|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
3943
   |
Posted - 2015.02.23 13:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
So as far as i can tell the new DHAV is basically an Enforcer of old which did not work then and i think it will not work now.
It is supposed to be a hard counter to the UHAV and deal a vast amount of damage in a short space of time but its downside is being a glass cannon.
Problems with this include AV which is super strong and can easily kill it before it reaches it target, installations which have more HP than the DHAV so again they can kill it, lastly other vehicles like the UHAV or normal HAV which could hammer it into the ground and thus making the DHAV useless.
I have been trying to think why we need the DHAV apart from decking the installations at the start which blue dots never use or protect so that automated blaster always goes red at the wrong time.
The 2 DHAV currently would be missiles and blaster, missiles have 250m range at least so that not bad since it can engage from range but railgun can do it better, the blaster needs to get up close and for something that is made of glass that will not be easy at all if next to impossible if i has to travel the length of the map.
If UHAV are supposed to have upwards of 15k HP then the DHAV needs to deal 15k of damage at least but that makes the blaster on the DHAV basically OHK all infantry which would produce an ocean of tears, the missiles on the otherhand if they had splash would also deck infantry but also could OHK all bolas for easy points from range.
The mechanism for having a tank destroyer class does not exist in DUST, take WOT and the spotting mechanic along with camo values. TD in WOT have a higher camo index thus making them harder to spot thus the TD can actually shoot at you and not be spotted by the enemy so it is actually useful. The general downside is that the TD is weak, has thin armor and sometimes does not have a turret so track it and it cannot turn around to shoot you. In DUST we can generally see everything and from what direction it is coming from, for the blaster DHAV this is very bad news as it needs the enemy to not see it so it can close the range but we can see and hear when a bolas comes in and if it has a seperate square from a normal HAV then we will be able to tell if its a DHAV or not, the shape of the hull will tell if its armor or shield and with that you know the turret.
The idea of a TD cannot exist without the need for game mechanics to be in place, in WOT they have view range/spotting range and camo values but DUST does not. Instead DUST has EWAR values but a HAV in general will always be picked up even by sentinals because its a moving house on treads and if your radar doesnt pick it up you seeing it move by generally does the trick and if you have air support they will always see it.
Take other games such as Battlefield and Planetside, both have a MBT which can take more hits and deal more damage and are the main threat out of the ground vehicles, but they also have lighter vehicles such as the Lightning Tank in PS2 which is a solo vehicle but weaker than the MBT and BF has APCs or IFVs i think.
We have already tried the DHAV before and basic HAVs were able to take them on and wreck them and do there job better than the DHAV ever could, AV can do the DHAV job essentially better for a fraction of the price and SP.
As a pilot i see no advantage, useful advantage at that for me to use a DHAV over a normal HAV or the super HAV that maybe coming, the Enforcers i avoided because i could beat them with what i already had. Instead i prefer the Planetside 2 model of ground vehicles which is a lighter smaller faster tank and a MBT which is a bigger stronger harder hitting version pretty much just what we had in Chrome where you had your Madrugar and upgraded it to the Surya. Also in Planetside i do have to say that AV from infantry is nowhere near as powerful as it is in DUST and an MBT can take a fair few RPG hits but vehicle mines are the opposite to DUST and are very powerful. Essentially you use a tank to take out a tank or air support which can whack a tank in seconds. |
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
3943
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 14:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:
Lets just see how it plays out. Let's not jump to conclusions.
I already saw how it played out with Enforcers and the result was that mainly it was a useless tank which could be beaten by the basic HAVs. I don't feel that the outcome will be any different.
Jebus McKing wrote:AFAIK a huge part of the motivation behind introducing DHAVs was that Rattati wanted to give pilots the opportunity to not use small turrets on their tanks but did not like the idea that pilots could use the additional CPU/PG they save by not using small turrets to fit other things. That's also the reason why the other tanks will have pre-fitted small turrets that you can't remove.
Everything else is just a matter of balancing numbers until it works.
Nope
They are doing solo HAV and non solo HAV for that.
The DHAV is a specalized hull like the old Marauders and Enforcers, it will be a solo vehicle with 1 turret and generally a glass cannon fit. |
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
3956
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 19:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Tanks in other games traditionally do not take more hits. Battlefield 4 wise you could probably take all of four rocket hits unless you personally hop out and repair your own vehicle.
Moreover secondary AV forms like SLAM's, C4, all sorts of other Anti Tank Mines all can cripple and destroy a tank in short order.
Same goes for PS2 doesn't it. Not necessarily more hits to kills though the Vanguard certainly has the 5 second over shield which extends TTK out a bit.
But in those games tanks are also tanks. Range, Firepower, and Armour all in one package.
In BF4 though when i fire a shell at you, you will die unlike in DUST with missiles where no damage is caused from splash. Fact is i can defend myself more in BF than i can in DUST.
With PS2 the main MBT take alot more damage, Vanguard/Prowler/Magrider can all take a beating but also each side has resistance values so the front is strongest, side is average and back is weakest.
As for C4/Mines they are powerful but also in those games i have the ability to protect myself and also to spot them so i can avoid them.
PS2 also uses aerial vehicles to be a hard hitting force against ground vehicles if fit with the correct turrets. Like the Incubus once was against vehicles until it got nerfed hard. |
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
3963
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 10:46:00 -
[4] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
If UHAV are supposed to have upwards of 15k HP then the DHAV needs to deal 15k of damage at least but that makes the blaster on the DHAV basically OHK all infantry which would produce an ocean of tears, the missiles on the otherhand if they had splash would also deck infantry but also could OHK all bolas for easy po
Rattati is already aware of this issue. The suggestion I made is that the UHAV gains a heavy resistance against infantry AV, but not turrets, so that it remains extremely tanky against infantry but not enemy HAVs. This allows the DHAV to dispose of UHAVs without severely cranking up the damage to a point where its absurd against vehicles and infantry alike.
That does not change the fact that it may have 15k HP which the DHAV has to chew through so it still has to deal 15k damage at least.
Doc DDD wrote:Still think slower UHAVS should have built in general hardener, and DHAVS have built in av resistance on top of thier built in perma damage mod. DHAVS should be meant to use thier speed and alpha damage to thier advantage and not have to worry about the swarmer that will be forever locked on them. DHAVS will probably fit additional damage mod with no stacking penalty and shred anything it fires at. UHAVS should have some advantage over standard hulls, since they are slower vs DHAVS.
If DHAV have a built in resistance to AV then why use a UHAV or any other tank?
The DHAV requires 1 to use so 3 people in 3 DHAVs could effectively take out all vehicles and they also have AV resistance to boot so using any other HAV is a bit pointless since any other HAV will get alpha'd. |
|
|
| |
|