|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
805
   |
Posted - 2013.05.03 13:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
Sake Monster wrote:
Here is the kicker: I 100% AGREE WITH WHAT MANY OF THE TANKERS ARE SAYING.
They are currently far too easy to solo and/or harass into worthlessness in a battle. Hunting tanks is my favorite thing to do and would HATE to see them nerfed into being rail snipers from the redlines.
Again:
http://youtu.be/6qHL7jET8Gc
This is footage of a FGM-148 Javelin (1990s) completely obliterating a T-72 tank (1970s). This is essentially Advanced versus Standard in terms of generations. Why? The Javelin was the second generation of AV designed to kill T-72s, the first being the M47 Dragon.
Rules of believable AV:
Under optimal circumstances, a single AV user should be able to one-shot a tank of one meta lower.
Under optimal circumstances, a single AV user should be able to kill a tank of the same meta level without a nanohive.
When well implemented, Modules, Cover, and Infantry Screens negate the "optimal circumstances" for AV.
That said...
The current implementation of AV sucks. I'd be happy to see it revamped, provided the rules above hold.
My Observations:
Swarm Missiles fly in strange directions instead of just being fast and powerful. They should follow a believable ballistic with an understandable turn radius and should pack a serious wallop at the end. They should also miss vehicles that can get behind cover or dodge (not outrun- dodge) and they should be vulnerable to things like chaff and point-defense systems.
Forge Guns have no ADS- so even though they are capable of great accuracy, the sights often obscure targets smaller than an entire HAV. Partially exposed turrets, etc. can be very hard to pick out of the terrain.
Proximity Mines appear to have no IFF, so friendly tanks will blow them up.
AV Grenades have a reasonable punch, but it can feel like easy mode when the tanker wants to play Lone Gunman or gets too far away from his infantry screen. Seriously guys... Get backup gunners and an infantry screen.
Plasma Cannon - no clue. I'm guessing it will have similar issues, but who knows? |
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
808
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 13:47:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sev Alcatraz wrote:
You do realize if you hit a t72 anywhere but the turret it wont explode? The 45o slope on the hull makes LAW and TOW rounds to explode prematurely.
The javilin also uses a shaped copper charge to blast through the armour in the hopes of setting of the ammo or killing the crew.
Also most teat like that the target vehicle is loaded with a few hundred rounds to simulate live rounds.
First of all, the LAW and TOW are "Militia" in this system as they were designed for previous generations of tanks, not the T-72. Those should not one-shot a T-72.
Shaped charges with penetrators are pretty common for that generation of AV missiles. It does not negate the argument, as those are second generation after the T-72. The technology will change over time, but it will be designed to exploit whatever the perceived weaknesses of a given generation of tank might be.
Of course a target vehicle would carry live rounds or a substitute if you are doing an "optimal circumstances" field test.
It is also worth noting that tanks can, and do, catch fire. Not the ammo, not the fuel- the tank itself. The temperatures generated by shaped charges can ignite metals like aluminum (or even steel). This is magnified in aircraft where Aluminum and Magnesium are used extensively to save weight. Similar tradeoffs would likely have been made in New Eden:
"This tritanium alloy we used to increase speed could ignite if struck by a missile."
"Yeah, but we have shields for that." |
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
809
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 13:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote:He's right, though, it's super realistic and applicable to this situation. I mean, the T-72 probably has pretty much the same type of shield generators as our HAVs, and the plating is probably made from the same super dense rare-earth minerals.
Funny.
AV technology is built in response to Vehicle technology.
That's why proto AV shouldn't one-shot a proto HAV.
The specifics of the technology don't matter, only the generations of the technology.
Humans have always found a better way to kill the other guy after the other guy finds a better way to not get killed. |
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
810
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 18:04:00 -
[4] - Quote
Den-tredje Baron wrote:
So yeah tanks should be a team effort to take down not just solo able.
So long as tanks require a team to operate. |
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
810
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 18:08:00 -
[5] - Quote
Berserker007 wrote:i know the feeling, being a proto AV user for 11 months; i find it satisfying when i can solo a tank in the right conditions, as that is my role. Yet i do agree it is sad to see Mady's being taken out by 3-4 packed av nades. I understand why they can do it (as its the counter to free LAVs); but it can be a bit to much at times, as it only takes 70k SP & 4k ISK, to take out a 1M ISK tank.
I think as AV & for tankers, need to "realize" that being solo'd by LEGIT av isn't a problem, as in those moments is usually b/c 1 of 2 things occurs:
1). AV'er has a upper hand/position
2). Tanker, YOU overextended and made an error
It's the use a basic AV (be nades, SL, FG) that can solo a higher tier tank that causes the problem. Not sure how to adjust fully; as we dont want to go back to earlier builds were it required 2-3 proto AV guys to take out a tank, as that was to much. CCP does have a challange
This is the key. If you are getting blown up by AV Grenades, you have committed #2.
The reason AV Grenades are so nasty is that tanks are not supposed to be safe in CQC. They are supposed to rely on their teammates to sweep through the hiding spots before the tank passes.
Yes, I know that pub match blueberries don't do that.
Tanks, like Proto gear, are supposed to be economically viable in PC matches where the corporation can help offset the cost from the corp wallet. Running them in pub matches is good practice (or epeen inflation), but it's not supposed to be sustainable.
|
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
813
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 18:30:00 -
[6] - Quote
Caeli SineDeo wrote:Vaerana Myshtana wrote:
Rules of believable AV:
Under optimal circumstances, a single AV user should be able to one-shot a tank of one meta lower.
Under optimal circumstances, a single AV user should be able to kill a tank of the same meta level without a nanohive.
When well implemented, Modules, Cover, and Infantry Screens negate the "optimal circumstances" for AV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icEeEaz-Q8AFor you Oh no javelin stopped and tank lives. How does this work. Their is a such think as defenses. And we actually have even better then this out there.
See Rule 3 above.
I absolutely support a larger variety of modules, including point-defense turrets, chaff, reactive armor, etc.
They are a reasonable addition to the game, provided that the starting state is balanced in accordance with Rules 1 & 2. |
|
|
| |
|