Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
   |
Posted - 2012.12.04 06:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
Point of clarity, the whole thread is proceeding with the assumption that there are specific and exclusive guns in every slot on a HAV, is the proposal also to eliminate the ability of players to customize their fittings?
If not some of the suggestions need a rework as the specific guns, their damage and their targeting rates are currently not defined by the HAV hull but rather are attributes of the turrets.
That aside I've had a very different experience with HAVs that many in this thread. For instance the idea that only the main gun matters is profoundly foreign to me. The majority of HAVs I've run in were never deployed without at least one dedicated gunner established before deployment.
ISK is, ironically considering the content of this thread, the major limiting factor on HAVs and their use currently with a "driver takes all the risk" mentality being common place enough that frequently HAVs are left undeployed, or not redeployed, even in high stakes games because it's assumed that the driver assumes all cost risk associated with deploying the vehicle.
Back when I was a novice gunner it was easy for me to get spots gunning simply by offering to help share the risk by contributing to the cost of a lost vehicle. When balancing a game which is to have economics as a key factor I don't think we can dismiss it within our balance discussions. For example tonight I killed 2 HAVs and 1 LAV using my Militia Heavy and Meta 1 Forge Gun. I lost 4 fits doing this, 2 of which were to infantry support (1 GEK and 1 HMG). I not only inflected greater losses upon the opposing force than I took but I also made ISK overall on the match. I am a novice forge gunner with no advanced fits or skills supporting my AV, and under three weeks of player experience. It's also worth noting that the tanks in question were neither Proto nor Militia (sorry I don't remember the specific HAV types).
I cannot take out Proto tanks solo with my current fit, nor should I really be able to, I've yet to test Proto Forges/Heavy so I can't report on that but if it scales the same as Forge vs HAV at low levels then a lone forge gunner with a vantage and some cover can suppress or destroy even multiple enemy vehicles. (Note: Can =/= always will).
Making the driver run the front gun seems fine, and giving the top turret more fluid motion for a better rage of vision would be a positive. Generally speaking however I don't see the need for a number of the other changes proposed, under current conditions/ That being said I realize that many of them have been proposed based on presumptions that certain things are coming (pilot suits for example) so my current view on things isn't an out of hand dismissal of the ideas.
Honestly in my experience the main "imbalance" when it comes to Infantry vs Vehicle killing is that people want to be able to do it all and get frustrated when they can't have their cake and eat it too. If you're skills and fits are built to kill infantry then they should be good at that and vehicles should give them a hard time. If they're specialized for AV they should be good at that and infantry should give them a hard time. This holds true of the fitting in question is a dropsuit, a HAV, or a Dropship, how you build it should work but not be an "I win" button. Sure it's frustrating to encounter 'rock' when you're running 'cissors' but that's what teamwork is for and it's a calculated risk, take that away and the game as a whole is diminished.
It's also worth noting that we have yet to see Bombers, Mecks, or Cloaking. All of these are coming and will change the landscape of the in game meta quite a bit.
One final note worth considering is our map pool if one bases the majority of their balance feedback on game played on the map Manus Peak there will be a heavy slant to that feedback when compared with other more tight industrial maps, or even the mid rage Line Harvest. There are many pilots I know who won't even deploy (be it dropship or HAV, even before the recent missile rebalance) their vehicles into those industrial maps because the Risk vs Reward doesn't make it a viable choice, and some of these guys are the same ones who consistently go46/0 (or in the ballpark) on Manus Peak, or high 30s on Line Harvest. Terrain matters, some will be more advantageous to certain fits while being harsh for others. That's not a weakness in the game, that's a sign that we shouldn't expect one tactic, or one fitting, to work every game no matter what the context.
I'll close with a little food for thought. Of the last four vehicle heavy games I've played 3/4 of them the team with lots of vehicles lost the match. The one exception was in a Crop battle where their HAVs were supported by both Sniper fire and roaming Assault Mercs. Yes vehicles can be a dominant force, but so can Assaults, or a good Sniper, or a well fit Heavy with a LAV (no LAV required on some maps). Ultimately it is the terrain and the level of teamwork that is more decisive than then random pub matches might suggest.
0.02 ISK
Cross |