|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe
Planetary Response Organisation
246
   |
Posted - 2013.04.10 23:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
It's funny how no one has a problem with dropsuits being perfectly viable to use solo, but if you expect a HAV to be viable solo you're a horrible person who just wants an insta-win button. |
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe
Planetary Response Organisation
251
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 02:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
See, here's how I see it.
Sometimes I can't dedicate two or three hours to gaming. In fact, most times I can't do that. This means I can't go into corp chat and find a group of dedicated squaddies to run with. I have twenty minutes, I'm going to play two ambush matches, and then I'm going to get back to work.
For one of you dropsuit guys, this wouldn't be an issue. You can just run around un-mic'd and spam grenades, or bullets, or reps, or whatever your thing is. And you're gonna do just fine. I can usually hit top 3 on my team in a militia logi suit this way.
For vehicle drivers, however, it's just flat out not possible. Especially under systems such as those outlined in the OP. It becomes such that if I want to be a vehicle operator I don't just benefit from being on comms. I have to be on comms with corpmates I'm accustomed to working with, or else I'm going to die. And that just isn't good balance.
Should HAVs be something that works best when used with friendlies? Like everything else in the game, yes. Should they, and all other vehicles, be completely inaccessible to casual players? Hell damn no. |
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe
Planetary Response Organisation
251
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 03:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
Sure, I guess, in much the same way a mugger "incentivizes" you to give them your wallet. "Do it or you'll die" is technically an incentive. Just...not really in keeping with the way people normally use the term. |
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe
Planetary Response Organisation
254
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 07:31:00 -
[4] - Quote
BulletSnitcheZ wrote:Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote:Sure, I guess, in much the same way a mugger "incentivizes" you to give them your wallet. "Do it or you'll die" is technically an incentive. Just...not really in keeping with the way people normally use the term. The way people are using tanks right now isn't how they're meant to be used. Why should a solo tanker be able to 2-shot kill an HAV crew that's utilizing tactics and teamwork? Dust 514 isn't call of duty, this game is built around tactics and teamwork. Why should solo-gameplay be on equal terms with team-oriented gameplay?
Because they're using bad tactics and teamwork. The small turrets on a HAV are for anti-infantry support. They're like the .50 caliber mounted on an Abrams. That thing plays absolutely no part in tank v tank fights, and neither, really, do the small turrets on HAVs.
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot about HAV balance I'd change (behold!). But completely gimping any HAV that isn't manned by a full squad isn't it. |
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe
Planetary Response Organisation
254
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 16:31:00 -
[5] - Quote
Either they would have to nerf HAV HP, thus effectively requiring a full squad to not get one-shot, or leave HAV HP where it is and allow high-end HAVs to have ridiculous amounts of eHP. So there's your options, either you're making a full squad an effective requirement, or you're making a full squad ridiculously powerful. |
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe
Planetary Response Organisation
256
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 13:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
Can't speak for the other guy, but I don't like two. HAVs are supposed to have one purpose: balls out fighting. If HAVs can deploy a drone to hack installations, or have any similar such capabilities, then there's essentially no reason to ever not use them. I like vehicles as much as the next guy. Probably more so. But infantry need to have a role on the field.
I'm not really sure how I feel about number three. I almost think HAVs should only have the one turret. The small turrets are really bad at their anti-infantry role, and they would be fairly game-breaking if they weren't. Infantry are supposed to be the HAV's weakness, the fly that they can't move quickly enough to swat. I rather wish they'd just gone with high/mid/low slots, personally, and would nix the whole "turret slot" thing.
As for four...*shrug*. There are a lot of things that need fixing about HAVs and turrets. |
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe
Planetary Response Organisation
256
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 17:02:00 -
[7] - Quote
HAVs are super squad oriented. Their performance increases drastically if they run with squad support. I would argue that they are far more team dependent than dropsuits. It's just that that support is almost always better from outside of the HAV. And I don't have a problem with that. |
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe
Planetary Response Organisation
257
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 18:33:00 -
[8] - Quote
People don't talk about the small turret gunners because they're irrelevant. Ask yourself instead how often people say "I couldn't get within AV grenade range of that HAV, his infantry support is too good!" That is how they're squad oriented.
Now I don't necessarily agree with this method of balance. I don't really like that HAV survival is about running away as soon as you take damage so you can spend 90 seconds repping yourself. That's not a fun way to play. That's why I wrote the post about governing vehicle mod use by capacitor, which I feel will be a lot better. |
|
|
| |
|