|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ulysses Knapse
Nuevo Atlas Corporation
84
   |
Posted - 2013.03.05 20:50:00 -
[1] - Quote
They actually do very well. The reason you see HAVs isn't because they are overpowered, it's because they serve a role in the game. If everyone was running around in a HAV, that would be kind of pointless. HAVs are not overpowered. If anything, the often urban environment of the districts frequently gives them the finger. Vehicle physics are especially bad, and trying to move through an urban environment with a HAV is like a fat guy squeezing through a hole in the wall.
Either way, there is no reason to remove vehicles, and this has been suggested many times too many.
For Christ's sake, just get some AV grenades. Those things are devastating. |
Ulysses Knapse
Nuevo Atlas Corporation
86
|
Posted - 2013.03.06 16:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
iLLMaTiC619 wrote:Ulysses Knapse wrote:They actually do very well. The reason you see HAVs isn't because they are overpowered, it's because they serve a role in the game. If everyone was running around in a HAV, that would be kind of pointless. HAVs are not overpowered. If anything, the often urban environment of the districts frequently gives them the finger. Vehicle physics are especially bad, and trying to move through an urban environment with a HAV is like a fat guy squeezing through a hole in the wall.
Either way, there is no reason to remove vehicles, and this has been suggested many times too many.
For Christ's sake, just get some AV grenades. Those things are devastating. I'm saying keep the other game modes but have a mode for just gun fights
I know what you are saying, and it doesn't matter. This is war. In war, we use weapons. Vehicles are a weapon. Such a game mode would be similar to a game mode that removes Sniper Rifles and Shotguns, or one that removes Heavy Machine Guns and Laser Rifles. There are roles in the battlefield, and removing multiple roles, let alone one, threatens the balance of things. |
Ulysses Knapse
Nuevo Atlas Corporation
88
|
Posted - 2013.03.06 21:44:00 -
[3] - Quote
The Final Fantasy wrote:Ulysses Knapse wrote:iLLMaTiC619 wrote:Ulysses Knapse wrote:They actually do very well. The reason you see HAVs isn't because they are overpowered, it's because they serve a role in the game. If everyone was running around in a HAV, that would be kind of pointless. HAVs are not overpowered. If anything, the often urban environment of the districts frequently gives them the finger. Vehicle physics are especially bad, and trying to move through an urban environment with a HAV is like a fat guy squeezing through a hole in the wall.
Either way, there is no reason to remove vehicles, and this has been suggested many times too many.
For Christ's sake, just get some AV grenades. Those things are devastating. I'm saying keep the other game modes but have a mode for just gun fights I know what you are saying, and it doesn't matter. This is war. In war, we use weapons. Vehicles are a weapon. Such a game mode would be similar to a game mode that removes Sniper Rifles and Shotguns, or one that removes Heavy Machine Guns and Laser Rifles. There are roles in the battlefield, and removing multiple roles, let alone one, threatens the balance of things. true but we are talking about 4k+ of shield/ armor with 3~4 hits to kill infantry vs like standard 200+ hp rifles maniacs
Are you honestly telling me that HAVs, probably the least agile, least versatile, most expensive thing on the battlefield, are bad because they do what they were meant to do? You can literally run circles around a HAV and it can't hit you. You can shoot homing missiles at HAVs behind cover. You can lob UP TO THREE HOMING FRIGGIN' GRENADES AT THEM IN RAPID SUCCESSION THAT DO OVER 1k DAMAGE EACH. |
Ulysses Knapse
Nuevo Atlas Corporation
90
|
Posted - 2013.03.07 21:05:00 -
[4] - Quote
Shledder wrote:I agree with this... to an extent. There shouldn't be a game mode that bans tanks, however, I would like to see some maps that no idiot would bring a tank in on (in a forest, on a mountain, in caves or catacombs, basically anything catered to close quarters).
We already have those. Too many of those. Urban warfare, they call it. I call it HAV torture. |
Ulysses Knapse
Nuevo Atlas Corporation
90
|
Posted - 2013.03.07 21:18:00 -
[5] - Quote
Alderstaz wrote:Ulysses Knapse wrote:They actually do very well. The reason you see HAVs isn't because they are overpowered, it's because they serve a role in the game. If everyone was running around in a HAV, that would be kind of pointless. HAVs are not overpowered. If anything, the often urban environment of the districts frequently gives them the finger. Vehicle physics are especially bad, and trying to move through an urban environment with a HAV is like a fat guy squeezing through a hole in the wall.
Either way, there is no reason to remove vehicles, and this has been suggested many times too many.
For Christ's sake, just get some AV grenades. Those things are devastating. You obviously are not a good HAV player, as it stands right now, folks trying to skill up, or just get some training have to deal with good players who use HAV as their 'Drop suit'. What does that get a good HAV player(not you, because of what you said above, maybe you spoke too fast) - (Can easily get out of dodge, because they know/are aware of good cover.) You cannot headshot/OHK a HAV. Good players cannot be killed without focus fire from multiple players. Not true for any other player with exception of Heavy suit much better with 2 attackers but surprise will let you kill one on one. - Have unlimited ammo requiring no/little support. They thought it important for Heavy Drop suits to have limits... Not HAV drop suit.. Those players are OK to be fully self sufficient for their 8 minutes of fun. - move faster than players when they need to. Talking about good players, who are situationaly aware not to be in stupid area. - Immune to anti-infantry weapons. You come in one suit, and never have to adapt. But the infantry needs to die to your gun, or get to Supply Depot and change to be almost helpless against infantry so he can hurt the player in HAV drop suit. Again, talking about all good players out on the field. So HAV kills everything, but you have to take serious penalty. I can go on, because I've actually played the game like OP, but to my point. Killing tanks is just not worth the reward for all the risks that you take as infantry AV. You come out as net loss, all the time the HAV player is getting better in his self sufficient kill everyone, immune to most weapons Drop suit. So everyone else takes serious negative for supposed advantage while HAV because of 'Isk' cost have none. In reality, there is no balance between such players during their 8 minute fight. And that is the point of OP. Again, think about all competent/good players on field before you talk. Lastly, the only antitank is another tank. You really have too little experience with Dust if you have not come to understand that.
You attempt to brush off what I say with ad hominem. It's not working. I only said that HAVs weren't overpowered and that urban environments were inherently bad for them. Which is true. You attempted to counter points that I didn't actually make. HAVs are the tanks of Dust, and tanks have never done especially well in urban warfare. What you fail to reconcile is the fact that you aren't supposed to solo a HAV as AV. However, when two or three AV users gang up on a tank with the right tactics, it's murder. I'm not saying this from my personal experience as a HAV pilot, because honestly I wasn't concerned with deep observation while I was being shot at, I'm saying this because I see it happen to other HAV drivers, friendly and hostile alike. HAVs are supposed to be overpowered, because that's just what tanks do, but for the role they play they are not that overpowered. In fact, when I jump into the starter AV fitting with militia swarm launchers, I shoot HAVs with reckless abandon and laugh as they run away for cover, which, while not destroying them, still forces them to stop what they were doing. Then, you say that HAVs are overpowered because of the skill of the user. Isn't that true for everything? Doesn't that make every balanced weapon overpowered? |
Ulysses Knapse
Nuevo Atlas Corporation
90
|
Posted - 2013.03.07 23:05:00 -
[6] - Quote
Moonracer2000 wrote:I support this. I understand that a new game mode will not affect vehicle use in existing game modes and will offer variety in game play (something this game needs desperately).
A game mode that removes choices is not offering variety. I think that is quite obvious.
If you want to play without vehicles, be prepared to completely break the enemy's ability to use vehicles. |
Ulysses Knapse
Nuevo Atlas Corporation
91
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 00:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:a dedicated tank driver is not an asset in an infantry-only match. A dedicated AV maniac is just as worthless on this field.
"As long as one lives the other will not die, and so shall their battle be eternal." |
|
|
| |
|