True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
19
   |
Posted - 2015.06.09 01:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:
I'm not sure that I'd say that, but we have certainly become rather divided as a result of our displeasure with the current Meta.
This is basically a synopsis of the arguments for this proposal.
While it's not a bad idea as I have said before to you I can't really consider a proposition which splits up the functionality of an HAV between two players as mandated by another section of the player base to satisfy their personal desires a good idea.
However I agree with you that having HAV with such prolific anti infantry power coupled with a flawed system of passive repairs does not equate to good gameplay or the kind which any armour tanker who lived through Chromosome or Uprising should consider themselves proud of.
That being said I do not believe the HAV operator and gunnery roles have to be separated to achieve a meaningful balance while reinforcing the HAV as not just a solo player's vehicle. My suggestion however would rely on several things in addition to your TIII MTAC concept.
a.) redesign of HAV turrets so they fit into the concept of large calibre ordinance for anti-vehicle gameplay
b.) removal of SHAV solo vehicles in favour of MTACs
c.) resurgence of lost modules for a more active vehicle piloting meta and return of damage modules to low slots
a.) relates to the fundamental design of HAV in Dust 514 which I look upon as flawed inherently. I enjoy HAV game play in a pragmatic sense but by comparison to other examples of vehicle combat featuring MBT's Dust does not present a particularly good depiction of armoured warfare.
I fundamental believe that there is a way to keep racial design philosophy, weapon uniqueness, and balance in mind while ensuring that all HAV Large turrets operate as true ordinance (e.g - Hyrbid Blaster Charged Electron Cannister Rounds, Hybrid Rail Kinetic Penetrators, Dual Beam Laser Cannon, and High Payload Artillery Rounds).
The idea behind this is to break up the roles for tank crew. Large Turrets are designed to fire at other large targets like vehicles, however can kill infantry with accurate shots, while Small Turrets function in an Anti-Infantry Role. Thus an HAV can operate in the field with only one main pilot and gunner but will be less equipped to deal with AV infantry in close quarters and entrenched in cover.
b.) The premise of SHAV is ridiculous and is a band-aid fix to a problem that deserves a true response. Tanks are not solo vehicles no matter how you look at it. Players should be encouraged to use them, support them, protect them, and visa versa.
Moreover the fitting disparities between the two make SHAV's worthless once all skills and fitting modifiers are applied. There simply is no place or point for them to exist in game.
c.) While I think everyone who remembers the time period understand that HAV were a little iffy in the Chromosome and Uprising Era's, and AV vs HAV balance was jacked in favour of AV [don't give me that ****, it simply was due to aspects of gameplay outside of either groups control] vehicles could be both tanked passively and actively.
Almost all tank type modules were considered active including Armour Hardeners, Armour Repairers, Remote Armour Repairers, Damage Control Modules, Shield Boosters, and Shield Hardeners. Vehicle command, most prominently Armour combat, was a process of managing 6+ active modules form your primary tank type through to utilities. Regardless of what people like to say about tankers [and visa versa for AV/infantry] Armour brawling was a bloody joy requiring careful timing and observation of your modules and your opponents in addition to your piloting.
Additionally I would like to see older modules like Damage Controls, Passive Resistance Modules, etc in addition to a Damage Module shift from active modules to passive modules to be fit into the low slots adjusting a variety of factors like Heat, Damage, RoF, etc.
"Crush all who complain!"
- Arkena Wyrnspire
|