Alena Ventrallis
Vengeance Unbound
2343
   |
Posted - 2014.12.29 19:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
Vehicles are useless because they have no defined role/have irrelevant roles.
LAVs: these things are worthless. The only threat they pose is heavies with HMGs murdering randoms wandering alone. And even then, the threat isn't coming from the LAV, but from the heavy inside the LAV.
DS: only useful to get links up high. See a little more use now since we have flux strikes. ADS are decent at link popping/ killing infantry, and harassing tanks. Don't think ADS can physically kill tanks now save for a maxed out pilot with a maxed out gunner.
HAV: supposed to be "AV" vehicles. To kill what exactly? LAVs? LAVs aren't a threat, as established, its the heavies they carry that are the threat. DS? DS are used at the very beginning, and thats about it. Other HAVs? What's the point if HAVs can't kill infantry? Why have an AV vehicle with no vehicles that need killing? And blasters are supposed to be AV? ROFL.
This is why vehicle balance is so difficult. Not only is there a very narrow selection of vehicles (only 3 types, 4 if you separate DS/ADS) but the vehicles we have have either no role or a useless role. Now if we had a multitude of vehicles, or we had things like walls that could be breached by HAVs, things would be different. But we need one of three things to truly balance vehicles:
1. Vehicle parity, and new vehicle types.
2. A vehicle whose sole purpose is to engage and kill infantry, to the exclusion of killing other vehicles. Whether its a modified large blaster with lower DPS and much less dispersion, or giving control of the rear turret to the LAV driver, there needs to be a vehicle which exists to kill grunts.
3. Objectives only accessible by vehicles. Whether its a HAV pressure plate or an objective only reachable by DS.
Without one of these, we will never have any decent vehicle balance, because we will have no end goal to balance towards. Right now were kind of just changing spreadsheet info and see I g what happens.
Do not go gentle into that good night;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
|
Alena Ventrallis
Vengeance Unbound
2386
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 00:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
A point I feel needs to be made. The SP/ISK debate does have some merit, Breakin. But I feel this needs clarification.
Yes, SP for SP, it costs more to run a tank than it does to run AV. However, A GOOD PORTION OF TANK SP HAS NO BEARING ON SURVIVING AV. Your blaster rapid reload SP does not have any bearing on your tanks ability to tank forges and swarms. Yes, in a fight of maxed out tank vs maxed out AV, the AV should win. But it should be neck-to-neck the entire way. Advanced swarms should not kill a proto tank in a single magazine. AV should be able to kill us, but they certainly should invest the same amount of effort I have in order to prevent them from killing me. However, if we tankers are going to compare SP to AV as part of an argument, we need to compare only the SP relevant to surviving AV, namely Vehicle Shield/Armor Upgrades and related skills (can't remember their names and not at my PS3)
In this light, we are actually closer to good balance than we think. Something as simple as small native regen on tanks could be the deciding factor, ALONG WITH reducing tank speed, could put us into good balance.
Do not go gentle into that good night;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
|