DUST Search - My proposition to balance vehicles, turrets, and AV

Tiel Syysch wrote:

Scheneighnay McBob wrote:

after actually reading more, my main argument is that this would make vehicle vs vehicle very very slow- possibly making it next to impossible for vehicles to destroy eachother if the drivers know what they're doing.

Who's to say vehicles are supposed to be the primary anti-vehicle weapon? Your swarm and forge buddies aren't going to disappear with these changes. A tank user trying to solo it with just the main gun will run into issues against another tank at these damage output levels, but that'll be his fault for not having passengers.

And to your above post, the weapons hit essentially like infantry weapons, and people seem to be able to kill infantry with things like ARs, HMGs and Mass Drivers, so it's not going to be that much harder using similar damage output from a vehicle. The objective is to get away from the drive-by oneshot everything nonsense that we have now, and the only way to do that is to drop damage to the point of not being able to oneshot people.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.15 22:49:00 - [1] - Quote I stopped reading when you said it should take a tank-mounted anti-tank weapon to one shot a heavy.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.16 02:07:00 - [2] - Quote Tiel Syysch wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I stopped reading when you said it should take a tank-mounted anti-tank weapon to one shot a heavy. The idea is that there shouldn't be oneshots existing anywhere, but the nature of the railgun being anti-vehicle would possibly still manage oneshots on some of the lower to mid-range suits. Thanks for being constructive, though. Because it's AV means it should be VERY difficult to hit infantry with it (which it is)- the problem with your idea to weaken the AI capabilities of AV weapons is that doing so little damage you don't one shot infantry also means you'll barely do damage against vehicles. Trying to kill infantry with these is almost like no-scoping infantry with a chrage sniper. my 2 cents
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.16 02:29:00 - [3] - Quote after actually reading more, my main argument is that this would make vehicle vs vehicle very very slow- possibly making it next to impossible for vehicles to destroy eachother if the drivers know what they're doing.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.16 03:08:00 - [4] - Quote Tiel Syysch wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: after actually reading more, my main argument is that this would make vehicle vs vehicle very very slow- possibly making it next to impossible for vehicles to destroy eachother if the drivers know what they're doing. Who's to say vehicles are supposed to be the primary anti-vehicle weapon? Your swarm and forge buddies aren't going to disappear with these changes. A tank user trying to solo it with just the main gun will run into issues against another tank at these damage output levels, but that'll be his fault for not having passengers. And to your above post, the weapons hit essentially like infantry weapons, and people seem to be able to kill infantry with things like ARs, HMGs and Mass Drivers, so it's not going to be that much harder using similar damage output from a vehicle. The objective is to get away from the drive-by oneshot everything nonsense that we have now, and the only way to do that is to drop damage to the point of not being able to oneshot people. the drive-by-oneshot stuff is the issue with missiles. not vehicles as a whole. What this thread is mainly suggesting is to make vehicles work like oversized infantry- a clunky, easy to hit, harder to hit with version of infantry.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.16 22:32:00 - [5] - Quote So.. why would anyone use an LAV after this happens? It only makes the gunner an easier target, if they're doing infantry-level damage. I think the best solution from this thread would be to make missiles do mass driver damage.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.16 23:17:00 - [6] - Quote Would this be too late to mention I made a thread on this a while ago? https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=43677&find=unread
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.17 02:48:00 - [7] - Quote Well, I'm not completely against your suggestion: it's just a little extreme for my taste. Turrets should always be at least slightly more powerful than weapons you can carry around of the equivalent tier, IMO.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.17 16:44:00 - [8] - Quote lDocHollidayl wrote: Proxy mines need to matter...they are terrible. I lost a 175,000 ISK LAV (full shields and armor) in under a second from proxy mines someone hid over the crest of a hill. They're fine. EDIT: if they make them stronger, then give people on the opposing team the ability to disarm them, and give vehicle scanners the ability to see them
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.17 20:03:00 - [9] - Quote Tiel Syysch wrote: Or, we could just cut the starter LAV's hp to compensate, I'm totally fine with that being a garbage vehicle and dying near-instantly to anything. This doesn't make sense, but I don't really care about this- here's why (and also why it wouldn't make sense)- Starter fit LAVs already die near-instantly to everything. When people actually put money into them, however (bought an onikuma and put 150,000 ISK worth of modules on it), they should still be worth the cost.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.18 00:54:00 - [10] - Quote Maybe the best solution, or at least to the starter fit LAV problem, would be to buff both infantry and vehicle armor and shield modules. Keep in mind there are no militia shield extenders for vehicles.

Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.18 15:06:00 - [11] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: The should just make the free vehicle a simple transport (with no fitting slot options at all) and re-emphasize the A in LAV by adding a roof. SP investment in something you can easily be shot out of is not a good investment proposition. or when (or more likely if) LAVs get a roof, starter fit LAVs simply won't have one.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.19 15:33:00 - [12] - Quote Also, why would a large blaster deal HMG damage if that's what autocannons are going to do?
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.20 15:36:00 - [13] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: Because we want people to use blasters for once. If you want people to use blasters, why does this thread suggest heavily nerfing them? Btw: only small blasters suck. I saw someone with what was probably a prototype large blaster- they destroyed a dropship before anyone could even get in it, from what is usually considered missile spam range.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.22 16:01:00 - [14] - Quote Another thing with what this thread suggested for small blasters: they already have about the same damage per minute as assault rifles of the same tier (even taking into account reloading and heat management). However, they have a much much lower accurate range.