta when we had the Surya and what not but not since).
Just my amateur feedback:
Assuming that we're sticking with the whole 'Armor Blaster circles the Gunnlogi' bit, what is to stop a Gunnlogi from just chilling in one spot? I think I mentioned it before but if the Gunnlogi only has to worry about what he's aiming at, and the Maddie has to worry about what he's aiming at -AND- where he's driving, it seems a little skewed in favor toward the Gunnlogi.
Just as well, what is to stop a Gunnlogi from abusing the turn speed gimmicks? You can always just turn the vehicle itself to increase tracking speed. The Gunnlogi would have to have -really- slow turn/tracking speed if we're expecting him to not be able to fight back against a faster armor tank.
Another concern I have is why we're trying to make the Armor tank the one that focuses on manueverability when armor is naturally supposed to be slower, and further weighed down by plates makes this even worse?
I like the concept provided but I'm just concerned that it'll be too hard for armor tanks to engage in Anti-Tank gameplay as opposed to just being infantry killers. If that's what their design is, then I have no problem with it, but if that's the case Infantry needs to be able to have an easier time taking out Gunnlogis since most Infantry AV weaponry is geared toward armor. We need a healthy rock/paper/scissors gameplay.
Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
|