Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
BulletSnitcheZ
TRUE TEA BAGGERS
20
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 12:55:00 -
[31] - Quote
KalOfTheRathi wrote:No it doesn't have to stop, Kitten. Maybe it can stop when you personally Nerf the Thale Sniper Rifle to be a wiffle bat. The entire game is built upon better gear and acquisition thereof, specifically Proto and Officer Gear. Skill up and get (and be able to use) the reward. While playing the way you want to play. Not while everyone Else has to play the way You Want them to play If the mythical blaster tank you refer to can be one-shot killed it has less than 2500 Shields and Armor combined. That is about the maximum that can be dealt with the ~1900 HP Rail and the bonuses necessary to even equip it. That gun requires .3 seconds to spool and 2.2 seconds to fire a second round. When the first one hits the Blaster had better be moving and enabling modules. By the was, did you add the numbers up regarding the Proto Swarm Launcher? You will find it does more damage than the rail gun in question and can go around corners. Let's make each missile require a crew member. Blaster Tanks have to keep away from the Sniper Tank's LOS. Or it will die. For that matter most things require not getting into LOS when a Sniper is around, either Merc or Tank. Finally, unbalanced gear is a fact. If you drop a tank on the battle field you need to be prepared to lose it. If you drop a Soma and a Sagaris arrives, well you had better be a good driver because the odds on you surviving just went down.
*Sigh* once again, tanks are not a 1-man vehicle. My suggestions do not force you to use tanks with a team, it rewards teamwork.
Your argument is like me saying "The game is forcing me to squad-up with a Logistics guy because my Heavy dropsuit can't heal its armor or replenish its ammo!" or "This game is forcing me to squad-up with other people because i can't get an orbital strike all by myself!".
If you wanted to play a solo game, why aren't you playing call of duty? Why are you in a corporation and why are you playing a game that's centered around strategy and teamwork? |
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe
Planetary Response Organisation
254
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 16:31:00 -
[32] - 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. |
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star. EoN.
204
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 16:49:00 -
[33] - Quote
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote: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.
But the community will never go for it anyways if it means a full HAV crew makes a tank near indestructable, cries of OP would flood the forums
The majority of vehicle pilots need alot more to get specced out proper, if it requires 2more ppl in that HAV then fine but only if the resistances/hp and damage increases are good enough
If the increases are not good enough then ppl wont bother, its way too much work/SP and time for a vehicle which still can get popped easily either by another vehicle or AV
When pilot suits get added along with mods to enhance the vehicle then it also maybe better, maybe gunners would be allowed to enhance the vehicle also with ther own mods so that increases the teamwork and has a payoff for the amount of SP/ISK and time invested because everyone in the tank has invested something at least to make it better instead of having it just so 3ppl can sit in it and it gets auto better. Specialization also increases along with teamwork, OP may still ring out but at least the drivers and the gunners have worked for it so they are rewarded with a better vehicle
|
BulletSnitcheZ
TRUE TEA BAGGERS
22
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 17:29:00 -
[34] - Quote
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote: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.
Not really. Keep in mind that these buffs would require everyone in your squad to specialize in certain skills. When a solo tanker confronts an organized 3-man tank crew, not only will he be up against the tank driver, he'll also be up against 2 of his squad-mates that have spent a lot of SP and/or time into developing their own HAV.
These buffs don't necessarily have to be extreme or "ridiculous", especially if you had to choose which buffs you prefer on your tank. For example, an HAV driver could decide that he wants a 20% reduction to railgun damage if he's using a vehicle that's more adapted to close-quarters gameplay. Or perhaps he could apply a 10% increase to the HAVs railgun damage and a 5% decrease to spool-up time if his squad prefers to snipe from long-distances. |
0 Try Harder
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
221
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 22:08:00 -
[35] - Quote
BulletSnitcheZ wrote:Quote:How about this. We do a 1v3 battle. You get a solo tank, I get two gunners. They will not use AV or anything like it on your HAV to keep it lol fair. It wouldn't matter at all actually, especially if both of us are using Large Railgun Turrets. The fight will just come down to who gets hit with the first shot because small turrets barely do any damage to tanks. My prototype small railgun turrets needs 4 - 6 shots to kill an LAV and you're telling me those things are supposed to be useful in a tank fight? People don't use the damage mods for small turrets when they're using an HAV because small turrets are basically useless.
OK!!!!!!!!!
I accept. When are you on? How much ISK are you willing to put on the line?
Want to do it until 10 tanks are destroyed on one side? If it looks like a 50/50 chance to win, you win the contract. You earn the ISK, and I will make a post about how I was wrong, you are right, and it is a 50/50 chance to win.
If you get your ass beat repeatedly, it means that I win the ISK and you stop what I believe to be delusional posts on forums.
We can do gunnlogi with adv rail, or all out proto if you want. You can choose. I will make a post in war forums too. |
Ops Fox
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
202
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 22:15:00 -
[36] - Quote
Ships in EVE have different high slot layouts i don't see why some types of tanks couldn't have a 1 medium turret instead of 2 small turrets.
However I do think Small turrets should be buffed and I would like HAVs to be able to actually tank damage a little bit, maybe a small bonus to HP for certain types of HAVs. |
Laurent Cazaderon
Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation
1302
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 23:06:00 -
[37] - Quote
BulletSnitcheZ wrote:Right now, tanks are basically a one-man vehicle. A solo HAV driver with a prototype railgun can destroy an organized 3-man HAV crew in about 1 - 2 shots. This needs to stop. Tanks are supposed to be a squad vehicle, not a solo one. Here's what i think CCP could do to fix this: 1. Give resistance, turret, and HP boosts to the HAV when more people are using it - This would reward tankers that utilize teamwork and discourage those that don't. These boosts would require a skill and will only work if everyone is in the same squad. Pilot Dropsuits would give additional bonuses to the tank as well 2. Give HAVs a "Tactical" seat - This seat would be responsible for logistics (Scanning, Spotting). It gives you an enhanced view of the map, allowing you to view the fittings of any scanned target you select. It also allows you to request orbital strikes and installations, all from the safety of the tank. You can also plot courses and set waypoints for the HAV driver. It will be similar to the CITV station for the 3-man tank in Battlefield 33. Replace the 2 small turrets with 1 medium turret - This will make the gunner more useful and valuable in tank vs tank fights and tank vs infantry fights. 4. Rebalance Large Turrets - Large Turrets would need to rebalanced in order to compensate for #1 and #3. Tank vs Tank fights would not last for 5-10 seconds and will not be fully determined by who can stack the most damage modifiers on their Large Turret. ****EDIT**** I made some changes to #2 & #3, there's no longer a 4th seat. Keep posting your feedback & ideas
Forgetting one major thing : Turret Installation being totally useless. You can see HAV roll them out each game without even worrying.
1) turrets should be blue or red when game starts. 2) they should have way more HP so that a HAV going 1vs1 against one would be a risk for him. And to avoid militia forge gun taking them down in 4 shots..... 3) The type of turrets are sometimes odd compared to their positionning. Why would anyone add a blaster turret facing an open area where a railgun or a FG could kill them peacefully from distance. Blaster turrets are close range.
Buffing turret installations would force HAVs to rely oon infantry to move on specific areas. They wouldnt be destroyed that often and actually be a tactical asset teams could fight for. Instead of WP ressource for the tankers. |
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star. EoN.
206
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:37:00 -
[38] - Quote
Laurent Cazaderon wrote:BulletSnitcheZ wrote:Right now, tanks are basically a one-man vehicle. A solo HAV driver with a prototype railgun can destroy an organized 3-man HAV crew in about 1 - 2 shots. This needs to stop. Tanks are supposed to be a squad vehicle, not a solo one. Here's what i think CCP could do to fix this: 1. Give resistance, turret, and HP boosts to the HAV when more people are using it - This would reward tankers that utilize teamwork and discourage those that don't. These boosts would require a skill and will only work if everyone is in the same squad. Pilot Dropsuits would give additional bonuses to the tank as well 2. Give HAVs a "Tactical" seat - This seat would be responsible for logistics (Scanning, Spotting). It gives you an enhanced view of the map, allowing you to view the fittings of any scanned target you select. It also allows you to request orbital strikes and installations, all from the safety of the tank. You can also plot courses and set waypoints for the HAV driver. It will be similar to the CITV station for the 3-man tank in Battlefield 33. Replace the 2 small turrets with 1 medium turret - This will make the gunner more useful and valuable in tank vs tank fights and tank vs infantry fights. 4. Rebalance Large Turrets - Large Turrets would need to rebalanced in order to compensate for #1 and #3. Tank vs Tank fights would not last for 5-10 seconds and will not be fully determined by who can stack the most damage modifiers on their Large Turret. ****EDIT**** I made some changes to #2 & #3, there's no longer a 4th seat. Keep posting your feedback & ideas Forgetting one major thing : Turret Installation being totally useless. You can see HAV roll them out each game without even worrying. 1) turrets should be blue or red when game starts. 2) they should have way more HP so that a HAV going 1vs1 against one would be a risk for him. And to avoid militia forge gun taking them down in 4 shots..... 3) The type of turrets are sometimes odd compared to their positionning. Why would anyone add a blaster turret facing an open area where a railgun or a FG could kill them peacefully from distance. Blaster turrets are close range. Buffing turret installations would force HAVs to rely oon infantry to move on specific areas. They wouldnt be destroyed that often and actually be a tactical asset teams could fight for. Instead of WP ressource for the tankers.
No bad idea from someone who doesnt drive anything
1. Should be hacked not auto hacked, they already can track fast moving LAVs anything else will get hit including infantry and vehicles making them a pain in the arse and losing clones but not due to the other side kicking your arse to a cheap mechanic 2. No way they already have 4k hp as it is and its enough, a turret can take a vehicle apart but thats if the pilot hasnt noticed the turret so they get punished for it 3. Only point i agree with |
BulletSnitcheZ
TRUE TEA BAGGERS
22
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:59:00 -
[39] - Quote
Laurent Cazaderon wrote:
Forgetting one major thing : Turret Installation being totally useless. You can see HAV roll them out each game without even worrying.
1) turrets should be blue or red when game starts. 2) they should have way more HP so that a HAV going 1vs1 against one would be a risk for him. And to avoid militia forge gun taking them down in 4 shots..... 3) The type of turrets are sometimes odd compared to their positionning. Why would anyone add a blaster turret facing an open area where a railgun or a FG could kill them peacefully from distance. Blaster turrets are close range.
Buffing turret installations would force HAVs to rely oon infantry to move on specific areas. They wouldnt be destroyed that often and actually be a tactical asset teams could fight for. Instead of WP ressource for the tankers.
Takahiro Kashuken wrote: No bad idea from someone who doesnt drive anything
1. Should be hacked not auto hacked, they already can track fast moving LAVs anything else will get hit including infantry and vehicles making them a pain in the arse and losing clones but not due to the other side kicking your arse to a cheap mechanic 2. No way they already have 4k hp as it is and its enough, a turret can take a vehicle apart but thats if the pilot hasnt noticed the turret so they get punished for it 3. Only point i agree with
As an HAV driver, I actually agree with him. Turret installations were intended to protect an area from being overrun, but one tanker or one forge gunner can kill them in 2 - 6 seconds. It should at least take 2 people to kill a stationary turret that quickly.
If CCP implemented the "tactical seat" and the "1 medium turret" idea, it would actually take a small amount of teamwork to destroy these things in the same amount of time. |
KalOfTheRathi
Talon Strike Force LTD
334
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 02:04:00 -
[40] - Quote
0 Try Harder wrote:OK!!!!!!!!!
I accept. When are you on? How much ISK are you willing to put on the line?
Want to do it until 10 tanks are destroyed on one side? If it looks like a 50/50 chance to win, you win the contract. You earn the ISK, and I will make a post about how I was wrong, you are right, and it is a 50/50 chance to win.
If you get your ass beat repeatedly, it means that I win the ISK and you stop what I believe to be delusional posts on forums.
We can do gunnlogi with adv rail, or all out proto if you want. You can choose. I will make a post in war forums too. 0, if you need a Gunner. Send me email. |
|
Eris Ernaga
GamersForChrist
119
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 02:08:00 -
[41] - Quote
BulletSnitcheZ wrote:Right now, tanks are basically a one-man vehicle. A solo HAV driver with a prototype railgun can destroy an organized 3-man HAV crew in about 1 - 2 shots. This needs to stop. Tanks are supposed to be a squad vehicle, not a solo one. Here's what i think CCP could do to fix this: 1. Give resistance, turret, and HP boosts to the HAV when more people are using it - This would reward tankers that utilize teamwork and discourage those that don't. These boosts would require a skill and will only work if everyone is in the same squad. Pilot Dropsuits could give additional bonuses to the tank as well 2. Give HAVs a "Tactical" seat - This seat would be responsible for logistics (Scanning, Spotting). It gives you an enhanced view of the map, allowing you to view the fittings of any scanned target you select. It also allows you to request orbital strikes and installations, all from the safety of the tank. You can also plot courses and set waypoints for the HAV driver. It will be similar to the CITV station for the 3-man tank in Battlefield 33. Replace the 2 small turrets with 1 medium turret - This will make the gunner more useful and valuable in tank vs tank fights and tank vs infantry fights. 4. Rebalance Large Turrets - Large Turrets would need to rebalanced in order to compensate for #1 and #3. Tank vs Tank fights would not last for 5-10 seconds and will not be fully determined by who can stack the most damage modifiers on their Large Turret. ****EDIT**** I made some changes to #2 & #3, there's no longer a 4th seat. Keep posting your feedback & ideas
No because you have to realize how many tankers you are upsetting right now. I suggest you let this idea die because what do you run what if I suggested a complete over haul to it you would be mad obviously. You don't realize this is what you are doing to tankers. Best bet is you open up a new tank called the squad tank based for squad design and not solo operations when others use it in a group as you said it becomes much stronger. This is not rude but the truth leave my tanks alone. |
BulletSnitcheZ
TRUE TEA BAGGERS
22
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 03:20:00 -
[42] - Quote
Eris Ernaga wrote:
No because you have to realize how many tankers you are upsetting right now. I suggest you let this idea die because what do you run what if I suggested a complete over haul to it you would be mad obviously. You don't realize this is what you are doing to tankers. Best bet is you open up a new tank called the squad tank based for squad design and not solo operations when others use it in a group as you said it becomes much stronger. This is not rude but the truth leave my tanks alone.
It wouldn't be a major overhaul at all actually. All it would do is replace the 2 ineffective small turrets with 1 valuable medium turret. It would rebalance Large turrets so that they can't destroy other tanks quite as easily as they do now, which means no more 2 shot railgun kills. Instead, it would take 1 large railgun and 1 medium railgun to kill another tank in roughly the same amount of time.
The tactical seat would add a whole new dimension of teamwork to tank gameplay. You wouldn't even need voice communication to coordinate and strategize with the HAV driver. People would respect the fact that they got killed by 3 people who are working together rather than 1 guy with a really big gun.
In the end, tanks would still remain a massive threat as a solo vehicle, but as squad vehicle, they'd be even more powerful.
|
Mavado V Noriega
SyNergy Gaming EoN.
2752
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 13:07:00 -
[43] - Quote
BulletSnitcheZ wrote:Right now, tanks are basically a one-man vehicle. A solo HAV driver with a prototype railgun can destroy an organized 3-man HAV crew in about 1 - 2 shots. This needs to stop. Tanks are supposed to be a squad vehicle, not a solo one. Here's what i think CCP could do to fix this: 1. Give resistance, turret, and HP boosts to the HAV when more people are using it - This would reward tankers that utilize teamwork and discourage those that don't. These boosts would require a skill and will only work if everyone is in the same squad. Pilot Dropsuits could give additional bonuses to the tank as well 2. Give HAVs a "Tactical" seat - This seat would be responsible for logistics (Scanning, Spotting). It gives you an enhanced view of the map, allowing you to view the fittings of any scanned target you select. It also allows you to request orbital strikes and installations, all from the safety of the tank. You can also plot courses and set waypoints for the HAV driver. It will be similar to the CITV station for the 3-man tank in Battlefield 33. Replace the 2 small turrets with 1 medium turret - This will make the gunner more useful and valuable in tank vs tank fights and tank vs infantry fights. 4. Rebalance Large Turrets - Large Turrets would need to rebalanced in order to compensate for #1 and #3. Tank vs Tank fights would not last for 5-10 seconds and will not be fully determined by who can stack the most damage modifiers on their Large Turret. ****EDIT**** I made some changes to #2 & #3, there's no longer a 4th seat. Keep posting your feedback & ideas
No.
we already know why tank fights last so short and no HP and resistance shouldnt be based on the number of bluedots or teammates i got in it because it doesnt make sense that when 1 person jumps out to cap the objective my tank magically becomes weaker |
BulletSnitcheZ
TRUE TEA BAGGERS
22
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 13:45:00 -
[44] - Quote
Mavado V Noriega wrote:
No.
we already know why tank fights last so short and no HP and resistance shouldnt be based on the number of bluedots or teammates i got in it because it doesnt make sense that when 1 person jumps out to cap the objective my tank magically becomes weaker
Tanks already become magically weaker nobody's driving it. Your concern could easily be remedied if the these boosts were based on proximity rather than everyone being in the tank. Perhaps the person in the tactical seat could deploy drones that are able to hack certain objectives.
is this the only part of my idea that you didn't like, what about #2, #3, and #4? Please let me know because i plan to make another thread like this that'll appeal to most of the community. |
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe
Planetary Response Organisation
256
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 13:56:00 -
[45] - 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. |
BulletSnitcheZ
TRUE TEA BAGGERS
22
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 15:23:00 -
[46] - Quote
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote: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.
Yes, well the drone idea is just speculation anyway. Perhaps the drones could be limited to scouting, attacking and/or Logistics with no hacking capabilities.
Also, #2 doesn't really take anything away from the game. All it does is allow for more tactics while your friend is inside the HAV. Wouldn't it be nice if you had someone giving you a constant stream of intel while you're inside the HAV? The HAV would still be a "balls out fighting" vehicle, but it would also appeal to those that enjoy strategy & tactics as well.
You could still run a tank all by yourself with an active scanner, and you could still get HAV railgun kills in 4-5 shots instead of 2.
I think people would stop saying that "tanks are so OP" and "tanks take no skill" if these vehicles became more squad oriented. |
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe
Planetary Response Organisation
256
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 17:02:00 -
[47] - 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. |
BulletSnitcheZ
TRUE TEA BAGGERS
22
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 18:15:00 -
[48] - Quote
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote: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.
Apparently they're not squad oriented enough, otherwise people would not view them as a 1-man vehicle. When's the last time you said to yourself "wow, that tanker has some great gunners"? The only useful purpose for gunners right now is to farm WP for an orbital strike. This is not a good utilization of the 2 extra seats in an HAV
HAVs do not give you enough bang for your buck. The best tankers with most expensive fits get themselves blown up on a regular basis by methods that take very little skill or tactics.
if CCP implemented some of my ideas, at-least there wouldn't be anymore "peek-a-boo" tactics. People wouldn't be able to just spam 6 tanks in a pub match and expect to run through everybody. |
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe
Planetary Response Organisation
257
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 18:33:00 -
[49] - 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. |
Scheneighnay McBob
Bojo's School of the Trades
1209
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 18:56:00 -
[50] - Quote
BOZ MR wrote:BulletSnitcheZ wrote:Right now, tanks are basically a one-man vehicle. A solo HAV driver with a prototype railgun can destroy an organized 3-man HAV crew in about 1 - 2 shots. This needs to stop. Tanks are supposed to be a squad vehicle, not a solo one.
Here's what i think CCP could do to fix this:
1. Give resistance, damage, and HP bonuses to the HAV when 3 people are using it - This would reward tankers that utilize teamwork and penalize those that don't.
2. Give everyone in the HAV a specified role - Perhaps 1 person in the tank could be responsible for logistics (Shield Repairing, Shield Hardening, Scanning) while the other 2 could be responsible for killing targets.
I'll be expanding this list soon. Please post your feedback and ideas people because HAV gameplay needs a serious overhaul. No. -1 I do not want to give the job of keeping me alive to random blue dots. Then squad up with people who know what they're doing, dumbass. That's what every other vehicle pilot needs to do to be effective.
I have a feeling HAV drivers will freak out again since someone is trying to make them use teamwork- just like when I suggested that the driver shouldn't control any turrets. I don't give a damn about how technology would make it possible- it's more efficient when the driver can worry about driving and the gunner can worry about gunning. |
|
BulletSnitcheZ
TRUE TEA BAGGERS
24
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 19:10:00 -
[51] - Quote
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote: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.
But why should the gunners be irrelevant? CCP could find a much better way to utilize those 2 extra seats.
And why should a tank crew have to rely solely on infantry to keep themselves alive and not vice-versa? A tank crew should at-least be given some tools to form strategies on their own.
I like your capacitor idea, but it wouldn't solve the issue of 2-shot railgun kills. People would still be using "peek-a-boo" tactics and people would still be spamming tanks in pub matches. |
Skihids
The Tritan Industries RISE of LEGION
1204
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 14:34:00 -
[52] - Quote
Large vehicles must be multi-crew oriented in order to be balanced.
If one man can run a tank it is essentially a Titan suit. It provides superior mobility, superior defense, and superior offense. It packs a huge punch and never runs out of ammunition. It is a huge pair of scissors that requires a huge rock to provide the counter to balance it out. That counter has to be available to another solo merc just as the heavy suit is vulnerable to a shotgun scout. If one man can run it, one man can take it out.
Wait you ignoramus! How can you say that when my tank costs X times infinity?
I say that because we all know its folly to try to balance power with ISK. You can't buy invincibility with money. If a tank can be run solo it is a huge force multiplier, far more than any proto suit with full proto mods and a proto weapon. Get three guys to drop tanks and the power of that team is so great that the other side has no chance. Each owner/operator runs and guns essentially as if he were in a super powered dropsuit.
I'm in a freaking tank! It should take a team to knock it out!
Yes, if it took a team to operate it, but it doesn't. The rest of your squad is free to mow down the vulnerable enemy AV before it can fire. The game just can't support a Titan suit.
But even the current HAV cost is too high if we allow a single merc to provide a hard counter. Don't field what you can't afford to lose is the rule, and nobody could sustain the losses. Drivers would demand the power to survive multiple matches to recoup their investment, and soon that translates into a basic invincibility.
The only viable solution is to require multiple crew members for the more powerful vehicles. Only then can you rationalize needing multiple enemy units to kill it.
I don't trust random blue dots to run my tank! How could you possibly suggest that?
Neither would I, and I'm not suggesting that. I fly dropships and I know that I need a corp squad to make it work. What I'm suggesting is that you get a corp tank crew together. DUST is teamwork oriented and large vehicles should reflect that mentality. There is a far greater potential for enjoyment with a tight crew than any solo player. Training and learning to coordinate is both more complex and more rewarding. The tank can be far more capable, complex, and nuanced with a crew than it could ever be as a solo Titan suit.
So I'm supposed to buy this tank for my corp mates to run? How is that fair?
It's not. I have to deal with that problem as a dropship pilot and it bites. I shell out 780k ISK so my buddies can shoot things as I fly around, and if I lose it, I'm the one out the cash. With a shared vehicle would come shared expenses. CCP should develop a formal funding method when it introduces crews. Perhaps there might be a special corp account for a crew, or a larger fund for all vehicles that can be drawn on by authorized crew members. Sharing expenses would bind the crew together more as they would all have a monetary stake in survival.
So I have to coordinate my play with a whole crew? I'll never be able to just jump in a match for a little fun!
Yes, if you want to run a behemoth. But vehicle pilots should also have smaller, cheaper, and sustainable alternatives for solo play. Perhaps MTACS or light tanks, would fit the bill. You wouldn't be an invincible force, but you wouldn't go broke replacing it a few times either. It would let you use your core vehicle skills in pub matches without having to get a second job as infantry and train up a sole other skill tree just to play solo. |
0 Try Harder
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
256
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 17:24:00 -
[53] - Quote
KalOfTheRathi wrote:0, if you need a Gunner. Send me email. LOL I don't think anyone is taking bulletsnit as anything more than a disgruntled n00b. We all know he is 100% wrong, and he clearly does not want to put his money where is fingers are xD
0 Try Harder wrote:BulletSnitcheZ wrote:Quote:How about this. We do a 1v3 battle. You get a solo tank, I get two gunners. They will not use AV or anything like it on your HAV to keep it lol fair. It wouldn't matter at all actually, especially if both of us are using Large Railgun Turrets. The fight will just come down to who gets hit with the first shot because small turrets barely do any damage to tanks. My prototype small railgun turrets needs 4 - 6 shots to kill an LAV and you're telling me those things are supposed to be useful in a tank fight? People don't use the damage mods for small turrets when they're using an HAV because small turrets are basically useless. OK!!!!!!!!! I accept. When are you on? How much ISK are you willing to put on the line? Want to do it until 10 tanks are destroyed on one side? If it looks like a 50/50 chance to win, you win the contract. You earn the ISK, and I will make a post about how I was wrong, you are right, and it is a 50/50 chance to win. If you get your ass beat repeatedly, it means that I win the ISK and you stop what I believe to be delusional posts on forums. We can do gunnlogi with adv rail, or all out proto if you want. You can choose. I will make a post in war forums too. I am. You ready to do this? I'm definitely looking forward to proving you wrong because you don't like to listen to other more knowledgeable HAV drivers on forums.
This is not a troll post or anything like that. I am serious. Your idea will destroy HAVs, and I can show you why. |
0 Try Harder
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
256
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 17:46:00 -
[54] - Quote
I like HAVs, and I feel like they have been gimped enough. They are fun to drive, and still effective if you use it as a team operated vehicle. You can do anything solo, but it does not make whatever you are doing good.
To be honest, I and many other HAV drivers are skeptical about driving HAVs in the next build. Suggestions like this and many others will completely ruin them. There are many players attempting to make HAVs unusable. Some intentionally, and some not, but I and a few other HAV drivers are worried that CCP will listen to them, and essentially remove them from the game by making them useless.
Some are pretty obvious about their hate for HAVs. For instance, duster's blog is run by ROFL alliance, and that alliance just lost almost all of their HAV operators. I think they now have one or two at most. So what do they do? They go to their blog and make a post asking CCP to make HAVs unplayable. It's nothing new for them - I remember when we were in the alliance, they liked to try to put restrictions for skirmishes. The restrictions were always on something that they did not have. No lasers or mass drivers available? Try to make a rule that lasers and mass drivers cannot be used in corp battles. Only four proto suit players on? Try to make a rule that only four proto suits are allowed in corp battles.
So yah, we'll see what CCP does to HAVs and other things like them. I am hopeful that CCP won't kill them, but who knows. |
Skihids
The Tritan Industries RISE of LEGION
1205
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 18:36:00 -
[55] - Quote
It's not a nerf, it's a balancing.
Done properly, a multi-crew tank would be far more powerful and harder to kill than today's tanks. It would require more enemy coordination to neutralize or destroy, yet it would still be balanced because it requires the attention of multiple team members.
It's basically forcing tight squad coordination.
I imagine the enemy quaking in their boots when one of those are dropped. |
BulletSnitcheZ
TRUE TEA BAGGERS
29
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 18:48:00 -
[56] - Quote
0 Try Harder wrote:KalOfTheRathi wrote:0, if you need a Gunner. Send me email. LOL I don't think anyone is taking bulletsnit as anything more than a disgruntled n00b. We all know he is 100% wrong, and he clearly does not want to put his money where is fingers are xD 0 Try Harder wrote:BulletSnitcheZ wrote:Quote:How about this. We do a 1v3 battle. You get a solo tank, I get two gunners. They will not use AV or anything like it on your HAV to keep it lol fair. It wouldn't matter at all actually, especially if both of us are using Large Railgun Turrets. The fight will just come down to who gets hit with the first shot because small turrets barely do any damage to tanks. My prototype small railgun turrets needs 4 - 6 shots to kill an LAV and you're telling me those things are supposed to be useful in a tank fight? People don't use the damage mods for small turrets when they're using an HAV because small turrets are basically useless. OK!!!!!!!!! I accept. When are you on? How much ISK are you willing to put on the line? Want to do it until 10 tanks are destroyed on one side? If it looks like a 50/50 chance to win, you win the contract. You earn the ISK, and I will make a post about how I was wrong, you are right, and it is a 50/50 chance to win. If you get your ass beat repeatedly, it means that I win the ISK and you stop what I believe to be delusional posts on forums. We can do gunnlogi with adv rail, or all out proto if you want. You can choose. I will make a post in war forums too. My offer is still available. You ready to do this? I'm definitely looking forward to proving you wrong because you don't like to listen to other more knowledgeable HAV drivers on forums. Even though your intentions are probably good, you're really just hurting one way groupsof people like to play the game. This is not a troll post or anything like that. I am serious. Your idea will destroy HAVs, and I can show you why.
I have over 7 million SP invested into shield tanks, and everyone that plays with me always says that i'm a great tank driver, even my enemies sometimes ask me what fits & tactics i use.
I've solo killed some of the best tankers in the game simply by sneaking up behind them or hitting them with my proto railgun. I know EXACTLY what i'm talking about & i don't have to waste millions of ISK on your stupid challenge to prove you wrong either.
Why don't you create your own idea on how to fix tanks since you seem to know so much better than i do?
|
0 Try Harder
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
256
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 19:11:00 -
[57] - Quote
BulletSnitcheZ wrote:I know EXACTLY what i'm talking about & i don't have to waste millions of ISK on your stupid challenge to prove you wrong either. If you're that confident and are right about the 50/50 chance, I'll pay you for the tanks that you lose. |
0 Try Harder
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
256
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 19:14:00 -
[58] - Quote
Skihids wrote:It's not a nerf, it's a balancing.
Done properly, a multi-crew tank would be far more powerful and harder to kill than today's tanks. It would require more enemy coordination to neutralize or destroy, yet it would still be balanced because it requires the attention of multiple team members. It might be more powerful if it can soak up ten forge shots, two orbitals and repair all of that damage every thirty seconds, but I have a feeling that you would not consider that "balanced".
If you're making a HAV driver a 6 or 7 man crew, it better be worth it. If you're not using at least a three man team, you're just doing it wrong. |
Skihids
The Tritan Industries RISE of LEGION
1206
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 19:40:00 -
[59] - Quote
0 Try Harder wrote:Skihids wrote:It's not a nerf, it's a balancing.
Done properly, a multi-crew tank would be far more powerful and harder to kill than today's tanks. It would require more enemy coordination to neutralize or destroy, yet it would still be balanced because it requires the attention of multiple team members. It might be more powerful if it can soak up ten forge shots, two orbitals and repair all of that damage every thirty seconds, but I have a feeling that you would not consider that "balanced". If you're making a HAV driver a 6 or 7 man crew, it better be worth it. If you're not using at least a three man team, you're just doing it wrong.
I'm thinking about more than simple DPS. Tanks today are treated exactly like dropsuits, eHP and DPS with the latter taking precedence.
I'm proposing it take eWar combined with DPS to take down a multi-crew vehicle, and not just a simple "I turn on my eWar weapon and then shoot". No, that would then be potentially countered by eWar in the tank, which would require another response from the enemy.
The resulting strategy would be thus more complex and exciting than "I hit you first with the biggest club". |
BulletSnitcheZ
TRUE TEA BAGGERS
30
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 19:40:00 -
[60] - Quote
0 Try Harder wrote:I like HAVs, and I feel like they have been gimped enough. They are fun to drive, and still effective if you use it as a team operated vehicle. You can do anything solo, but it does not make whatever you are doing good.
To be honest, I and many other HAV drivers are skeptical about driving HAVs in the next build. Suggestions like this and many others will completely ruin them. There are many players attempting to make HAVs unusable. Some intentionally, and some not, but I and a few other HAV drivers are worried that CCP will listen to them, and essentially remove them from the game by making them useless.
Some are pretty obvious about their hate for HAVs. For instance, duster's blog is run by ROFL alliance, and that alliance just lost almost all of their HAV operators. I think they now have one or two at most. So what do they do? They go to their blog and make a post asking CCP to make HAVs unplayable. It's nothing new for them - I remember when we were in the alliance, they liked to try to put restrictions for skirmishes. The restrictions were always on something that they did not have. No lasers or mass drivers available? Try to make a rule that lasers and mass drivers cannot be used in corp battles. Only four proto suit players on? Try to make a rule that only four proto suits are allowed in corp battles.
So yah, we'll see what CCP does to HAVs and other things like them. I am hopeful that CCP won't kill them, but who knows.
So you'd rather tanks remain exactly as they are now?
if CCP doesn't make tanks more "multi crew oriented", they would seriously limit the tactical potential of these vehicles. 1 tank operator can't do everything by himself. Having multiple tank operators, responsible for different roles in the tank, would buff HAVs while balancing gameplay at the same time. One tank operator should not be able to decimate an entire team by himself. A solo tank driver should not be able to kill a 3-man tank crew quite as easily as they do right now.
In games like Battlefield 3, tanks & choppers are balanced and very fun to play with as a multi crew oriented vehicle, and i'd expect the same if vehicles were like that in DUST 514. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |