1. Infantry AV is fireforget let the rocket do the work for me, even if it went 20 mph, it's almost always going to hit and considering the reload buff, low damage won't matter when you can spam it. 2. Actually, no you won't. At most you'll see people use HE over hesh, why? Because hesh is still gimped for fighting vehicles and infantry, you don't try to aim for the AoE, you aim for the direct hit, a slower muzzle velocity doesn't help that at all, even if the AoE could possibly kill him, it wouldn't be as worth it as AP. At worst if you HAVE to deal with that flak bugger, you get out and shoot him with a battlerifle and hop back in. What's ironic is that even if the devs try to lessen the alienation of hesh is combined arms it still won't be viable unless it deals with infantry better than grenades. Even if it came right under AP dps, heat is actually more viable because you have more chances for direct hits. I think that's both sad and funny.
Ignoring the completely disgusting (and wrong) stereotype of people with mental/personal disorders, what DeadlyOmen as usually ignores is that the asymetry between the factions isnt even touched. He also ignores how the primary weapons will have a larger differentiation between them giving them clearer roles and advantages in general and specific situations. Also his mantra of "needs physics" is completely impossible. I use solidworks for designing things, its a program that can incorporate physics to calculate stuff. But even just calculating a static weight on a chair takes a few seconds for a high-end pc, and the program usually does inly one physics type at a time because with everything combined the simplest situation would take minutes to calculate... But mister realism here wants to calculate several multi-ton vehicles and infantry moving and shooting from different angles to have "realistic" physics? Even if you used all the computerpower in the world a single 48vs48 battle would take a minute per frame to calculate whats happening, and thats an optimistic estimate. Hell, even the models in these design programs use derivatives and simplifications of formulas to work properly. You have to design stuff using mathlab (which doesnt have a 3d representation) to get calculations more accurate, but even that runs into loading problems because the level of detail he's asking is ludicrous. Its easier to calculate GPS sattelites (one of the few instances where both general and special relativity coincide) than to do simple physics calculations at the speed, detail and complexity he's asking for.
The devs have a decision to make. Philosophically, we would like it to be a decision that involves creating credible and challenging teamplay in a combined arms setting, but in the end, it is a business decision. What type of consumer does DBG want to attract and retain? Those that want easy gameplay but move from one shiny toy to the next, or people that want challenging gameplay and tend to stay with a game for prolonged periods?
Unless vehicle crew damage is modeled, or buildings cn be destroyed, HESH designation is meaningless. While I've been disappointed with changes made over the years, for the first time I see what is being advertised and I can't visualize myself staying. I hope I'm wrong.
The problem with vehicles in this game is that they are generally available to everyone with essentially zero prerequisites. They have a limiter (Nanites) on them that kind of prevents them from being spammed, but that's it, anyone can pull a stock Vanguard with a few clicks of their mouse button. Now this is far fetched, but considering the number of potential players any battlefield can have, much more powerful vehicles would only be justified in this game if they required much stricter requirements and recurring challenges to be obtained, such as: Get 3 kills or capture a base as an infantry player to pull a Lightning Get 6 kills or capture 3 bases as an infantry player to pull an MBT Etc. This system could still allow "lesser" vehicles (e.g. vehicles in their current state unaltered) to be pulled for Nanites only, such as a Sunderer or Ant, but these vehicles would be then absolutely massacred by even a single MBT. Another way to enable stronger vehicles could be perhaps that you are not getting any Nanites while you are in a vehicle.
By that logic, every single tank weapon is fire & forget. Unless the Tank stays completely still while staring at a rocket flying at it - No it won't. I fight tanks, and fight in tanks - You can dodge the things easily. At least it won't be AP or spamming spawn rooms & doorways. As presently AP does a better job at killing infantry, tanks, and the rare aircraft than anything else. Same with top guns; Who'd use 10 bullets from an AI gun when one faster AV gun can do it with 1 shot. With the update, a singular type of infantry won't die from one body shot from AV - So while illogical, gives those AI weapons more of a point. Grenades cost nanites, have a limited range, a small blast radius, a fuse.... and can't be resupplied in the field. So I'd take an AoA splash weapon I can fire at long range, and constantly over a little hand full of grenades that cost nanites per. And yeah it could be a bit comic. I don't even know the point of HESH. AP & HE work well enough, just AP is presently superior unless splashing a room. So basically a platoon caps a base, or kills 3 people, and gets a superior tank. And then everyone can capitalize on these superior tanks to cap the next base with superior firepower requiring the enemy to outnumber them to use their inferior vehicles. And it steam rolls to the warp gate, since all it took was one base being outpopped, and the entire opposing force got superior vehicles capable of demolishing an entire fleet of enemy tanks by themselves. Get overpoped once, and your entire side loses. How so? Who do you think will have enough tanks to deal with the low number of superior tanks? Who do you think is likely to be able to camp a spawn, or cap a base quickly? It snow-balls to hell.
People seem to be getting the wrong impression out of this. The vehicles don't need to realistic but should be at least SOMEWHAT true to form. They're just underwhelming is all. (Vulcan cannon, I'm looking at you.)
Just FYI the Vulcan is AV not AI, and as an AV weapons it's pretty nasty in its (short) effective range.
Haha, here's a PSA: Anyone who wants to get rid of DeadlyOmen's ranting, quote those sentences and make a negative comment towards him! Seriously he hasn't created a single actual argument in any thread so far. At best he's produced a stereotype that someone agreed with.
In all honesty, in my brief time on these forums, the high and mighty attitude you've been projecting on this thread has proved to be more obnoxious than anything he's doing. This was suppose to be a discussion about balancing issues, but I've guess we've strayed from that so please leave. Or better yet, both of you leave.
Newsflash: Just about anyone is doing the "high and mighty" bit. You did too in your OP. It's called "everyone believes in what they themselves say". Hell, you yourself started calling the developers autists and screwed up your own thread before I started to deviate and put DeadlyOmen in his place. But if you want to continue the discussion, I did gave a reply to you. You didn't reply back. There's your start to keep doing the discussion, rather than be a hypocrite and do the exact thing you don't want me to do.
