|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Skihids
Bullet Cluster
1738
   |
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
A large part of the vehicle balance problem stems from two points:
1) Vehicles compete one on one with infantry for the same mission, killing infantry.
2) Individual pilots have to foot the bill for their vehicles.
Vehicles should have missions that infantry can't handle. They should complement infantry rather than compete directly with infantry. CCP had some sense of this in a very early Fanfest video where they used two HAVs to break through a choke point on the old Skirmish 1.0 map. The idea being you use the expensive stuff when you have a tough problem that infantry can't handle.
As it is there's no need to drop a vehicle to get the job done, it's just a preference. When that is true you find that you have to balance the vehicle against infantry in the same mission. That naturally neuters the vehicle's potential, turning them into very expensive drop suits. You can't make them as powerful as they should be or they take over the only mission in the game and infantry may as well go home.
Modern armed forces don't force soldiers to purchase their own equipment. Fielding an expensive asset is a command decision made to get a particular mission accomplished, and the expense is borne by the organization as a whole. If infantry and vehicles are balanced in the same mission the vehicle will be a huge ISK sink that will bankrupt the pilot.
Combined, these two points generate endless debate between pilots and infantry. Each side is right and the fix cannot be found in a fruitless attempt to balance vehicles and infantry in the same mission. Vehicles need missions that complement infantry, not compete directly with them. |
Skihids
Bullet Cluster
1738
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:12:00 -
[2] - Quote
I'm not suggesting that individual pilots should have to get equipped by a corp, merely that the practice of byov is a problem for balance.
As long as a pilot can solo his vehicle it's the logical equivalent of a super proto suit. It's very capable and very expensive. The problem is that if you make it as capable as the ISK cost suggests it should be it's far too good at slaughtering infantry. So it's either an ISK sink or the source of constant nerf calls. |
Skihids
Bullet Cluster
1738
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'm wondering what CCP thinks about this. I'm told that the original concept included large tank battles, with many HAV's getting destroyed on each side.
Where did CCP see the funding for all this destruction coming from? Was there a fundamental disconnect between that vision and the way vehicles are purchased and deployed?
Did they envision EVE players paying for all our toys such that cost wouldn't be a big issue? |
Skihids
Bullet Cluster
1738
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:26:00 -
[4] - Quote
It's a matter of cost effectiveness. Why pilot a multi-million ISK vehicle to slaughter infantry when you can do the same in a much cheaper dropsuit fitting?
The answer comes down to, "Because I want to."
Yes, diversity is a good thing. Yes, I love flying so I'm with you there!
The problem is that my desire isn't compatible with the cost of fielding dropships to do something I can do just as well with an AR at far less risk of financial ruin.
I really need something to do with that dropship that makes the financial risk worth while. Something that encourages me to field it rather than an assault suit. |
Skihids
Bullet Cluster
1739
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
We'd all have full proto if we were working or an EVE corp that really wanted us to win. Remember when CCP Sid ZDUST old be an EVE ISK sink? |
|
|
| |
|