DUST Search - LAVs, Tank whiners and AV in general.

ladwar wrote:

halo has 3 "av weapons" the rocket launcher, not homing, the Spartan laser, short spool with a heat thing I believe, and fuel rod gun, arcing multi shot per clip-good. all are good vs people and only good vs vehicle because it has high damage
dust- swarm laucher, homing, forge gun, long spool no heat, plasma cannon, single round arcing shoot. meant to damage vehicle because all other weapons take a penalty when shoting vehicles

so halo AV all dumbfire and meant to be effective dual usefulness
dust meant to actually be used on vehicles with limits on infantry i'll going into why in a second.
halo- tanks can shoot the driver out of the tank and can be thrown out and have no cost to any player and all set hp/fitting.
dust- custom fitting that the driver can not be shot out of and need 2 other people to control other turrets.
halo- flying vehicles- bashee= fighter so no able to compare duh. the other is basically the dropships but once again to no cost to the player
dust-flying vehicles- DS LDS ADS. custom fittings that cost the players to call in.

so in halo all the vehicles are free to who ever getting inside them first and have no way on repairing them and have infantry the ability to kill/steal without the need to have av by ingame mechanics.so AV=not needed to beat any vehicle because they are free and easy to counter and the driver takes damage from small arms fire even if the only hit the vehicle so you can kill the driver before the vehicle by only shooting the vehicle.

dust cost ingame money and are made and fitted by the players and takes skill to use and thus it takes skills AV weapons the cost the player and fit and overcome another players choice and in game tactics. so until the whole skill tree and fitting goes away HTFU and don't compare Dust to Halo when they don't make sense.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Bones McGavins TacoCat Industries 254	Posted - 2013.05.24 17:28:00 - [1] - Quote More and more I read about people who specced into vehicles whining about various things. Recently its this bogus claim that they are using LAVs to hit players because their vehicle skills are useless. All of this is BS, but it made me think about DUST as a game, and how AV just isnt very fun. The main problem with vehicle/AV balance is the fact that it is not fun to be in a position where you can not reasonably expect to even damage the enemy unit. This is also why snipers are annoying. Nobody enjoys losing a fight they had zero chance of winning. Even a slimmer of hope is enough. A scout turning a corner and seeing a HMG in his face, he can TRY to dance and fire his SMG and maybe bring the heavy down. Will he? probably not, but its not a bad player experience to lose that lopsided fight. But to see an LAV or an HAV and know "hey, my current load out makes it really impossible to do anything against this unit" is boring. So why not spec into AV? Well, because that simply makes the problem even worse. Now, instead of having a feeling of "my loadout is useless against this one unit" you feel "well my loadout is useless against everyone except this one unit, which I still need help to destroy." Forge guns are less of an issue with this, because they at least can fight infantry. But with Heavy suits being so situational and vulnerable, it isnt realistic to expect players to use it. CCP needs to look at Battlefield and their balance or Halo and their balance. In battlefield the AV unit is provided with a good means of dealing with anti infantry. He does not feel overly gimped in an infantry combat. In DUST, side arm weapons are decent in situations, but you really are very limited. Halo goes the other way, for most vehicals, the primary gun on most players can do damage. Banshees and ghosts can be brought down quickly by concentraited small arms fire. This means players dont feel useless against a vehicle they jsut need to coordinate. It comes down to this, right now vehicles are treated mainly as an intrusion on a seperate game. There isnt really a balanced interaction between infantry and vehicles. It doesnt feel like an integrated game balanced for the two play styles to interact. It feels like vehicles sit on top of infantry gameplay, and if you want to interact with them you have to step out of infantry gameplay and go play with the tanks. TLDR: If you want stronger tanks, AV builds either needs to be better against infantry or infantry builds need to be somewhat effective against tanks. The all or nothing of DUSTs AV makes it boring.
Bones McGavins TacoCat Industries 254	Posted - 2013.05.24 17:43:00 - [2] - Quote Lol that's what I said lol your post was insightful lollolno
Bones McGavins TacoCat Industries 254	Posted - 2013.05.24 18:04:00 - [3] - Quote Yes av nades are effective against bad tanks. But a good tank with ANY squad support makes AV nades trivial cause you won't get in range long enough to throw more than 2. And it's not about balance it's about fun. A guarentee you a majority of players have less fun using AV than standard infantry weapons. I'm saying make AV more fun. Or make small arms fire be able to contribute to AV. Not saying full damage but if a clip if my Scr or ar can drop 500-1000 health from a tank then you could have players work together to bring it down or hp the full AV players. It would be a more fun experience. You could then buff tanks a bit because players wouldn't hate them so much
Bones McGavins TacoCat Industries 254	Posted - 2013.05.24 18:41:00 - [4] - Quote Quote: then everyone will use AV and wat would tanks do. just NO. I dont know? Be good at the game and kill people who actually have the ability to fight back? So let me get this straight. Tank users are admitting they want to feast on a game where 90% of the population cant fight back against them? So what if 100% of the players have AV capabilities, 100% of the players have anti-infantry capability? Why would it suddenly break the game if players could actually fight back? A gameplay mechanic that relies on a majority of the players being unable to fight back is a broken mechanic. Based on the replies here it seems this games balance relies on AV being so unattractive a play style and so un-fun that a majority of the players stay away from it. Because if a majority of the players had it, tanks would feel pointless? Am I getting this correct? Does that, logically, sound like a solid system?
Bones McGavins TacoCat Industries 254	Posted - 2013.05.24 19:01:00 - [5] - Quote Quote: They can fight back, they have the weapons to fight back. All they have to is equip them and use them A majority of the players on the field do not use AV. I suggested making AV a bit more fun for infantry by increasing the anti-infantry ability a bit for AV. Tankers then complain that "no, then everyone would use AV and tanks would be pointless." So the Tanker doesnt want AV on the field, they dont want the player to be able to fight back. They prefer a game where most players cant fight back. A suggestion, not to buff any AV capabiltiies, but to make AV more fun for the common user by reducing the anti-infantry limitations of them, is shot down by tankers. An alternative suggestion of giving small arms fire a slightly bigger role in AV, by allowing them to actually widdle down the health a bit to support AV units, or in mass blobs, actually chase off a tank, is also rejected. A majority of tankers dont want to fight AV, they dont want to fight anyone. They want to shoot targets who cant shoot back. If players can shoot back, suddenly "OMG tanks would be useless then!" Literally, the response was that if you got a majority of players to use AV, tanks would be useless. I ask again, how is that a good balance? Isn't there a better scenario where both tanks and AV can have a role that isnt all or nothing? Quote: i don't think u want me rocking proto gear pub stomping you. OH noes! Bring the proto gear, since my gun can actually damage it, im sure I'll be fine :)
Bones McGavins TacoCat Industries 254	Posted - 2013.05.24 19:11:00 - [6] - Quote Then perhaps AV gear needs to be slightly nerfed, but more appealing to play? You can't deny that right now its all or nothing. If folks bring out AV, apparently its an auto-win (which is being over-stated here, good Tank drivers still dominate a few dedicated AVers). So the hope for tank drivers is nobody brings out AV otherwise they are auto-dead? Why is that a balance you support? Like, look through this thread, its tank drivers pretty much saying "If someone can fight back I automatically lose, so I dont want people to be able to fight back." That sounds like a terrible experience from the tank side, I know its lame from the infantry side.
Bones McGavins TacoCat Industries 254	Posted - 2013.05.24 19:23:00 - [7] - Quote See, you are saying "easily" I never said that. Ive suggested small arms fire doing a small amount of damage to tanks so that a blob of infantry may be able to chase a tank off or help AV destroy it. If 3 or 4 dudes firing a entire clip at a tank did as much damage as a standard proto shot, it would make the game play feel a TON less broken from the infantry side. Would that suddenly break tanks? I mean, if you are driving into an area surrounded by infantry who are free to shoot at you...you kinda deserve that punishment right? On the flip side, I suggested AV should be a little less all or nothing, like BF. This doesnt mean AV gear that destroys infantry super easy. It maybe means slightly less powerful AV gear but that doesnt reduce the infantry effectiveness as much. This would get more people to be willing to use AV. Right now very few folks do. I rock advanced, not proto, AV gear and Im usually the only one out there attacking tanks. I would like my team mates to be able to play a role in taking tanks down. You may say "well LOL go get proto" but I also rock advanced, not proto, anti-infantry weapons and do fine there. It shouldnt be a requirement that I get proto gear to battle tanks, it isnt a requirement to do so for any other class.
Bones McGavins TacoCat Industries 254	Posted - 2013.05.24 19:38:00 - [8] - Quote 1. You know wat tht sidearm is called AV nades. r u dumb or something? Lol yep. Im dumb. Or maybe good tank drivers dont "park" and shoot and allow AV nades to walk up to them? Yes, if a tank is dumb enough to stay still long enough for 4-5 AV nades to hit it, its an easy kill. But we shouldnt be balancing AV weapons off the absolute worst tank drivers. 2. Called the plasma launcher. U see how useful tht thing is the plasma launcher isnt REMOTELY AV. You can't hit AV with it at all. It is an anti infantry weapon that can sort of damage AV. Hell the mass driver is a better AV weapon than the plasma. 3. advanced is good enough u need damage mods nuff said. Eh, advanced swarms are not good enough. If a tank driver is decent, at all, you are lucky to get more then one volley to hit them. Forge is likely good enough. Ill likely be getting some points into standard glass cannon heavy with advanced forge soon. But it shouldnt be so restrictive to have a role in AV. 4. PC is wat it needs to be balanced by because thts the selling point of the game. pub matches r not the selling point. And PC has been out a week, and youve played how many PC matches? Suddenly anyone who's been in 2 or 3 PC matches knows whats up based on like an hour of PC? Lets at least wait a few months before trying to tag some fancy "I play PC" tag on ourselves...
Bones McGavins TacoCat Industries 254	Posted - 2013.05.24 19:52:00 - [9] - Quote Quote: i'm done with u. 1 u have no idea wat u r talking about and 2 if u can't hit a tank with av nades then u suck in genera If only HAV were as easy to beat as you are :) Quote: If you want your friends to help you with AV, get them to drop the what? 40k sp to get a standard swarm launcher and put together a fit for it. Again, you guys are ignoring the point. AV isnt fun. NOBODY WANTS to use AV. Its not that they arent capable. Its that its boring so "let someone else deal with it." If the entire team spawned swarms as soon as a tank as on the field, HAV would be dead instantly. So why doesnt that happen? Because nobody wants to, its not a fun thing to do. The point is an attempt to make AV versus HAV fun and vice versa. Right now, in this very thread, HAV have pretty much conceeded the dont play the game to fight AV, they play it to kill people who cant fight back and hope nobody uses AV. This thread isnt a balance thread, its a fun game thread. Regardless of balance, the relationship between HAV, infantry and AV isnt fun right now. Tanks whine and complain about AV op. Infantry whine and complain about tank OP and nobody really even uses AV because its boring. That's not the formula for a good, fun game.
Bones McGavins TacoCat Industries 255	Posted - 2013.05.24 20:12:00 - [10] - Quote Yeah. I am actually trying to convince my friends to at least spec into forge AV. But not really for fun, so so we can all bust out forge guns and collectively 2-3 shot most HAVs and be able to move onto more fun things. Itd also be interesting to 2-3 shot splash damage most infantry while we are at it :)

Bones McGavins TacoCat Industries 255	Posted - 2013.05.24 20:24:00 - [11] - Quote The result is a good feeling yes. But that doesnt mean the act is. It becomes frustrating when the tank has good squad support and you dont. Like, I LOVE dropping orbitals on tanks to kill them. I once nailed 2 with one orbital. The experience was overall awesome, but was the actual "gameplay" of going into a menu and clicking a button over two red squares actually solid gameplay I could recommend?
Bones McGavins TacoCat Industries 256	Posted - 2013.05.24 21:51:00 - [12] - Quote ladwar wrote: halo has 3 "av weapons" the rocket launcher, not homing, the Spartan laser, short spool with a heat thing I believe, and fuel rod gun, arcing multi shot per clip-good. all are good vs people and only good vs vehicle because it has high damage dust- swarm laucher, homing, forge gun, long spool no heat, plasma cannon, single round arcing shoot. meant to damage vehicle because all other weapons take a penalty when shoting vehicles so halo AV all dumbfire and meant to be effective dual usefulness dust meant to actually be used on vehicles with limits on infantry i'll going into why in a second. halo- tanks can shoot the driver out of the tank and can be thrown out and have no cost to any player and all set hp/fitting. dust- custom fitting that the driver can not be shot out of and need 2 other people to control other turrets. halo- flying vehicles- bashee= fighter so no able to compare duh. the other is basically the dropships but once again to no cost to the player dust-flying vehicles- DS LDS ADS. custom fittings that cost the players to call in. so in halo all the vehicles are free to who ever getting inside them first and have no way on repairing them and have infantry the ability to kill/steal without the need to have av by ingame mechanics.so AV=not needed to beat any vehicle because they are free and easy to counter and the driver takes damage from small arms fire even if the only hit the vehicle so you can kill the driver before the vehicle by only shooting the vehicle. dust cost ingame money and are made and fitted by the players and takes skill to use and thus it takes skills AV weapons the cost the player and fit and overcome another players choice and in game tactics. so until the whole skill tree and fitting goes away HTFU and don't compare Dust to Halo when they don't make sense. The only important comparison is AV isn't tedious and boringin halo and it is in dust