| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jax Thrife
L.O.T.I.S.
Legacy Rising
1
   |
Posted - 2013.01.01 23:46:00 -
[31] - Quote
Yeah if you use a railgun its best for tank sniping wouldn't call them crazy infantry killers and downing militia weaponry would be nice for if you can come in with a cheap to free suit and take out a tank that has well over 5k shield or armor in a couple of hits something isn't right |
Bojo The Mighty
Bojo's School of the Trades
428
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 00:28:00 -
[32] - Quote
What of the near uselessness of a Railgun on infantry?
The rail-gun is long range (now shortened a bit) and very much AA. Large Blasters are very good against infantry, but not very effective against vehicles, per shot. However, a consistent blaster engagement does deal a good amount of damage against Vehicles. It's just that the Rail Gun will beat it most of the time. But that's where it's balanced. Also, HAVs have a blind spot from above, so a well armed Prometheus should take care of such a rail HAV, if they are smart enough.
Railguns: +Heavy Armor, -Infantry
Blasters: +Infantry, -Heavy Armor
That works out, and missile turrets are the twain between them. OP mentioned how Railgun Tanks can sit comfortably out of harms way, sniping vehicles.
Actually, maps have been designed so that vehicles, like a Rail HAV, are either vulnerable or useless in redzones.
To explain, some maps have their main base behind a hill and far away (Manus Peak), or visible to battleground but vulnerable (Line Harvest). Of course, there is always the peek-a-boo strategy, but that can be solved by using another Rail HAV! When they hide, find a railgun, and blow them to smithereens.
So Railgun Sniping is overstated on OP's end.
AV:
AV has had numerous balancing issues, but Swarm Launchers are a more balanced weapon. They are highly visible, very slow in relation to all other weapons, and highly manipulative. Swarms will follow your vehicle, but all you have to do is go around a bend and they crash into the rockface. You can also hear them fairly well.
Forges, are too cheap in my opinion, but easily hindered by Infantry and are very burdensome because they can only be used by Heavies. So Forges, that have some other unlisted issues, are balanced in the scheme of things.
Militia forges are also pretty whimpy. Good for nothing but low tier stuff.
Also, 3 AV versus one HAV would win because a HAV occupies one spot. 3 AV can occupy 3 spots and play Peek-a-Boo. It's actually very strategic. If you had 3 forges in the road versus your HAV, depending on the set-ups, a HAV could very easily defeat the forges in a Sit-Still and Shoot-out competition. It's just the varying locations that throw off the HAV.
HAVs are expensive, that's a fact. HAV's are effective, that's a fact. Have a HAV roll up to an Objective, and it's practically yours if you're smart about it.
Really here, the issue is Wits vs. Numbers. So I will leave you with a question to ponder: If a Baloch destroys a Sagaris, is the Baloch OP? |
Jason Punk
DUST University
Ivy League
71
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 03:53:00 -
[33] - Quote
I want to give this post a thumbs up purely based on the fact that OP recognized the absolute paramount point of this game, "cost-effectiveness". Nothing is really OP if you have to pay a **** load for it on a secondary market (eventually) and while that doesn't mean things shouldn't be tweaked and unbroken, people are going to be voting with their feet. If something is so advantageous that people are going to flock to it, you should just sell it to them at that value ^^
As for the HAV's, I absolutely agree with 1 and 2, but I have personally taken down plenty of Rails with a Large Militia Blaster. It's just a question of ground and tactics. But I can agree that it is not designed to be easy.
The primary issues I'd like to settle with the cost-effectiveness isn't necessarily to revamp the whole system from causality (ie. relative arcs for Mach 10 projectiles), but rather to find a way of countering or using a tit-for-tat strategy for cost.
Tanks are expensive, no doubt about that, but I might suggest rather than focusing entirely on their numbers, it may be better to focus on improving their malleability for roles on the battlefield. For simplicity let's play with a few examples:
Basic Tin-Can/ M4 Sherman Model: This is were we focus on low-cost; high weapon variety. Allowing players a light-medium tank to be focused on common battlefield goals, we provide the ability to drop a 70-100k fitted armored tank down with a lot of support and suppression abilities for keeping things interesting. This is essentially the cheap weapons platform and the more turret options and speed, the better. Tank v Tank proliferation in this sense, can only be good if you can achieve a 2-3 suit: 1 tank ratio as people will be able to call in their own support rather equally.
Tank Hunters: Extremely mobile, lightweight and low-HP Role. Medium-Long Range Projectile or Laser Weapons designed for to be a check for overly aggressive cheap tanks. Don't need to actually make this a new vehicle, just allow what we have to achieve this role better and more aggressively (ie. taking out a turret for a high-grade tank scope or a damage amplifier). The objective of this tank is to not only check tank swarming, but to achieve the one-man tank role with mobility advantages and relatively low-costs.
Main Battle Tank: I think for the most part what we have is rather suited for this role. I'd like to see the flexibility of this Tank increased, but overall it's pretty satisfactory. Maybe a decrease in prices, but hopefully the secondary market will be helpful in this.
King/Tiger Tank: Marauders and Fully Skilled-Fitted Tanks already play this role pretty well. Would like to see more of a dominance of this role in the future though. The cost is massive and if not perfectly fitted, it's one hell of a mistake with not a lot to show for itself. Getting more vehicles on the ground would probably increase this role far better than giving it bells and whistles, but I wouldn't be opposed to both ^^
Support/ US-Bradley Model: Infantry support role designed to both provide strategic support and tactical anti-infantry firepower. The Blaster HAV does this well enough, but it a lot of ways, it would be nicer to have a somewhat cheap fit with the ability to heal nearby infantry/ Resupply/ and or transport troops and clones.
...just a few thoughts and hopefully many more variants to follow, but the idea is to give some more versatility to tanks rather than purely more damage/ shields. Also on that same note, I would be thrilled to see an increase in the weapon types capable of being used on vehicle platforms. Flamers or Flachette Launchers would make some of the CQC maps and hopefully later situations be a little more bearable for tanks on infantry. Plasma and Laser Turrets would make for some interesting roles in terms of heat management and using the same mechanics the infantry-variants have to use versus tanks. Artillery or indirect fire could also be useful. Honestly, the destruction of my tanks wouldn't be so painful if we had a better run of destruction for the cost.
Going back to bed. Goodnight
|
Cerebral Wolf Jr
Immobile Infantry
760
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 04:17:00 -
[34] - Quote
I've not taken the time to read the whole thread yet as it's 4am and i'm tired, i've just spent the last 3 hours saving supers in EVE from being welped which brings me to my point. It wasn't technically cost effective because we lost a lot more than we killed but then technically we saved a lot of assets too.
You've not taken into account the cost of what assets the tanks save because its difficult to quantify but also and mainly, the tank is also going to be a very large, mobile anti support platform in the future when we get to call down turrets and structures which will bring the tanks cost effectiveness into play more when it's destroying turrets and clone vats etc that cost 1m isk a pop
You're only looking at the picture right in front of you at the moment, not the whole thing. |
Sandromin Hes
Sand Mercenary Corps Inc.
204
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 04:39:00 -
[35] - Quote
Well, to counter your arguments, I would like to propose my own:
In the future, there will be more types of turrets. Current uses for the turrets are intended; we haven't seen all the maps yet, and there will definitely be CQC maps in eventuality. Once close quarters is established, blasters will become dominant. Missiles are to counteract armor vehicles, so your idea of its purpose is slightly off.
Now, to introduce the 3 types of turrets: Hybrids, Lasers, and Ballistics.
The hybrid turret class includes both blasters and railguns, each having a respective range. They do equal damage to armor and shields, which makes them the jack of all trades in their range. So, to fight vehicles they have the railgun, but the blaster can be used as well. The blaster however does better against infantry. These turrets have already been included...
Next is the ballistic class; it includes the Autocannon, Artillery, and the Missile launcher. They do damage primarily to armor. They happen to slice through armor tanks very well, so it makes them optimal against Suryas, Somas, and Madrugars. The Autocannon I presume will be used for closer range combat; it will be like a modern tank turret. However, the artillery will be used in converse, and will be for anti-tank and longer ranges. If you added trajectory to a railgun as well as gravity, you'd have the artillery. So no, we cannot do that to railguns; they're in the right place right now. Then finally you have the missile launcher. Again, for armor, but good against infantry as well.
Finally is the laser turrets. They do damage to shielding. There are 2 types: Burst and continuous. Continuous is good for longer ranges; like the railgun, it shoots straight. Then the burst shoots burst rounds; better for infantry and close range combat.
Any questions? |
Mavado V Noriega
SyNergy Gaming
2282
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 05:36:00 -
[36] - Quote
Cerebral Wolf Jr wrote:I've not taken the time to read the whole thread yet as it's 4am and i'm tired, i've just spent the last 3 hours saving supers in EVE from being welped which brings me to my point. It wasn't technically cost effective because we lost a lot more than we killed but then technically we saved a lot of assets too.
You've not taken into account the cost of what assets the tanks save because its difficult to quantify but also and mainly, the tank is also going to be a very large, mobile anti support platform in the future when we get to call down turrets and structures which will bring the tanks cost effectiveness into play more when it's destroying turrets and clone vats etc that cost 1m isk a pop
You're only looking at the picture right in front of you at the moment, not the whole thing.
good points but thing is how far down the road are these other things?
are any of these things coming for launch?
i would assume being able to call down structures an such would tie in with the conquest mode they have planned which would have us in control of the MCC and given the battlefield commander role.
Its nice to look into the distant future and see what the game has planned but the more immediate future success would determine if we even get to witness the plans for the distant future. |
xMarauder
Doomheim
139
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 05:41:00 -
[37] - Quote
Jax Thrife wrote:Vanda-Kon wrote:I wish people who buy tanks would use them, not park them or bring them out at the tail end of a match. Downside of ISK. Park? you sure they are not heading for cover to make repairs from everyone hitting them with swarms av and forge guns. However I do hate it when someone pulls out a tank and take slight damage and then runs away from the batttlefield I mean if im gonna pull out a tank im gonna make sure I take out some infantry before they take me out. And as for the cost effectiveness the creator of this post was talking about, if tanks cost as much as an av fit everyone and i mean everyone would be pulling out tanks left and right but because of the expense you have to be smart on when to pull out a tank what type to go with (armor vs shield) and who is goin to be in the side turrets (personally I like a logi in one and a heavy in the other so one can make repairs while the other covers or takes out av infantry when needed). and just because the tank is more expensive doesnt mean its better. For example, my 1mil isk gunlogi would get ripped apart but after some modifications it is now a 798k isk tank that has high survivability and has taken out a sagaris before which honestly I dont know how i was able to do that 
I believe he means park them in the redzone. |
Jax Thrife
L.O.T.I.S.
Legacy Rising
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.02 14:15:00 -
[38] - Quote
ah well the only thing to do to counter that would be railgun, orbital, forge, swarms show them that nowherere they hide is safe |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |