Should Heavy Assault Drive? - Page 3

Otleaz · 2012-07-10, 12:02 AM

There are a couple of things I am concerned about.

The first is that it is already confirmed that there will be rockets which will do more damage than guided missiles. This would mean that the video we saw could have gone a different route if Higby was dedicated to his role of tank destruction.

The second is that there will be a secondary gunner most of the time. Tank battles could easily turn into a annoying and gimmicky experience if there is a second guy popping out and shooting you with a rocket.

Either way, this is a really gimmicky mechanic and it will leave a bad taste in everybody's mouth when it happens.

Reefpirate · 2012-07-10, 12:06 AM

Originally Posted by Electrofreak

Or, it may just cause people to begin the bail far too early.

But you see that's where the balance lies... Why would you 'start the bail early' if your tank's cannon is clearly superior to a slow AV weapon that your HA has?

On a Lightning you might be slightly ahead with two HA rockets (if you can get two off before you get wasted), but on a Vanguard or Magrider you're better off staying in the tank doing damage with the main cannon I would think...

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-10, 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by Littleman

We're over reacting based on what little we saw and then speculate with little to no knowledge from previous info sources, as per usual. Pretty sure SOE isn't considering any of this as valid feed back, they really shouldn't.

The whole point of Beta, and observing the tests/gameplay is so we can state our opinions on this sort of thing.

Second, it's not over reacting to anything.

[FACT:]
At present a heavily armored soldier, able to carry a large AT launcher into any vehicle can instantly dismount, instantly pop a shield allowing him to survive any potential fire directed at him, and fire his weapon at the enemy, very possibly changing the outcome.
[/FACT]

Despite Higby personally being unable to kill the Mag, whether due to suckage or circumstances of the encounter, the PRINCIPLE DISPLAYED here is potentially a problem.

#1 It's more than a little silly to take a AT launcher into a cockpit with you. This is a video game, yes... But really?

#2 It promotes cheap gimmicky gameplay. And, as has already been mentioned by several people, there are clear and obvious ways to potentially abuse the mechanics at present (see guy saying "Fire gun, eject and fire missile, mount vehicle fire gun again")

It is not over reacting to state an opinion on something. Particularly when something is kind of stupid. Like this is.

Yes, this is a pre-release version of the game... However, if nobody says anything, they might not take it out, or worse, might think it's "good".

On the topic of whether HA should be able to drive most vehicles? No, not really. They're heavy infantry, with lots of guns that don't really jive well with a cramped cockpit. This is silly.

"HA would be bland and uninteresting if they can't drive all the vehicles like the other classes can"
Obviously, you lean towards being a vehicle user/tanker.

Playing as infantry will be bland if you don't like infantry, this is true. If you like infantry... Then you'll like being infantry...

Please note, I play exclusively as infantry. I do not use either planes or vehicles to any appreciable extent. I am "negatively affected" you might say, by my opinion, but I still hold it.

Reefpirate · 2012-07-10, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by Otleaz

...there will be a secondary gunner most of the time. Tank battles could easily turn into a annoying and gimmicky experience if there is a second guy popping out and shooting you with a rocket.

I hadn't considered that in this equation... But the secondary gunner popping in and out of the tank would be annoying.

Once again, this is solved if there is enough of a delay on entry/exit to discourage it. Getting IN to a vehicle or a position in a vehicle should be a commitment and not something you can just dance around with willy-nilly.

Pancake · 2012-07-10, 12:10 AM

Based on the internal beta test stream, they can drive any vehicle.

Otleaz · 2012-07-10, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by Reefpirate

But you see that's where the balance lies... Why would you 'start the bail early' if your tank's cannon is clearly superior to a slow AV weapon that your HA has?

On a Lightning you might be slightly ahead with two HA rockets (if you can get two off before you get wasted), but on a Vanguard or Magrider you're better off staying in the tank doing damage with the main cannon I would think...

Yes, and it will also be substantially more difficult to time it so you don't get a shell in the back when you get out. Heck, the enemy could even stop firing to prepare if they see the enemy tank stop moving and firing.

Electrofreak · 2012-07-10, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by Reefpirate

But you see that's where the balance lies... Why would you 'start the bail early' if your tank's cannon is clearly superior to a slow AV weapon that your HA has?

On a Lightning you might be slightly ahead with two HA rockets (if you can get two off before you get wasted), but on a Vanguard or Magrider you're better off staying in the tank doing damage with the main cannon I would think...

With sufficiently powerful AV weapons (as in unguided rockets above) coupled with the reasonable chance of survival using the HA shield could potentially make initiating a bail when your tank reaches half armor become preferable to staying inside. Of course, we have no way of knowing this, but I think we all agree that this is the kind of mechanic we would like to avoid.

Ratstomper · 2012-07-10, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

The whole point of Beta, and observing the tests/gameplay is so we can state our opinions on this sort of thing.

From what I've seen (and from how it was in PS1), the AV that infantry have is not very potent at all. It's designed to be formidable with multiple infantry using them at once. I feel if the fight between two vehicles was close enough that hitting that tank with one rocket would kill it...well, that's too bad for the tank.

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-10, 12:32 AM

@RatStomper

I agree. The complaint is not that the tank might lose, but that the manner in which it took place is overly gimmicky, and just plain stupid. While things will be refined in coming days, at present there is a potential for abuse/idiocy, so suggestions to alter it are appropriate.

And as was mentioned by someone else, a point I didn't consider either, about the passenger/secondary gunner.

I personally don't consider the situation a "gamebreaker". Perhaps I chose my words incorrectly. I just consider it "stupid and infeasible", and in particular the near instantaneous entry/exist at present lends to that.

A lengthier entry/exit and having to load your weapons would satisfy, if HA MUST drive, and MUST be able to carry heavy weapons into a cockpit.

Bravix · 2012-07-10, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by Otleaz

Yes, and it will also be substantially more difficult to time it so you don't get a shell in the back when you get out. Heck, the enemy could even stop firing to prepare if they see the enemy tank stop moving and firing.

I disagree, it'd be easy to time.

1. Wait for enemy tank to fire
2. Enemy shell hits your tank (or misses).
3. Hop out immediately, fire rocket launcher, get back in vehicle
4. Fire tank cannon

Repeated would be slightly harder if you have to reload, but still just one rocket shot could make the difference.

Otleaz · 2012-07-10, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by Bravix

I disagree, it'd be easy to time.

1. Wait for enemy tank to fire
2. Enemy shell hits your tank (or misses).
3. Hop out immediately, fire rocket launcher, get back in vehicle
4. Fire tank cannon

Repeated would be slightly harder if you have to reload, but still just one rocket shot could make the difference.

I think you misunderstood. I was saying this in regard to the delayed exit.

Reefpirate · 2012-07-10, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by Bravix

I disagree, it'd be easy to time.

1. Wait for enemy tank to fire
2. Enemy shell hits your tank (or misses).
3. Hop out immediately, fire rocket launcher, get back in vehicle
4. Fire tank cannon

Repeated would be slightly harder if you have to reload, but still just one rocket shot could make the difference.

I think the example he/she was referring to would be with longer entry/exit times and not instantaneous as we saw them in the video.

Bravix · 2012-07-10, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by Otleaz

I think you misunderstood. I was saying this in regard to the delayed exit.

My mistake

Ratstomper · 2012-07-10, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

A lengthier entry/exit and having to load your weapons would satisfy, if HA MUST drive, and MUST be able to carry heavy weapons into a cockpit.

I completely understand and also hate gimmicky game mechanics. I would agree animations would help to fix it, but what if all AV weapons had to be loaded when you pulled them out? I wonder how feasible it would be for a soldier to go walking around with a loaded and cocked rocket launcher strapped to his back all the time. Sounds like someone I'd want to avoid.

Reefpirate · 2012-07-10, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

I completely understand and also hate gimmicky game mechanics. I would agree animations would help to fix it, but what if all AV weapons had to be loaded when you pulled them out? I wonder how feasible it would be for a soldier to go walking around with a loaded and cocked rocket launcher strapped to his back all the time. Sounds like someone I'd want to avoid.

Eeep! I like your idea about loading before shooting too...

But I think we gotta be careful to not request "animations" because this has been denied several times now. It's not going to happen for release.

But what we can get, and I'm convinced is already in the game just not in this build, is DELAYS on entry/exit without new animations.