|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ellen Mobius
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
6
   |
Posted - 2012.12.23 13:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
I love dust 514 so far. I really enjoy playing it and It's very different from any earlier sci-fi shooters. I also love tanks and I love fps games that includes at a lot of tank play such as the battlefield series. I think I spent like more than 2000 hours ~ driving tanks which is kind of insane if you ask me =)
I think tanks in dust 514 are very interesting and the ability to customize different modules really gives you an opportunity to develop different kinds of play styles. However there are some things that concerns me. Rather than saying that this or that is OP I will look a broader perspective and the cost effectiveness of tanks in general.
Cost-effectiveness of tank ( ISK )
If you have tank vs infantry scenario lets say 3 man tank team vs a 3 man AV team. With the equal amount of ISK spent the tank team. The tank team will lose because of immobility. Even tho the tank is superior in firepower it still loses because it can't hide from swarm launchers or forge guns. This is because swarm launchers auto-lock and forge guns have about zero angle of elevation for its trajectory and high damage. Even tho you have 3 turrets it's still difficult to kill all of the AV team before anyone can fire and due to the difference in ISK they are also allowed to re spawn.
If you don't believe me compare the cost of 3 heavy militia suits + militia forges guns vs a militia tank.
Cost-effectiveness of tank ( manpower )
Instead of having a 3 man tank team you could instead have the tank player playing solo and the two other players specialize in assault or any other close/medium range specialization. This way it you would put pressure on the AV team and make it difficult for the AV team to properly engage the tank. Rather than staying along side the tank the assault players just run in front. So this would in theory be a better way to be more cost-effective against a 3 man AV team.
If this is true then what is the purpose of having additional manned slots in a tank? You would think that a 3 man tank team should be more cost-effective than any 3 man AV infantry team or at least equal as effective.
Effectiveness of large HAV turrets
Because small turrets requires several team members I will only focus on large turrets. The main thing about large turrets is that they should decide role of the tank. If you mount a blaster then the tank is more effective versus infantry and should be used as a anti-infantry tank. If it's mounted with a railgun its purpose is to deny enemy tanks and installations. Missile launcher is supposed to be somewhere in between or maybe focused more against air.
So how effective are each of these turrets?
Blaster is great versus infantry but still suffers from the cost-effectiveness in ISK. A lower ISK AV team will probably take you out unless you got good infantry support. Due to the effective range of the blaster the tank can not really fight that well at long range.
Missile turrets, are better than blaster but suffers again from not being cost-effective and still requires the tank to be so what close to the enemy.
The main weakness of blaster and missile turrets is that they are hard-countered by rail guns. If there is a railgun tank on the field it's practically useless to have a blaster or a missile turret unless you have a railgun tank of your own.
Now railguns are interesting, they have high damage, they can should rather fast, they shut down practically any tank or air play and they do not need to be close to the enemy. Therefore they purpose less risk to the tank player due to having longer effective range. This promote gameplay where you basically have one tank staying behind acts more as a stationary turret.
Unless you have a railgun of your own you would have to hide your tank until the battle is over as just showing your tank would mean the death of you. Infantry support doesn't matter as the effective range of the railgun allows the tank to stay out of any swarm launcher or forge gun range.
Tank vs tank play
Basically a railgun tank is better than any other tank combination due to high damage and high rate of fire. Mobility does not count due to the low elevation of angle of the trajectory. If you have several tanks on the battlefield, the one with more railguns wins.
IGÇÖll not discuss the usage of air play vs tanks but I feel that railguns shut down air units pretty good which shouldnGÇÖt be the case. In general air units should always be superior to tanks.
Shield and armor
I will not discuss shield and armor because there several discussions on this topic. But in general the combination of different modules for either shield or armor will increase the manpower effectiveness, the tank will enable to take more damage on its own however due the expensiveness of these modules a shield or armored tank will never be more effective in ISK compared to a AV team. |
Ellen Mobius
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.12.23 13:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Conclusion
- Tanks are not that effective in term of ISK
- Tanks are not that effective in term of manpower when using all manned slots.
- Tanks using large blaster and missile turrets are useless vs railgun tank
- Railgun tanks promote unfun gameplay, Tanks are mobile protection and firepower not a stationary turret installation.
Suggestions
Redesign rail guns and forge guns completely, add a high angle of elevation for its trajectory and make the speed of the projectile slower, compensate with more aoe damage or direct damage also lower the rate of f. This would make railguns harder to use at long range but easier at close range. This promotes any use of mobility, if you are moving fast you are harder to hit. This is not the case with the current railguns.
An alternative is to decrease the effective range of railguns, this exposes railgun tanks to infantry.
Reduce the cost of tanks and tanks modules in general. Reduce the effectiveness of shield modules for compensation. armored modules need no change due to mobility.
Change swarm launcher to be able to dumb fire and lock at close range with upgrade. Increasing the effective range will of course increase the lock range. This will mean that AVs are more easily used in close quarters but can miss a longer range if the enemy tank is moving.
Edit: I apologize for the lack of grammar :3 |
Ellen Mobius
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.12.23 14:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
Sir Meode wrote:I'm sorry but your suggestion is a bit ridiculus. Why change rail guns to something that they arnt supposed to be??
True a name change would probably be needed as well. |
Ellen Mobius
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.12.23 14:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
Kaze Eyrou wrote:
One thing I did want to point out though:
Swarm launchers, from my understanding, DO have the ability to dumbfire. The one's that don't are the Militia Swarm Launchers. This change occurred when people were using the Militia Swarm Launcher to get kills by dumbfiring the missile launcher at infantry. Now, the free Militia Swarms can not dumbfire, however, the bought variants (those that require at least level 1 Swarm Launcher Operation) CAN dumbfire.
Ah I see! This is good but it should be the other way around don't you think? If dumb fire really is a problem then you should make it harder to use it against infantry.
|
Ellen Mobius
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.12.23 18:05:00 -
[5] - Quote
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Here's what I think: make tanks much tougher as far as armor/shielding, but separate the driver's seat from the main turret controls.
As far as blasters/missiles vs railguns: working as intended. an anti-tank weapon should be much better than anti infantry/lighter vehicle weapons in tank v tank combat.
I'm completely fine with a turret which is AT oriented and better at it then any other turret, however the problem is that railguns simply denies everything, you stand no chance, not even with the greatest micro in the world. Mobility doesn't help because of the low angle of elevation in the trajectory. Just taking damage doesn't work due to damage and rate of fire. Even if you try to avoid the notification that you are hit by a railshot isn't that telling, you just simply die. The only option you have is to use a rail tank of your own or hide in a corner of the map.
Lets say for example that a railgun had very low range. This would give non-railgun tanks a chance to run away if they are faster. Also it would put a big risk on the railgun player because he would be forced to be close to the enemy.
But with the current build you're simply ****** because a railtank can stay in its deployment zone and simply snipe you. It's even worse for LAV and air because they get one shot with no chance to do anything about it. Of course this could be fixed by map design but promoting such a gameplay is not fun in my opinion, why would you spec into something just have it blown into pieces in two seconds. Of course you could say that I have to be smart and not taking risks, even if I have infantry support a railgun tank will still get me, against AV team maybe I have more of a chance.
What I'm aiming for is to make tank driving more fun and more positional and mobility based rather than just "Who got the most railguns"
|
|
|
| |
|