|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Telcontar Dunedain
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
328
   |
Posted - 2012.08.31 18:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
Right now we are having a very flawed conversation about AV vs Tank balance.
Somehow CCP game design has decided that Tanks are a solo vehicle.
They don't need rearming (infantry needs nanohives). They don't need logibros. They don't need infantry to kill the dangerous AV people after them.
This is broken.
Tanks should be fragile expensive items that require the resources and WORK of a squad+.
Tankers instead of being willing to bring out a tank in ambush maps, should be totally unwilling to bring a tank out unless they have a full squad to support them.
Tankers should be having conversations like "are you guys willing to squad my tank? I need a logibro, I need some assault to pick off AV and clear obstacles/turrets, I need a gunner, I need someone with a swarm in case one of those AV dropships finds us and ok chip in on the cost please"
LAV need a separate gunner but HAV don't? Hmmm.
It should also be a big hit to the corp fielding it for a tank to die.
Solo tanks need to go away it's bad game design and robs us of what would be a lot more fun in supporting tanks. |
Telcontar Dunedain
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
328
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 22:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
You took my quote from irc out of context. The ground environment is extremely lethal to AV and nothing to do with the hypothetical squad of yours that 99% of tankers do not run with or care about as they solo circlestrafe the map.
It's great that some of the better AV players "singlehandedly putting my tank at risk of death or forcing me to flee." but I notice no mention of actually killing you? It's good to know that 4 perfectly coordinated AV people (and safe from infantry on the tower) can kill you though. Speaking of someone "deflates his own arguement"?
My real issue with HAV is that unlike LAV and Dropships (which have other issues), Tanks are effectively solo vehicles now.
There is no reason for a tanker to actually need a "tank squad" at this point in the game.
What would a tank squad look like? Would people enjoy roles as part of a tank squad (beyond just farming newbs)?
While this next cycle of nerfs might make tanks less annoying to the rest of us playing the game with you, I'm not sure they will achieve what I'm actually asking for, and that's a tank that is fun for more than the single person driving it.
Breaking up the gunner/driver roles would probably be the best first step towards that. So I endorse this thread https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=34747&find=unread |
Telcontar Dunedain
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
328
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 22:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
Captain-Awesome wrote:I await the "vehicles should be corp assets and therefore funded by the corp" thread.
I'm neither for or against that notion, but it looks like funding of the tank is getting to be an issue here.
Yes (as I alluded too in my OP) tanks are too cheap, especially with corporate resources behind them, as they are now.
|
Telcontar Dunedain
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
328
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 00:36:00 -
[4] - Quote
General Rian wrote:It's mindnumbingly baffling to hear people moan and complain about tanks, but are not willing to put one of their own on the battlefield.
Learn to counter... learn to adapt... learn when it's time to commit more isk to a battle...
Or learn to lose without screaming "nerf".
So wait the "counter" to tanks is more tanks... |
Telcontar Dunedain
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
328
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 02:49:00 -
[5] - Quote
General Rian wrote:Telcontar Dunedain wrote:General Rian wrote:It's mindnumbingly baffling to hear people moan and complain about tanks, but are not willing to put one of their own on the battlefield.
Learn to counter... learn to adapt... learn when it's time to commit more isk to a battle...
Or learn to lose without screaming "nerf". So wait the "counter" to tanks is more tanks... No, the only counter to tanks is not tanks. But it's a perfectly viable way to combat them. People just become absolutely unwilling to commit a tank(s) of their own onto the battlefield when the enemy seems perfectly willing to. Why should an inferior opponent be expected to win in most cases?
I don't really have much to talk to you about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_balance
Games are about having interesting and fun things happening, not ISK to win. Have fun in whatever game you end up in. |
Telcontar Dunedain
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
328
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 19:12:00 -
[6] - Quote
General Rian wrote:
Edit- A direct quote from the very wiki article you linked me... "Balancing does not necessarily mean making a game fair."
So you managed to read only the first sentence? and after posting at that...
A few lines further --
"""In these cases balancing is instead the management of unfair scenarios, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that all of the strategies which the game intends to support are viable.[2] The extent to which those strategies are equal to one another defines the character of the game in question."""
For further reading I suggest my OP, if you had read it you would realize its not really about nerfs and buffs. |
|
|
| |
|