|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 15:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
tl;dr version: I believe HAVs should remain powerful vehicles that are a dominating force on the battlefield, but that they should require at least two operators to do so. I would have no issue with the cost of them being drastically reduced to compensate for this. This is a game focused on working as a team, and this powerful a vehicle should keep that same focus.
Over the duration of this Beta, there have been many threads about HAV balance, and many of them have brought up some good ideas about how to balance both them, and vehicles in general against infantry.
One topic that has come up many times is the idea of our current tanks being operable by only one player, with the other turrets being somewhat optional. The argument about separate positions in HAVs has gone back and forth, and evidence has been cited by both sides from many different games. I will cite one that provides the best example.
One-man HAVs are equivalent to the BFRs that killed Planetside.
Like it or not, a vehicle that allows a single player to dominate in a game focused on teamwork in all other areas is game breaking. The fact that weGÇÖre seeing suggestions of reducing all vehicle weapon damage to infantry weapon levels to support current HAVs is beyond ridiculous, as youGÇÖre again working game balance around an imbalanced asset, just like with GÇ£tweakingGÇ¥ AV up to improve balance against them which has resulted in Militia swarm launchers being able to one-shot most LAVs and throw Dropships out of the sky with a single rocket hit.
I absolutely agree that a tank should be able to take a lot of punishment, and dish out just as much if not more, but you arenGÇÖt going to be able to balance a single-operator tank against infantry without either nerfing its weapons into uselessness, or making it paper-thin, both of which just make it no fun to use, and completely cost ineffective.
This is a team based game. Having powerful assets is to be expected, but like all other aspects of this game, they should require teamwork to excel. This argument of GÇ£not forcing teamplayGÇ¥ was the same one used by the people who re-speced into BFRs after their launch into Planetside and walked through entire columns of tanks and dozens of infantry. The fact that you could mount a secondary turret for a second player just made them even worse. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 16:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
Bendtner92 wrote:I somewhat agree with you, except that I think the driver should have a small turret, and not be left without a turret completely as you're suggesting. I think anyone be fine with that as a compromise. The small turret on the front would certainly make sense. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 16:39:00 -
[3] - Quote
Nova Knife wrote:I've stated my opinion on this multiple times.
Separating the driver from the main turret is a massive buff that would only serve to make HAV's harder to kill and crush enemies easier than it does now. It'd remove the obvious blindspot created when a HAV is on the move, since a driver is generally forced to keep their turret facing forward in the direciton they are moving to prevent them running into stuff and/or getting stuck. If the turret can freely move, it becomes much harder for AV to coordinate and lay an ambush.
The fact is, the HAV is going to crush things no matter what, if the turrets stay as they are. If a second person gets the turret, not only is the HAV going to have more of an opportunity to do so. Sure, you'll get your wish in that it'll require two people to crush... Yet the fact that they crush and remain a 'win button' will still be an issue. At the risk of putting forth a strawman arguement : If you make the HAV require two people, why stop there? You mentioned the issue of 'forcing teamplay' in your OP. Realism dictates a tank has an entire crew. Should you -require- the tank to be full to make it more valuable to the team than just having the crew running infantry instead?
As long as the HAV can OHK pretty much any and all infantry, the issue of being a 'win button' will always be there. Perhaps a better solution would be to lower the base damage to slightly above those of handheld weapons but with a larger multiplier against vehicles to prevent them from being useless against vehicles with thousands of HP yet still able to hit an infantry without instantly killing him.
As stated countless times before : The main problem with HAV's is and always has been the turrets. Turrets have indeed been an issue for quite some time now, but with the recent nerf to splash damage on all missiles and the (excessive) addition of spread on Large Missile turrets in particular, it is now far harder for HAVs to one shot infatry, as it should be. That particular argument can no longer be made, as Blasters require the gunner to keep on target, and small railguns are useless against infantry, while Larges aren't much better.
The reduction to splash damage is a step in the right direction as far as balance is concerned, but it's only one small step. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 17:28:00 -
[4] - Quote
Onieros The Void wrote:^ If a tank has no passengers its no where near as dangerous. You're thinking balance is equal to numbers in the field, in reality its actually combat effectiveness you should be concerned with. A solo tank driver will be in trouble against two skilled av players. Or one solo tank. Or several militia swarms. Real balance is being able to quickly and effectively counter, and there are lots of ways to do this.
Making it obligatory for a tank to be fully staffed is not going to solve any problems, the problem is how players are trying to defeat tanks. The idea is that it is one small part of a larger, multi-part solution toward balance. I didn't address the other parts in this thread, as those would obviously be just as up for discussion. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 18:58:00 -
[5] - Quote
It occurred to me that I should have made a point in my initial post that I just made in IRC.
Nova makes several good points about the weaknesses and strengths of HAVs, and how such a change would alter the balance of those. The thing is, I think it's currently filling a role it's unsuited for.
I see all of those as excellent parts of the role for the MTAC.
Tiel made a post about reducing vehicle weapon damage to be equivalent to infantry weapons, but this is again aimed at balancing vehicles into roles they don't need to fill. An MTAC, as a single-person walker, if it was restricted to Heavy infantry weapons rather than vehicle weapons, fits the vision put forward by Tiel, and still leaves a single-person force multiplier as a viable option. However, its mobility would be limited by its size and weight like any other vehicle, and with only a single occupant, it would have a rear blind spot with no secondary turrets to compensate for it.
This way you have the MTAC taking up the current role of the HAV, which I honestly believe it would be more suited for, and allowing for the HAV to become more of a tank than it is now. As far as further balancing on splash damage of vehicle weapons, I'm all for that. With that in combination with what I stated, I think our vehicle balance would take a major turn for the better. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 22:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
DarkShadowFox wrote:Nova Knife wrote:I've stated my opinion on this multiple times.
Separating the driver from the main turret is a massive buff that would only serve to make HAV's harder to kill and crush enemies easier than it does now. It'd remove the obvious blindspot created when a HAV is on the move, since a driver is generally forced to keep their turret facing forward in the direciton they are moving to prevent them running into stuff and/or getting stuck. If the turret can freely move, it becomes much harder for AV to coordinate and lay an ambush.
The fact is, the HAV is going to crush things no matter what, if the turrets stay as they are. If a second person gets the turret, not only is the HAV going to have more of an opportunity to do so. Sure, you'll get your wish in that it'll require two people to crush... Yet the fact that they crush and remain a 'win button' will still be an issue. At the risk of putting forth a strawman arguement : If you make the HAV require two people, why stop there? You mentioned the issue of 'forcing teamplay' in your OP. Realism dictates a tank has an entire crew. Should you -require- the tank to be full to make it more valuable to the team than just having the crew running infantry instead?
As long as the HAV can OHK pretty much any and all infantry, the issue of being a 'win button' will always be there. Perhaps a better solution would be to lower the base damage to slightly above those of handheld weapons but with a larger multiplier against vehicles to prevent them from being useless against vehicles with thousands of HP yet still able to hit an infantry without instantly killing him.
As stated countless times before : The main problem with HAV's is and always has been the turrets. First off, its a HAV, its going to become balanced and hard to kill, theres a reason its called HAV. can you charge a protoheavy with a militia assault rifle while its wielding a "broadside" misomething something HMG no you cant. Should swarms be as cover averting as they are now no, should people stop trying to ruin vehicles in dust, yes. In response to your first paragraph. Giving the driver a driving role, makes it a real HAV, if you cant compete against something thats just as balanced as your AV weapons and is now a fair, hard to kill vehicle with an elite tank squad operating it, than thats your gameplay issue. Secondly your gonna die to strong weapons its an HAV with a giant f**** blaster on it, everytime I die to a heavy with a broadside HMG or a protoforge, do I run off and complain, no because their fair and balanced and doing their role. HAV's are the underdogs and have everything against them, AV cover averting swarm launchers, av grenades, foreguns that do as much damage as a large rail gun and are much more mobile. Tell me once when you have had more than four or five things hitting you at once that were unfair as an infantry, you havent, you have some grenades, some sniper, various light guns and some forgeguns but you;ve been able to play time and time again without any worry in militia gear that cost nothing for you to run. HAV's dont have the luxury of BPO gear, so put some perspective into it. Second Paragraph, its an HAV blasters are designed to almost if not competely devistate your infantry suit, Railguns are more anti vehicle, missiles are now area denial weapons/ long range supressive weapons. Lowering the Base damage to that of handheld weapons would make HAV's completely uselessl, its an HAV its supposed to be able to kill you. They already are damaging against vehicles enough if you know how to play them correctly and spend some time fitting your vehicle. Third paragraph, its supposed to have good a good all around battlefield view, its an HAV, it has every right to be aware of all its surroundings at all times when it has so many things against it. So I agree with the OP, minus making the driver only be able to move where the commander wants and making HAV's a crew based weapon will actually bring more fun into this game and make them less overpowered. As well, the current style of gameplay HAVs represent can be applied to the MTAC in a manner that allows it a unique role on the battlefield while still being balanced. Being restricted to infantry Heavy weapons rather than vehicle turrets will put it on more even footing against infantry, as well as enforcing reload periods to interrupt shooting, another featuer suggested toward balance of vehicle weapons against infantry. |
|
|
|