|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Summ Dude
Direct Action Resources
318
   |
Posted - 2014.03.22 20:25:00 -
[1] - Quote
Fyra Yacile wrote:After 2 weeks of 1.7 and Tank spam being rife a DEV said they were going to address Tank v AV balance in 1.8 ...
Link please. I don't recall this happening, at all.
Not just a laymen, but the laymen.
Winn Summ and lose Summ.
|
Summ Dude
Direct Action Resources
318
|
Posted - 2014.03.22 20:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:AV WPs are getting buffed, making AV more viable, encouraging the use of AV
More AVers means that while they still may not be able to destroy vehicles (being addressed, I'm sure), they'll be able to chase them off with any effort.
While WP for damaging vehicles is definitely something that should be added, I'd call it a....very small step in the right direction. It should hopefully encourage more blueberries to actually bother with AV, though. But I found it kinda disheartening to not even see just a temporary number tweak to AV options in 1.8, just something like increasing the direct damage on AV weapons slightly. I don't think that would be a bad idea for the interim until we have a more concrete Vehicle fix.
Not just a laymen, but the laymen.
Winn Summ and lose Summ.
|
Summ Dude
Direct Action Resources
318
|
Posted - 2014.03.22 20:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
Eko Sol wrote:Summ Dude wrote:Fyra Yacile wrote:After 2 weeks of 1.7 and Tank spam being rife a DEV said they were going to address Tank v AV balance in 1.8 ... Link please. I don't recall this happening, at all. The are lowering the total clip size of all nades to 2 from 3. This means you have one less AV nade available. In addition, I know that a lot of people run FG and Swarms with Damage Mods. Complex damage mods are going from 10% to 5%. If you stack 3 of them (like I do) then you are going from a 23% damage boost to a 11% damage boost (rounded out). On top of all of that, Hives are getting a nerf so running proto Nades and not getting them fast enough or swarm ammo fast enough and having less supply available is just sick. It's a triple angle nerf to AV no matter how you look at it.
You misunderstand, I'm aware of the 1.8 changes. I'm asking for a link to the Dev post where it was said 1.8 would feature Tank vs. AV balance.
Not just a laymen, but the laymen.
Winn Summ and lose Summ.
|
Summ Dude
Direct Action Resources
320
|
Posted - 2014.03.22 23:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
I'll ask again please to see where a Dev said that 1.8 would feature Vehicle/AV changes. That was the original point of this thread, right?
Not just a laymen, but the laymen.
Winn Summ and lose Summ.
|
Summ Dude
Direct Action Resources
320
|
Posted - 2014.03.22 23:59:00 -
[5] - Quote
deezy dabest wrote:I feel like it is going to come out that WP for damage to vehicles is for them to collect data on AV vs vehicles (as if 5 months did not provide enough data) and a fix will be coming SOON (i cant do the tm thing but you get it) aka right after everyone that came back for the 1.8 racial parity is gone again and this time for good.
Hm, perhaps. Personally I think it's just a very helpful balancing step. It encourages people to actually play dedicated AV. Imagine this:
An enemy rail tank comes over the top of a hill and starts raining hell down onto my team. So I decide to grab my FG, and start nailing him. He of course backs off when his health gets too low, regens, and comes back. So let's say I spend the whole game just keeping this tank deterred. Even though I was clearly helping my team, I'll probably end up going 10th place or so, and getting **** for a payout. So if you're just some blueberry, why bother?
With the added WP, there's actually direct incentive for every blue to run AV.
Not just a laymen, but the laymen.
Winn Summ and lose Summ.
|
Summ Dude
Direct Action Resources
321
|
Posted - 2014.03.23 05:10:00 -
[6] - Quote
TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote:Really I think the only issue is the programmers don't play the game, and the designers simply give them mandarin stickies saying... Flaylock too strong or Tanks too weak.
A Public Test server would fix that and would save everyones actual characters from getting lolraped by the eventual FOTM that spawns from every half baked idea that gets thrown live without testing.
Edit: It would slow down updates surely, but who hear would of waited a month more on 1.7 if it meant tanks and rail rifles would have been toned down to a balanced level? I know I would. That and hot patching issues when they arise, but we all know no one in the company actually plays this game.
I don't think that's a big issue at all. The most productive playtesting will never come from the people actively working on the game. They're waaaaaay too biased (obviously). Standard playtesting means you take someone who's never played your game (or, in this case, has perhaps never used this new feature you're adding or new build of the game), have them try it out, and then you take notes, and figure out what to change. Rinse, repeat. CCP Devs "playtesting" this game won't really accomplish much of anything.
Not just a laymen, but the laymen.
Winn Summ and lose Summ.
|
Summ Dude
Direct Action Resources
321
|
Posted - 2014.03.23 05:17:00 -
[7] - Quote
danie sous wrote:Summ Dude wrote:I'll ask again please to see where a Dev said that 1.8 would feature Vehicle/AV changes. That was the original point of this thread, right? One of the posts on the bi-weekly feature/idea sticky a dev mentioned they would make changes. No specitics were given.
I'll assume you're referring to this post, this part specifically:
CCP Logibro wrote:Tanks still feel too strong in 1.7 and AV is not strong enough to stop them -
WeGÇÖll need to do something about MLT tanks. We will see to rebalance some PG/CPU for equipment and more. More details will come in a dev blog/forum post.
I see no mention of 1.8 whatsoever.
Not just a laymen, but the laymen.
Winn Summ and lose Summ.
|
Summ Dude
Direct Action Resources
324
|
Posted - 2014.03.23 22:25:00 -
[8] - Quote
Korvin Lomont wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:AV WPs are getting buffed, making AV more viable, encouraging the use of AV
More AVers means that while they still may not be able to destroy vehicles (being addressed, I'm sure), they'll be able to chase them off with any effort. We still don't know how much WP we will get for Vehicle damage, and of course we don't know how long it will there. CCP removed that feature for a Reason... So if we get not eough WP for damaging Vehicles nothing will changed (who would risk a 80K suit for wp/1000 damage??) If we get too much WP (or a reasonable amount) people will strt to exploit this as hell. Sadly thats it was the community is best at. And when people start to abuse this CCP will let them as they don't punish exploiters, sooner or later they will then remove the WP again or will make them so low that its not worth again...
What an incredibly lazy perspective. Also based in non-truth. CCP originally removed it due to farming, yes. They have since added a max WP cap feature that prevents this. They said as much.
Not just a laymen, but the laymen.
Winn Summ and lose Summ.
|
|
|
| |
|