Alena Ventrallis
Vengeance Unbound
2359
   |
Posted - 2014.12.30 11:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
So I feel like the HAV bring-back initiative is going all sorts of wrong. I see lots of bickering from both sides of the issue, and not really a lot of suggestions, or perhaps their getting buried under the snapping back and forth. I'm making this thread in order to separate from the initiative thread, that my proposal may be more easily seen and referenced rather than having to dig through all that lot.
So vehicles have been in contention for quite some time. AV cries that vehicles are OP, vehicle pilots (myself among them) cry about AV having too much advantage, and around and around we go. I feel like the biggest complaint is towards the idea of a vehicle being able to kill infantry. AV cries that blaster tanks are too powerful and can slaughter entire teams, admittedly at one point this was cold fact. Tankers countered about HAVs being tanks that should take multiple people to reliably. Both sides came up with great arguments and counter-arguments, but I feel we missed the initial problem; vehicles have no role other than to slay.
Let's look at what vehicles have the ability to do. They can engage infantry, and they can engage each other. And that is it. There is nothing else that matters in this game. No objectives only accessible by dropship, no walls that only a HAV can bust down, nor can any vehicle hack a point. Nothing to do but kill things. And I feel like we haven't fully understood this concept. Therefore, I will lay out the viewpoints of my proposal. I am formulating various ideas that would bring about my view, but this thread will focus on the first one I worked out; the anti-infantry large blaster. My main theory is thus:
1. That there should be a vehicle/turret whose PRIMARY FUNCTION is to kill infantry, TO THE EXCLUSION OF AV DUTY. This vehicle/turret should be unable to kill vehicles unless assisted.
2. That this vehicle/turret should be usable by one person. (ie: anti-infantry large blaster on a HAV hull)
3. That this vehicle can be killed reliably by one AV user. This can be a point of contention, but it should take one full magazine in order to destroy this vehicle. Of course there will be some that can kill sonner, like breach forge guns, but in general a full magazine should be expected of most AV weaponry.
4. That the solo AV required to destroy this vehicle should have to match the tier/skills of the pilot in order to reliably destroy the vehicle. ie: a proto tank should not be destroyed in one magazine by advanced swarms. AV should have to match tanks SP for SP. However, at max level AV should win the fight in one magazine.
5. That this vehicle/turret be equivalent to infantry weaponry in terms of DPS/range.
6. That this vehicle cannot easily escape destruction if caught off-guard, and so relies on infantry in order to protect it from the flanks and rear.
The purpose of these points is to create a vehicle that, uncontested, can wreck through infantry. However, a player pulling out AV should definitely give this vehicle pause. A player that can match this vehicle in terms of SP investment should be a deadly threat. I want pilots to be able to have a vehicle that does the only job that's truly necessary; killing infantry so they can't hack the point. But this vehicle needs counters, and hard ones at that. Now, onto my large blaster idea. The large blaster would be reworked into an anti-infantry role. I would make changes thus:
1. Reduce damage to 68.3. This ensures that even a complex damage mod cannot break the shield damage threshold of vehicles. This turret will be unable to kill other vehicles, save coming up on a wounded one or having support from another player.
2. Set ROF at 450. High ROF is blaster bread and butter, and should be the large blaster as well. In addition, high ROF means we can have low damage, again to ensure that it is ineffective in an AV capacity.
-Total DPS with these would be 512.25, slightly higher than most rifles.
3. Give it slight dispersion (numbers are hard to extrapolate for this) but have the dispersion be unchanging. This is for two reasons: it ensures that the large blaster cannot operate at full efficiency beyond comparatively close range, and two gives the large blaster better suppression at range. Hard to supress when dispersion builds up so quickly and resets so slowly. Physics wise, The HAV is forty tons of metal with lots of contact with the ground. It should be an unshakable platform from which to fire from. The dispersion comes from the fact that it is flinging plasma everywhere, and isn't built to be that accurate. I would say as a starting point to be exactly 50% of the current dispersion buildup (the dispersion that is exactly halfway between current min dispersion and max) we can shift this either way to balance it.
4. Increase heat buildup. I am unsure of how numbers work here, but It should overheat in about 4-5 seconds of constant firing, with a 7 second cooldown/10 second seize. This ensures the large blaster cannot run around willy nilly and mow down large groups. It will take heat management to be effective, which allows quick infantry to find cover.
5. Decrease HAV acceleration/top speed. Again numbers are hard to set in stone, but I would say 25% for both would be a starting point. This is to ensure that a caught HAV is a dead HAV. IT has a chance of defending itself from AV that attack it head on, but I feel like escape shouldn't really be an option for something so massive.
Running out of space to type, so I'll end with this: all vehicles need a defined role, and need to do that job well. A vehicle for infantry slaying, and vehicle for vehicle slaying, a vehicle for mass transport, etc. etc. Try to be constructive even if you disagree. LEt's make vehicles fun for both sides of V/AV.
Do not go gentle into that good night;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
|