| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Needless Sacermendor
98
   |
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:04:00 -
[1] - Quote
I've recently posted this in one of the many HAV OP / stop whining threads and had some positive feedback from both sides so I thought it deserved its own thread.
It would be nice to hear your opinions, objections or support and it would also be good to know which side you're on ... are you HAV driver, dropship pilot, infantry or AV or more than one ie. HAV driver / infantry putting your main role first.
Here's what I suggested :
Needless Sacermendor wrote:I don't have a problem with the power or resilience of HAVs, only time I (as a dedicated AV specialist) have an issue with HAVs is when there's 3 or 4 of them rolling round particularly in the smaller maps ... It would be less of an issue if HAVs were limited separately from LAVs and dropships, maybe even better to limit dropships separately aswell, once they get more popular they'll become an issue for HAV drivers. Limits could be different for each map, I'm sure 4 HAVs wouldn't be too devastating on some of the bigger Skirmish maps down to 1 per side on the compound Ambush maps.
This could be complimented by either a constant display of currently deployed and queued vehicles of each type, or maybe something that pops up when you go to the vehicle class you want to call in.
Just an idea to ease the one sided tank fests we getting this and last build, it does just cause more people to train them as it's seen as the easiest / safest way to counter them.
Opinions from both sides please ...
|
Noc Tempre
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1170
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:18:00 -
[2] - Quote
High sec is the only place such artificial barriers should be allowed. Their is room to concede to technical limitations, but why go swing restrictions around wildly. SP in tanks means no SP in other roles. It would be like undoing the removal of the racial skill limitation in EVE. It accomplishes nothing for the gameplay. |
Needless Sacermendor
98
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
Yeah by the time you're battling in low/nullsec you'll be in organised player owned corporations with proper AV squads supported by infantry squads and dropship mobility etc.
They don't need to be 'artificial barriers' you can call it a Strontium fuel supply issue or a limitation of the command capabilities of the MCCs deployable in highsec and I'm not talking about 'swinging' anything 'wildly', I'm talking about a way to reduce the 4 advanced HAVs vs Starter Fit AV which is causing all the complaining of OP.
I agree that specialising in HAVs alone leaves you with little to run infantry wise but I'm not talking about only allowing so many HAVs in a battle, I'm talking about only having so many at one time. If there's already quota reached you have vehicles you can gun on or just wait till a weak one is killed so you can deploy yours. |
Paran Tadec
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
902
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
Artificial barriers are only ok in highsec noobs will be getting their teeth cut. Lowsec and null should have zero restrictions. Let the market determine who wins . |
Needless Sacermendor
98
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 17:04:00 -
[5] - Quote
Again with the 'Artificial Barriers' ... we're talking about modifying a mechanic that is already in place, there is already a limit to the number of vehicles deployed at one time, whether you want to call it artificial or not ... it's there. |
Tony Calif
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
2002
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 17:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
Yeah, the goons should be able to blow 1.4 tril ISK for a million marauders and instawin...
Limits should be set according to player count. No army sends partially crewed tanks out. 1*HAV/LAV per 3 players. 1* Dropship per 6. Maybe 1HAV every 4 to seperate it from a LAV. These aren't artificial barriers. Vehicles should have a crew or not at all. |
Conraire
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 17:33:00 -
[7] - Quote
Idk, I had a thought out post to reply to another thread. But the forums for some reason are fubar. Clicked post, and it completely removed what I had typed....
But the gist of what I was saying there was. They need to make a more natural skill progression, and requirements for vehicles in general. Just like you have in EVE. And/Or decouple the driver from the main turret. In exchange I'd say give HAV's hard mounted front facing weapons for AP, or AV personal defense. In reality, tanks require crews to operate, usually you have a pilot, a gunner for the main turret, someone to man any defensive gunnery, etc. Though I could see it could get boring being the pilot. Unless of course they could act as a squad leader designating targets and such.
On the natural skill progression thing. In EVE with ships for example. You have spaceship command, which is equal to Vehicle command. Then you have Frigate skill, which would be equal to LAV skill. Then you have cruiser skill, and battleship skill and so on. I'd put current HAV's as being equivalent to the cruiser class in EVE. In EVE, in order to use a cruiser you had to first train frigate to level 4. You had the same progression of course with weapons classes. I think that will become necessary in Dust. As it is right now, the skill tree seems VERY fragmented compared to what you see in EVE.
Think the other big problem is marauders and black ops have low skill reqs compared to what you'd see for a t2 or advanced proto ship that you'd see in EVE. And I hate to say it, for what you get compared to say the regular versions, they're too cheap. That may change in the next build of course.
Something I notice is missing from Dust that we have in reality.. Flak weapons, and vehicles. Dropships aren't OP as far as I'm concerned, but I do see that it seems like somehow in 10k years they forgot how to build AA weapons? Apparently they've also forgot how to build, artillery vehicles. Or placeable gun turrets, these would also be good for AV role, they could be dropped in just like a vehicle is now, but not mobile after placement of course would make them a sitting duck. But, powerful enough to actual do some damage to an HAV, LAV, Or drop ship if placed properly. With that you gotta think about the fact that even in reality today, you can take that m2 HMG turret pod and either truck mount it, or ground mount it, for use as AP or AV defense.
More later. |
EnglishSnake
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
1012
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 17:48:00 -
[8] - Quote
Low and 0.0 no restrictions |
drake sadani
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 17:58:00 -
[9] - Quote
Conraire wrote:Idk, ..
Something I notice is missing from Dust that we have in reality.. Flak weapons, and vehicles. Dropships aren't OP as far as I'm concerned, but I do see that it seems like somehow in 10k years they forgot how to build AA weapons? Apparently they've also forgot how to build, artillery vehicles. Or placeable gun turrets, these would also be good for AV role, they could be dropped in just like a vehicle is now, but not mobile after placement of course would make them a sitting duck. But, powerful enough to actual do some damage to an HAV, LAV, Or drop ship if placed properly. With that you gotta think about the fact that even in reality today, you can take that m2 HMG turret pod and either truck mount it, or ground mount it, for use as AP or AV defense.
More later.
its missing because its a beta . they have auto cannons and mortar emplacements they have not been activated yet .
the best tank solution is to make heavy infantry more effective towards vehicles .
i like the idea of the noob training grounds having limits to vehicles on map . like being able to have 4 somas but only one sagaris' with unlimited lav's this will force players to use strategy . would you rather have a soma at every point or one sagaris playing with its KITTEN in the corner getting all the swarm hate |
Needless Sacermendor
98
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 18:04:00 -
[10] - Quote
Contraire ... you did a lot of typing but in the wrong thread ... I asked for opinions on adjusting the vehicle limits to be vehicle specific, not to post different ideas and opinions on skill trees, there are countless other threads for that, many with similar suggestions to your own.
I want opinions on this idea because it may be the best way to solve the new player HAV frustration without nerfing or buffing anything. |
|
|
Shiro Mokuzan
220
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 18:20:00 -
[11] - Quote
I don't like artificial limits.
My problem is that they're too effective as a super-heavy dropsuit class, becuase that's pretty much how they're played. Tanks should have a role and excel at that role (leading attacks, breaking through defenses, that sort of thing), but now they're excel at everything.
I think the driver shouldn't be able to operate the main gun and that they should have limited ammo. |
Conraire
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 18:58:00 -
[12] - Quote
Needless Sacermendor wrote:Contraire ... you did a lot of typing but in the wrong thread ... I asked for opinions on adjusting the vehicle limits to be vehicle specific, not to post different ideas and opinions on skill trees, there are countless other threads for that, many with similar suggestions to your own.
I want opinions on this idea because it may be the best way to solve the new player HAV frustration without nerfing or buffing anything.
The idea of limiting them by map size is most likely not doable. Only effective way to limit by map size would be to require an actual tank crew, to use properly. At which point a 12v12 game for example, it could take 3 or 4 people to use said heavy tank, +1 or 2 to run logistics. Something like that would limit the amount of them on the field quite easily. In that example, you'd likely only see 1 or 2 at the most per side, while everyone else ran scout sniper, AV, or Assault roles. This would also encourage people to form effective squads, to be an effective crew. |
Needless Sacermendor
98
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 20:00:00 -
[13] - Quote
How can you say it's not doable ! It's already done ... there is a vehicle quota, once it is reached for your team you cannot call in any more vehicles until one gets destroyed ... I'm trying to make this as simple as I can for you ... all you need to do is have a separate vehicle quota for each type of vehicle ... one for dropships ... one for HAVs ... and one for LAVs ... these can be set different for each map so big maps you could be allowed 5 LAVs, 3 HAVs and 3 dropships, whereas in smaller maps like the compound ambush you'd only be allowed 2 LAVs, 1 HAV and a dropship ... for example.
To reiterate this could be set to infinite in nullsec battles without a problem, it's an adaptation of the existing vehicle limit that would allow newer players to battle without coming across 3 or 4 HAVs on the other team when not one HAV exists to be called in on their team.
Nobody seems to be coming up with any valid objections ... other than a dislike of 'Artificial Barriers' but as I've said ... the barrier is already there, I'm talking about adjusting it to do away with the multi HAV trouncings that are becoming a regular occurrence once again. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |