Grit Breather
BetaMax.
660
   |
Posted - 2012.12.13 16:31:00 -
[1] - Quote
I agree to this point.
TLDR;
In our real life future there will be super tanks operated by battlefield gods. Unfortunately there will be no infantry on those future battlefields so such a vision can't mix with our infantry focused FPS.
I know most forum dwellers don't like my frequent diversion to real life examples but just read this one through. It'll come back around.
If you look at real life tanks, they require at least 3 person crews. Most require 4.
They are broken up as follows:
- Driver (drives where the commander wants to go)
- Commander (commands the vehicle and sometimes operates the secondary guns/turrets)
- Gunner (operates the main gun and does all the targetting)
- Loader (assistant main gun operator. Deals with the mechanics like reloading shells)
Some tanks have automated systems that replace the loader position. In general, those are the main squad variations for a modern day tank.
Now to the future (Dust is in the future).
I fully accept that tanks in the future will be mind controlled and require a single pilot or even work remotely. This is usually the arguement put up against why I want HAV's in Dust to be squad operated. This is a valid point but, I'm afraid, out of sync with what we want from Dust.
What is this thing we want? Primarily for it to be a FPS. Anything else must derive from that. Dust is a FPS.
Well, sadly, in our real life future with super tanks there will be no infantry. Battlefields will be filled with smart machines armed and armoured to the teeth. It would be suicide stepping on that battlefield without a vehicle.
If you don't believe me, just try it as a thought experiment for yourselves. Put a super tank on a battlefield and then build the rest of the battlefield around it. Any army putting infantry on the same battlefield with super tanks is sure to lose.
So how does this relate to us? You must remember that Dust is a FPS. We want to be infantry running around the battlefield. And we want this to be balanced. Because of this we must give up the idea of a one-man HAV. They have no place in an infantry rich FPS battlefield.
As many of you have stated in the past, Dust is not World of Tanks. Because of that we can't afford to have one-man HAV's. They are a very unbalanced element in the vision Dust is fast becoming.
For this reason I believe we should diverge from the real life future vision of super tanks and have our HAV's operated by squads instead of a single pilot. The driver should drive, the commander should operate the main turret and additional personnel should operate the secondary turret(s).
I personally think a HAV should only have 1 secondary turret but that's up for discussion.
The reason for this change is simple. It takes more than one person to take down a HAV. It requires coordination, chasing, cornering and finally concentrated fire power.
For balance purposes the same should be expected of the HAV crew. If one team has to send an entire squad to chase the HAV, that HAV should have an entire squad operating it. Any other option would have the battlefield very unbalanced.
The way it is today, once a HAV shows up on a battlefield the other team has a choice. Either kill the HAV or lose the match (due to lack of players to cap objectives). That is the very definition of unbalanced.
I hope my point made some sense.
Cheers. |
Grit Breather
BetaMax.
660
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 16:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
Onieros The Void wrote:How does this fix anything? Were just shifting the focus from the driver to one of his passengers. A good tank driver will have good gunners, and already be using teamwork to effectively cover his/her tank. So while the driver may not be dishing out the previous amount of damage, the tank itself is still as (if not more) effective.
The only thing this does is make it harder to solo a tank, but any one actually serious about vehicles already knows, or will quickly learn, this isn't a viable option.
Teamwork needs to be fixed on the side of AV, not the tanks. Tanks are fine.
Not true.
You're forgetting an important fact. Both teams have a limited number of mercs.
Today each side has only 16 mercs and if they deploy a HAV they are left with 15 mercs and 1 tank. That's 15 vs 16 on the other side. That's a very little difference in objective taking personnel for a lot of firepower. There is no trade off at all.
With what we're suggesting a HAV would require a team to dispense with 2-3 mercs. For full operation of the HAV a team would dispense 3 mercs. That would then be a real trade off as they would now be 13 vs the other teams' 16. The other team would still stand a fighting chance to win.
The other team could also dispense those same 3 mercs to AV roles and hunt down the HAV without kissing the match goodbye. Again, this is balanced. |