Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
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. |
Bendtner92
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
369
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 16:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
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. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 16:20:00 -
[3] - 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. |
Grit Breather
BetaMax.
660
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 16:31:00 -
[4] - 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. |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State
789
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 16:34:00 -
[5] - Quote
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. |
Onieros The Void
Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 16:34:00 -
[6] - Quote
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. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 16:39:00 -
[7] - 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. |
Grit Breather
BetaMax.
660
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 16:40:00 -
[8] - 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. |
Onieros The Void
Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 17:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
^ 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. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 17:28:00 -
[10] - 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. |
|
Octavian Vetiver
Dog Nation United Relativity Alliance
152
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 17:58:00 -
[11] - Quote
I agree. Make the tanks a crew weapon. Gunner, driver, and maybe a commander. Or go along the same lines as the Hammer's Slammers series and make it driver and gunner/commander. Keep it at one main gun and have a small 360 degree turret. And then add in things like anti-missile that gets used up and needs replaced. Or even anti-infantry for people that get too close. |
EnglishSnake
Zumari Force Projection Caldari State
1012
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 18:30:00 -
[12] - Quote
Grit Breather wrote:
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.
.
Wrong
Once a tank shows up you can generally ignore it and still win the match, sure you can bring out another tank and have a tank vs tank on each others redline and be at a stalemate for the entire match or even a few swarms/forges which will keep the tank at bay anyways
Tank domination in a game is a rare thing these days, what you normally see is a blaster tank maybe invade at the objective but it gets forced back easily enough if ther is a few ppl about or at least 1 forge gun that the tank cannot kill so it backs off and waits until he is dead before moving up. A railgun tank will not do this because at CQC its generally useless but it will waste any blaster tank when it sees it and missiles tanks are lol worthy and can be ignored fully
Still as AV is broken and some parts OP a tank will not dominate without infantry except in alot of cases you need to send in the infantry before the tank and to me it makes the tank not a tank but pointless because the tank goes up 1st takes the damage and tanks a bit so infantry can move up but this is not the case
Atm its randoms vs randoms matches and the team with better randoms wins even if you have the best tank in the game you will lose due to randoms
In corp matches tanks really dont seem to do much because they get 2 shotted by any other tank and also AV has a nice easy time with forge guns, 2 guys is enough with the assault forges
As for a 4man tank im fine with it and the driver does not need a pointless gun either, hes the driver he concentrates on driving and gtfo of dangerous places
Also the HAV should have a big increase in HP tbh and some resistances back while AV needs to be fixed and armor vs shield tanks need to be more balanced ie armor gets active mods
Im hoping that the pilot suits also influence the HAVs with mods and bonuses etc to make it so that having a full tanks is worthwhile
|
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 18:58:00 -
[13] - 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. |
Skihids
Tritan-Industries Legacy Rising
969
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 21:11:00 -
[14] - Quote
As a currently unemployed pilot skilling into tanks I have to agree that separating driving from the main gun will just about double their effectiveness. Having to split your attention between shooting (especially zoomed in) and driving slows both tasks down. When running away you can't effectively return fire and you are more likely to back up into some obstacle and get hung up long enough to give the AV a chance to pop you. Imagine the main turret turning freely while the tank roams constantly around cover.
I'm still for making a tank a crew weapon, but I don't know how far it would balance things to double the strength at the same time you pull one other clone from the team. |
DarkShadowFox
Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation
238
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 21:41:00 -
[15] - 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.
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. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 22:02:00 -
[16] - 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. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 :: [one page] |