Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
[Veteran_Glen Duval]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 22:44:00 -
[1] - Quote
How many of you folks here actually use the Logistics vehicles like the Limbus and how have you been handling it so far?
From my point of view, the controls are a little tough to get use to, but once I managed to adapt to them the Limbus is very effective in saving a vehicle or two before the enemy starts realizing that there is a logi in the field and start hunting for it.
The one thing that irks me is that there is not enough players using logistics LAVs to cover the tanks like the Sagaris. I understand those tanks are tough to kill alone, but I have run into a situations where the tank I was defending was being attacked by another tank of equal or greater strength and I managed to save it some before my remote armor rep module ran out of time (I should've fitted an extra one).
But the biggest problem I see so far is the lack of logistics players coordinating and communicating with each other when driving the vehicles. In Eve Online, the various logistics ships such as the Oneiros, Basilisk, Scimitar, and Guardian, always team up and use a tactic known as:
Spider Tanking
This tactical is critical in ensuring that the logistics ships stay in the field for as long as possible via repping each other while at least one or two of them are focused on repping the fleet commander, the all-important tackler frigate, or that critical battleship needed to get the job done.
=============== This is how it goes. ===============
Please note that I have never participated in Logistics fleets in Eve but I have read a lot about their methods because it is common knowledge throughout New Eden.
Let's assume you have a team of 5 logistics LAVs on the field and each merc is named Logi#1 through Logi#5 and that each logi is equiped with two Remote Armor Rep modules. Let's ignore the built-in (third) remote rep mod that is included in the Limbus as that seems to only functional for infantry. Each mod is then targeted as so:
Logi#1 locks onto Logi#2 and Logi#3. Logi#2 locks onto Logi#3 and Logi#4 Logi#3 locks onto Logi#4 and Logi#5 Logi#4 locks onto Logi#5 and Logi#1 <------the chain starts over from this point and forms a looped chain.
Each logi locks onto the next according to the order in which their names appear on a watch list (which should be added as a feature). The entire group stick together and stays close to a leader or very important vehicle that needs to be covered. If one logi is attacked, the chain will ensure that the aggressed logi will survive unless overwhelmed by a massive team of enemy swarm launcher troops or inadvertently drives over a pile of 5x remote explosives meant to take out a Sagaris.
If one of the logis dies, the logi that was repping it will switch over to the next available logi to cover in the order they appear on the list.
While all of this is happening, one or two of the logis in the group will devote one of their remote reps to the vehicle they are ordered to cover for.
If by any chance the vehicle they are covering is overwhelmed beyond the capacity of their reps, the logis are trained to rep the second in command. If there is no second in command then they will continue to rep each other to survive until a second in command or another very important vehicle is found.
The problem with this strategy is the the handling of the vehicles are sluggish and quirky at best and will require an experienced group of drivers to handle this task. The targeting mechanic of the remote armor reps are ok...ish... for as long as you look at one vehicle or two given that they stay within your line of sight, but that starts to become problematic when everyone is moving around while the viewing camera won't sit still as you drive over a massive field of hills and dunes that throw off your aim.
So, until CCP fixes the handling and polishes the targeting mechanism a bit of the LAVs and the remote reppers, this strategy will see limited use and will only be used by the highly-skilled, extremely vehicle-versed players who are probably used to being dragged half way across a football field by a horse while they carefully fill a glass of Budweiser at the same time without spilling a single drop. |
[Veteran_Glen Duval]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 23:08:00 -
[2] - Quote
Bump |
[Veteran_Legendary Ecko]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 23:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
The controls and mechanics for LAV's and basically all vehicles are busted right now. Your Logistics chain idea is pretty complicated, and requires precision and dedication. But if it works, it's pretty good. |
[Veteran_Corvus Ravensong]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 23:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
It works, believe me it works. And it's a lot less complicated than it sounds, you keep a repper on 1 fellow Logi, and then you handle repair calls as they come in. |
[Veteran_RolyatDerTeufel]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 00:07:00 -
[5] - Quote
+1 for a great thread and explaining to those that have no clue what's in store for logistics and how much better logi players will be then someone with "gungame" |
[Veteran_Noc Tempre]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 00:17:00 -
[6] - Quote
Vehicle modules should have a lock queue similar to eve. Hold r2, the module and then tap the dpad. Very clunky, but that is still better then the joke of using logistics modules now. |
[Veteran_Alexi Darkbloom]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 00:29:00 -
[7] - Quote
Great thread. This method seems way more sophisticated than anything I've seen going on in dust as of now. I don't think we'll be seeing 5 logistic LAVs on the field at once. Down the road (pardon the pun), I can see things strategies like this playing out.
As for the handling issues, weren't they supposed to be addressed with the E3 update?
Any word on when the vehicle pickup call is being added? That would be a big incentive for using these and other vehicles. If our Logi LAV is dropped just as the tank we were planning to support is taken out, we're SOL as things stand. |
[Veteran_Sha Kharn Clone]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 02:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
Been doing RR tanks for a bit but its expensive when I spawn all 4 for my team each time.
We gave up on the LAV cos its paper thin (we were trying to use a saga) but gave up and replaced with another tank.
We were going to try RR dropships for a laught but didnt get round to it. |
[Veteran_Cantus]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 14:42:00 -
[9] - Quote
NOTE: This is Glen Duval's alt posting.
After reviewing my post and seeing how the Eve strategy of spider tanking can work in Dust, I find that the following method of spider tanking would work well with Logistics LAVs without making it a little more easy to handle. This is also based on the post Corvus Ravensong made.
Again, the Logistics LAVs lock onto to each other based on the order in which their names appear to each other in their watch list.
Logi#1 locks onto Logi#2 Logi#2 locks onto Logi#3 Logi#3 locks onto Logi#1 <---------------Chain repeats from here.
Here, it's narrowed down to three logistics LAVs with only one remote rep on their partner with an extra rep made available for backup towards each other or targeting the leader.
Of course, this is only assuming that the handling and targeting mechanics have been addressed by CCP Games.
========= Alternatively =========
With the current handling and targeting mechanics of the LAVs in general, the Logis would best have to be in a V formation with the following chain established:
Logi#1 locks onto Logi#2 Logi#3 locks onto Logi#2 Logi#1 locks onto Logi#3 Logi#3 locks onto Logi#1 Logi#2 locks onto Leader
This alternative format requires a V formation with Logi#1 and Logi#3 trailing Logi#2 while Logi#2 trails the leader and focuses only on the leader.
PRO: This makes it easy for the drivers to stay focused and better coordinated. Logi#2 will be better protected and thus enable the leader to survive longer. This forces the enemy into concentrating firepower onto the two Logis in the rear even though they are not the ones repping the leader.
CON: This presents a weakness in the chain. While Logi#2 is safe from harm due to the higher repping from its partners as it concentrates on the leader, Logi#1 and Logi#3 are significantly at risk from enemy attack because all remote rep modules are not available and there is a cool down timer for each remote rep module. A pair of swarm launchers or a single shot from a tank can take out one of them and ultimately break the chain. |
[Veteran_Jack McReady]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 14:50:00 -
[10] - Quote
Glen Duval wrote: or inadvertently drives over a pile of 5x remote explosives meant to take out a Sagaris. in which world would 5 remote explosive take out a sagaris tank? should you manage run past the enemy, setup 5 explosive and manage to blow them up then the properly sagaris tank will eat all of them and still have 30% shields left.
|
|
[Veteran_Cantus]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 14:59:00 -
[11] - Quote
There is also another issue that Logistics LAVs need to account for.
Terrain
The current maps that are available only have one terrain type and it is full of tight corridors in the initial phase of the attack. This will force the LAVs into a single-file line when following the leader and thus break a part of their chain given the current targeting mechanics. Not to mention the danger of an ambush or surprise attack on the LAVs from multitudes of hidden positions held by swarm launcher troops and the threat of remote explosives waiting for them.
The open field that is available in the second phase of the attack, assuming that the first two objectives have been overcome in time before the MCC's shields are down, will present an opportunity for the Logistics LAVs to be at their full potential. This would be the equivalent to the Persian Army's chariots that wielded long spikes on their wheel hubs (best on open terrain).
This brings me to my next point:
Dropships
During the initial phase of the attack, those capable of operating dropships must carry enough troops to bring them to the hard-to-reach places held by the swarm launcher troops so as to clear the way for the leader and the logistics team. We must also remind the troops that they can jump out of the dropships from a very high altitude and activate their inertia cancellers to break the fall at the end. Remember, CCP didn't call these vehicles "DROP"ships for nothing. |
[Veteran_Cantus]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 14:59:00 -
[12] - Quote
Jack McReady wrote:Glen Duval wrote: or inadvertently drives over a pile of 5x remote explosives meant to take out a Sagaris. in which world would 5 remote explosive take out a sagaris tank? should you manage run past the enemy, setup 5 explosive and manage to blow them up then the properly sagaris tank will eat all of them and still have 30% shields left.
That's not the point of this discussion. Save that for another thread. |
[Veteran_Alexi Darkbloom]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 16:10:00 -
[13] - Quote
Cantus wrote:There is also another issue that Logistics LAVs need to account for.
Terrain
Dropships
During the initial phase of the attack, those capable of operating dropships must carry enough troops to bring them to the hard-to-reach places held by the swarm launcher troops so as to clear the way for the leader and the logistics team. We must also remind the troops that they can jump out of the dropships from a very high altitude and activate their inertia cancellers to break the fall at the end. Remember, CCP didn't call these vehicles "DROP"ships for nothing. Not familiar with inertia cancelers. Are these a default feature in every dropsuit? Or must we have the appropriate module? Finally, how are they activated?
|
[Veteran_Khazra Khali'un]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 16:35:00 -
[14] - Quote
I'd just like to mention that this type of tactic will be buffed slightly once we're given back remote repairers. Having a few logi guys with reps tagging along could help to bolster the repair rate of any vehicle coming under fire. |
[Veteran_Cantus]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 16:44:00 -
[15] - Quote
Alexi Darkbloom wrote:Cantus wrote:There is also another issue that Logistics LAVs need to account for.
Terrain
Dropships
During the initial phase of the attack, those capable of operating dropships must carry enough troops to bring them to the hard-to-reach places held by the swarm launcher troops so as to clear the way for the leader and the logistics team. We must also remind the troops that they can jump out of the dropships from a very high altitude and activate their inertia cancellers to break the fall at the end. Remember, CCP didn't call these vehicles "DROP"ships for nothing. Not familiar with inertia cancelers. Are these a default feature in every dropsuit? Or must we have the appropriate module? Finally, how are they activated?
It is a default feature in every dropsuit.
When you jump off a dropship from a very high altitude, the system will tell you on the bottom of the screen to hit "X" to activate it. You can only activate it when it says so. If it didn't show up before you hit the ground, it means you weren't high enough. |
[Veteran_Cantus]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:15:00 -
[16] - Quote
A tactic that is useful in addressing the problem of the tight corridor-like passage ways in the initial part of the attack is something that the United States Secret Service uses when managing a presidential motorcade. This will be very important to the Logistics drivers to understand, practice, practice again, and again until they can do it in their sleep.
Usually, the leader would be in the middle of the motorcade-style column with one or two standard LAVs leading the way followed by the leader and its three Logistics LAVs forming a series-chain of remote reps with all two modes in each Logi staggered to keep the reps active.
This is where it gets tricky and this is why I highly emphasize that only skilled drivers do this. Noobs, stay out of this.
If by any chance the leading vehicle discovers they are entering or already sprung a trap, there is absolutely no time to slowly turn every vehicle in the motorcade 180 degrees and head out away from the trap. That's what traps are for: to keep you from escaping too fast or to cause confusion among the ranks. To address this, every vehicle must immediately stop and hit full reverse and continue driving backwards to the opposite direction to safety. At this point, the Logistics LAV in the far back of the motorcade automatically becomes the leading vehicle. Every driver in the motorcade, including the leader, must remember the terrain as much as possible when doing this due to the limited viewing angle when driving unless CCP adds an option to see what's directly behind you.
Of course, this tactic will only be effective if CCP also addresses the breaking and acceleration issue of the LAVs (which I think might be addressed in the new build coming next weekend). As of right now, breaking and accelerating in a LAV is very sluggish and handles like a tub being dragged along the expressway by a pickup truck. Not to mention the fact that the tanks have a tendency to drive faster than the LAVs.
But if done properly, the motorcade will survive. There might be casualties, but the leadership still remains and thus unit cohesion is still functioning.
Remember, the overall objective of a Logistics LAV is to ensure that the leader is safe so that proper order among the ranks can be maintained and that instructions are relayed when needed. If the leader is down and forced to respawn, there will be about a 20-30 second long period of no leadership while the motorcade has to retreat to pick up the leader unless a second in command is designated to help fill in the gap. |
Maken Tosch
263
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 03:27:00 -
[17] - Quote
***[Veteran_Cantus] Posting Here***
I wanted to dig up this old thread to revisit an issue with the Logistics LAVs. Please keep in mind that I have not been able to drive the Limbus in this new build as I was too focused on scouting so I have no idea what changes were made. If anyone has recently tried the Limbus, please let me know if the targeting mechanism has been improved.
Although I did notice that the handling from the militia LAV has improved. A plus to CCP. |
Leovarian L Lavitz
Tritan-Industries Legacy Rising
278
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 03:35:00 -
[18] - Quote
I'm working towards the LLV, but yeah, it's been improved. It's alot like the swarm lock now. |
Maken Tosch
263
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 03:44:00 -
[19] - Quote
Leovarian L Lavitz wrote:I'm working towards the LLV, but yeah, it's been improved. It's alot like the swarm lock now.
Hmm... sounds like the old lock mechanism to me. Can you still maintain lock when you look away or do you have to maintain a constant visual line of sight? |
Maken Tosch
263
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 17:56:00 -
[20] - Quote
Judging by the lack of response I take it that the targeting mechanism for Logistics LAVs hasn't changed.
My brother and I were thinking about what would be the best way to improve the targeting mechanism for the remote armor/shield repair modules.
As of right now, the targeting mechanism is based on limited line of sight and therefore one has to maintain a constant stare at the target so as to not break the lock.
Our recommendation is that it should be a look-lock-n-forget mechanism with a range limitation so that the Logistics LAV driver can stay focused on driving in formation or other duties assigned to him by his commander. I don't mind the obstructions (ie: large other vehicles, hills or installations) breaking the lock so that the enemy has a way of breaking the repair chain if they are unable to destroy the Logistics LAVs directly. |
|
Norbar Recturus
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
119
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 21:48:00 -
[21] - Quote
Forums Veteran wrote:It works, believe me it works. And it's a lot less complicated than it sounds, you keep a repper on 1 fellow Logi, and then you handle repair calls as they come in.
Theory is busted by two AV heavies wielding Forge Guns. Instant-death to any LAV. You can not repair through this. Sure you're keeping that Sargaris alive, but at what cost? Better yet, a sniper can shoot you OUT OF YOUR COCKPIT.
SpiderTanking is legitimate in EVE because there isn't any way to circumvent the tactic outside of a large concentrated volume of fire from "far left field." There's plenty of counters to this strategy in DUST and therefore is not really a viable tactic. |
Maken Tosch
263
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 22:04:00 -
[22] - Quote
Norbar Recturus wrote:Forums Veteran wrote:It works, believe me it works. And it's a lot less complicated than it sounds, you keep a repper on 1 fellow Logi, and then you handle repair calls as they come in. Theory is busted by two AV heavies wielding Forge Guns. Instant-death to any LAV. You can not repair through this. Sure you're keeping that Sargaris alive, but at what cost? Better yet, a sniper can shoot you OUT OF YOUR COCKPIT. SpiderTanking is legitimate in EVE because there isn't any way to circumvent the tactic outside of a large concentrated volume of fire from "far left field." There's plenty of counters to this strategy in DUST and therefore is not really a viable tactic.
It is a viable tactic. Your forge gunner if being forced to focus fire on the Logistics LAV rather than the commander who is driving the Surya. This means that the LAVs are doing their job by simply forcing the forge gunner to fire at them instead. As long as the commander is in the field and is fitted with squad-boosting modules (which CCP will add later on), the team will have a higher likelihood of coming out as the victors.
In Eve Online, it's a same thing. Commanders from opposing fleets will always order their ships to attack the Logistics ship first in order to break down their ability to tank the damage. Same thing when dealing with e-war ships.
The same will apply to DUST.
In other words, Logistics pilots and drivers are willful cannon fodder who know that their ship/vehicle will be the first to die. It's part of their job to ensure that the commander stays alive.
In the prior build, I operated the Limbus in a skirmish battle in the Communications map while protecting a Sagaris. Guess who was the first one to die: me. The enemy was unable to destroy the tank because I was repairing it so their troops focused fire on me instead. I may have died and lost a great deal of ISK in the process, but I did my job and we won the map. The cost was worth it. |
Norbar Recturus
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
119
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 04:06:00 -
[23] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote: It is a viable tactic. Your forge gunner if being forced to focus fire on the Logistics LAV rather than the commander who is driving the Surya. This means that the LAVs are doing their job by simply forcing the forge gunner to fire at them instead. As long as the commander is in the field and is fitted with squad-boosting modules (which CCP will add later on), the team will have a higher likelihood of coming out as the victors.
In Eve Online, it's a same thing. Commanders from opposing fleets will always order their ships to attack the Logistics ship first in order to break down their ability to tank the damage. Same thing when dealing with e-war ships.
The same will apply to DUST.
In other words, Logistics pilots and drivers are willful cannon fodder who know that their ship/vehicle will be the first to die. It's part of their job to ensure that the commander stays alive.
In the prior build, I operated the Limbus in a skirmish battle in the Communications map while protecting a Sagaris. Guess who was the first one to die: me. The enemy was unable to destroy the tank because I was repairing it so their troops focused fire on me instead. I may have died and lost a great deal of ISK in the process, but I did my job and we won the map. The cost was worth it.
I'll go through your points one by one so that it becomes very easy to respond piece by piece.
In EVE it is not the same thing. In EVE you will always know if someone is within range of you. You will know if you're being targeted. You know who is targeting you. You can predict when and where your burst damage will take place. This is not a luxury you have on the DUST battlefield. Engagements in EVE are handled in cycles... Engagements in DUST happen in real-time. Player reaction speed determines engagement moreso here than optimal configurations and well planned strategy. I don't understand why you haven't considered this ahead of time before you presented your argument.
Squad-Leader modules, if implemented one way, will be implemented the other direction. If you have greater defensive skills from your SL, what makes you think the heavy crew won't have some kind of augmentation as well? Again, a point that you could have easily considered before you presented your argument.
The assumption that you make in your statement that logistics pilots are willful cannon fodder assumes that the amount of time they buy the offensive units they are supporting can be used to actually do something effective or kill the unit / ship which is ripping your team apart. We're about to see why this is not the case.
The charge time on a Forge Gun fired by an AV heavy is 2.1 seconds. If you have 5 Logistics LAVs and one Tank then you're looking at about half a minute of mobile infantry picking off your support with relative ease, probably from cover and no-sight, with virtually no risk. The cost of this infantryman's fit is roughly 23,000 ISK. After about 30 seconds of shooting out the LAVs, this two man team will have inflicted approximately 150-250K damages on you and will then proceed to destroy your 100-150K fit Sargaris in about 20 seconds.
To recap: Two soldiers (46,000 ISK) + Decent Tactics + 1 minute = 250-400K ISK damage and taking the position you thought you had well defended. Not worth it. At best you were a nuisance to the Forge Guns. At worst you killed one and he waited for his ally to respawn from the Drop Uplink.
Finally: You were playing Skirmish on Communications? How. The only gametype available on Comms was Ambush. Either you're full of **** or you're mis-remembering. In Ambush games (which it is very likely you were playing) you're less likely to run into anti-vehicular strategy because the emphasis is on "killing clones," and the most common train of thought to do this is with anti-infantry weaponry. In addition, most people who play the Ambush gametype are Lone Wolves. The fact that you beat that instinct to team-up is what gave you the advantage... not the fact that you had a solid strategy.
Any player worth his salt has Amarr Heavy Dropsuit to 1 and Forge Gun Opperations to 3 specifically to combat tanks in the current build. As the Skill Point multiplier is removed, you'll see less of this... but you'll see fewer vehicles as well. Compensation will take place in both directions.
Please understand that I'm not disagreeing with you on a personal level, just on the facts that have been presented. If I have attacked your delivery (which I have) it's only to try and receive a more thoroughly reasoned response.
I eagerly await your reply. This discussion will help solidify or bust Spider Tanking. |
Umallon Macross
Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic
281
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 04:37:00 -
[24] - Quote
I trained up for the Saga, and decided it wasn't really worth it to spec further to get in Logistics. It definitely sounds like the locking interface, and range, are the major concerns for this issue.
I think LAV's should be able to maintain their lock even when out of range, so that they can maintain their high maneuverability. |
Maken Tosch
263
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 04:46:00 -
[25] - Quote
Norbar Recturus wrote:Maken Tosch wrote:
In the prior build, I operated the Limbus...
I'll go through your points one by one so that it becomes very easy to respond piece by piece. In EVE it is not the same thing. In EVE you will always know if someone is within range of you. You will know if you're being targeted. You know who is targeting you. You can predict when and where your burst damage will take place. This is not a luxury you have on the DUST battlefield. Engagements in EVE are handled in cycles... Engagements in DUST happen in real-time. Player reaction speed determines engagement moreso here than optimal configurations and well planned strategy. I don't understand why you haven't considered this ahead of time before you presented your argument. I still see cycles with the modules the same way I see with Eve. You are right about the distance though. It gets more complicated if I'm targeting more than one.Squad-Leader modules, if implemented one way, will be implemented the other direction. If you have greater defensive skills from your SL, what makes you think the heavy crew won't have some kind of augmentation as well? Again, a point that you could have easily considered before you presented your argument. If you're talking about the forge gunner or swarm launcher guys, I see what you mean. But they still have to get rid of the logistics LAVs before they focus on the main target. Again, Logis would still do their job by sacrificing themselves for their leader.The assumption that you make in your statement that logistics pilots are willful cannon fodder assumes that the amount of time they buy the offensive units they are supporting can be used to actually do something effective or kill the unit / ship which is ripping your team apart. We're about to see why this is not the case. Assuming CCP doesn't change any of the targeting mechanics for the remote repair modules, then your point would be valid. With the current mechanics, the best logi setup is two logis repping a third logi that is repping a tank that holds the leader. The chain is simple but will be weak.The charge time on a Forge Gun fired by an AV heavy is 2.1 seconds. If you have 5 Logistics LAVs and one Tank then you're looking at about half a minute of mobile infantry picking off your support with relative ease, probably from cover and no-sight, with virtually no risk. The cost of this infantryman's fit is roughly 23,000 ISK. After about 30 seconds of shooting out the LAVs, this two man team will have inflicted approximately 150-250K damages on you and will then proceed to destroy your 100-150K fit Sargaris in about 20 seconds. Valid point. But one can fit more than one remote repair and stagger the activation of the modules to mitigate the wait time between cool downs. The logis will still be destroyed regardless, but the time might increase just enough for the leader to get to safety or perhaps see back up arrive. Every little bit helps.To recap: Two soldiers (46,000 ISK) + Decent Tactics + 1 minute = 250-400K ISK damage and taking the position you thought you had well defended. Not worth it. At best you were a nuisance to the Forge Guns. At worst you killed one and he waited for his ally to respawn from the Drop Uplink. So? If being a nuisance bought time for my leader, what do I care?Finally: You were playing Skirmish on Communications? How. The only gametype available on Comms was Ambush. Either you're full of **** or you're mis-remembering. In Ambush games (which it is very likely you were playing) you're less likely to run into anti-vehicular strategy because the emphasis is on "killing clones," and the most common train of thought to do this is with anti-infantry weaponry. In addition, most people who play the Ambush gametype are Lone Wolves. The fact that you beat that instinct to team-up is what gave you the advantage... not the fact that you had a solid strategy. I highlighted my old quote for you. "...prior build..." I wasn't BSing.Any player worth his salt has Amarr Heavy Dropsuit to 1 and Forge Gun Opperations to 3 specifically to combat tanks in the current build. As the Skill Point multiplier is removed, you'll see less of this... but you'll see fewer vehicles as well. Compensation will take place in both directions. Please understand that I'm not disagreeing with you on a personal level, just on the facts that have been presented. If I have attacked your delivery (which I have) it's only to try and receive a more thoroughly reasoned response. I eagerly await your reply. This discussion will help solidify or bust Spider Tanking. |
Maken Tosch
263
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 04:57:00 -
[26] - Quote
I like to also mention that we are assuming that the tank and LAVs will be in motion. No self-respecting fleet commander would sit still while his enemies attack him. Also, once corporations form later on, we can expect to see backup arrive to deal with the AV heavies or replace the Logistics vehicles that were lost. You have to factor in resource management. Kind of like Eve Online where a hauler is instructed to bring in extra ammo for the fleet... assuming that same hauler doesn't get blown up along the way.
I'm not against you personally either and I am speaking not about how this can happen in the current build but how critical logistics LAVs will be in the future once players understand the mechanics and the importance of protecting their leader at all costs. You would do the same for your leader if you needed him on the field as long as possible.
But you did make valid points. But let's not forget that this is a beta that the figures you stated and that the mechanics I mentioned will change by the time the game hits the market.
EDIT:
PS: In regards to the time you estimated on how long it will be before the tank is destroyed by forge gunners, I doubt the commander would want to stand still for a whole minute waiting for his doom. People will take cover or ask for backup if they are in danger. I'm saying this under condition of a corp-vs-corp battle, not a random-vs.-random battle like we have now. |
Maken Tosch
263
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 05:02:00 -
[27] - Quote
Umallon Macross wrote:I trained up for the Saga, and decided it wasn't really worth it to spec further to get in Logistics. It definitely sounds like the locking interface, and range, are the major concerns for this issue.
I think LAV's should be able to maintain their lock even when out of range, so that they can maintain their high maneuverability.
Actually, I want to see a range limit. Otherwise, the Logis LAVs would be slightly overpowered in terms of assistance due to their range.
EDIT: Oh you're talking about just the lock! I thought you meant the repping effect. |
Umallon Macross
Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic
281
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 06:10:00 -
[28] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:Umallon Macross wrote:I trained up for the Saga, and decided it wasn't really worth it to spec further to get in Logistics. It definitely sounds like the locking interface, and range, are the major concerns for this issue.
I think LAV's should be able to maintain their lock even when out of range, so that they can maintain their high maneuverability. Actually, I want to see a range limit. Otherwise, the Logis LAVs would be slightly overpowered in terms of assistance due to their range. EDIT: Oh you're talking about just the lock! I thought you meant the repping effect.
You got it in the edit lol. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 08:19:00 -
[29] - Quote
I'm not going to argue a definite yes or no on this one, because I haven't tried it myself, but if a Forge Gun can literally one-shot the LAVs even while they're being repaired, there's not much room to question.
If you assume the Forge Gunners are actually good at hitting moving targets, then 2 of them SHOULD be able to eliminate 2 LAVs every 5 seconds as a worst-case scenario. If you have 5 LAVs supporting a Sagaris, that means your 5 LAVs bought you less than 15 seconds and the Saga still took a hit in that timeframe.
Since this is assuming SIX vehicles, with AT LEAST the same number of players, going up against only TWO players with NO vehicles, it's pretty clear spider tanking will be a weak option in the metagame.
Of course, I'd still love to see this happen in-game, if only to get a feel for how effective it will really be. Several Logi suits with Armour Rep Nanohives and a couple of guys with Nano Injectors would be interesting to see supporting one another (and a Heavy or two) as well. |
Norbar Recturus
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
119
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 13:26:00 -
[30] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:Norbar Recturus wrote:Maken Tosch wrote:
In the prior build, I operated the Limbus...
Oops.
RE: No Lock-on notification in DUST and Invisible Attackers I still see cycles with the modules the same way I see with Eve. You are right about the distance though. It gets more complicated if I'm targeting more than one.The point I was trying to get across is that unlike EVE where Modules activate, cycle, and then activate again if automatic, DUST has (from the infantry perspective) continuous activation and/or burst activation with reloading being the "cycle time." You can't accurately predict damage spikes, and this is what I was trying to get across.RE: Squad-Leader modules... If you're talking about the forge gunner or swarm launcher guys, I see what you mean. But they still have to get rid of the logistics LAVs before they focus on the main target. Again, Logis would still do their job by sacrificing themselves for their leader.Okay, we're on the same page here. Moving on.The assumption that you make in your statement that logistics pilots are willful cannon fodder assumes that the amount of time they buy the offensive units they are supporting can be used to actually do something effective or kill the unit / ship which is ripping your team apart. We're about to see why this is not the case. Assuming CCP doesn't change any of the targeting mechanics for the remote repair modules, then your point would be valid. With the current mechanics, the best logi setup is two logis repping a third logi that is repping a tank that holds the leader. The chain is simple but will be weak.Here's where we seem to have a misunderstanding or disagreement (I'm not sure which yet). I'm not talking about the mechanics of the RR being called in question, I'm looking specifically at the ideology behind the concept that spider-tank logis are willfully going to die for a good cause. Which is why I'm so thorough in picking apart the ISK cost/lost in the next section along with a time-table for the elimination of your "fleet.">>>Stuff was here about fitting prices and how long it takes to kill things<<< Valid point. But one can fit more than one remote repair and stagger the activation of the modules to mitigate the wait time between cool downs. The logis will still be destroyed regardless, but the time might increase just enough for the leader to get to safety or perhaps see back up arrive. Every little bit helps.No. A LAV, even a well fit LAV under repair conditions (circa current build), has no way of increasing its TTL against two Forge blasts. The damage is simply too high and too fast to be accounted for through any strategy available (again, circa current build). Staying mobile is your best bet but that opens you up to other problems, namely keeping the tank in question in range of all the little LAVs while they stay in range of each other. Impossible as of current build.To recap: Two soldiers (46,000 ISK) + Decent Tactics + 1 minute = 250-400K ISK damage and taking the position you thought you had well defended. Not worth it. At best you were a nuisance to the Forge Guns. At worst you killed one and he waited for his ally to respawn from the Drop Uplink. So? If being a nuisance bought time for my leader, what do I care?[i]You should care. There's a concept in warfare called operational efficacy. It's a statistic that armies track for a reason: it's important to know how often a stated objective can be completed under given conditions. If you routinely "buy" your "leader" (read: tank) 30 seconds of time to [b]run away[b] then you're throwing away money and clones. From a defensive standpoint, you just gave your defensive strong-point away because two forge guns came trolling around. From an offensive standpoint this is marginally better because heavies are slow and you can definitely go to a different objective where they can not follow. All-in-all the point is less for the logistics driver, and more for the "leader" himself to decide whether or not this tactic should be picked to begin with.
Maken Tosch wrote: I like to also mention that we are assuming that the tank and LAVs will be in motion. No self-respecting fleet commander would sit still while his enemies attack him. Also, once corporations form later on, we can expect to see backup arrive to deal with the AV heavies or replace the Logistics vehicles that were lost.
Then we can also assume that you're going to break your lock and die a horrible death because you're now out in the open, away from cover. You need a LOT of space to work the strategy you're discussing and I don't think you quite understand exactly how much that is.
True: no self respecting FC sits still... but EVE is 3D space, not linear. Most instances where Spider-Tanking is required are for sieges (which you have very limited maneuverability) or for defending against them (where you have NO maneuverability). So this is mostly a bogus argument.
If you want to continue reinforcing your spidertank thing, you have to wait for the vehicle call to be executed, and then the travel time, and then there's the counter-argument where more AV troops show up and start killing 2 LAVs per two second cycle. Not very workable now. Your best counter is a Sniper... not more obtuse chunks of metal.
Maken Tosch wrote:I doubt the commander would want to stand still for a whole minute waiting for his doom. People will take cover or ask for backup if they are in danger. I'm saying this under condition of a corp-vs-corp battle, not a random-vs.-random battle like we have now.
Still does not hold much water because vehicular cover is sparse and disrupts a locking chain for logistics operation. Ran out of space... this is the end my friend! Lol. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |