|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
880
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 01:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
Since you asked nicely, I will post on exactly what I think needs changing:
(note:I'm not covering the overall changes for vehicle hulls, as you guys probably know my opinion, and we really don't know how much they will change in the vehicle update in terms of max eHP)
AV vs. Vehicles: I don't think that soloing should be a viable option for taking them down. They should only be good for suppressing them,. If you're pretty good, has perfect position and timing, and with a bit of luck, yea, you deserve that kill, but otherwise, no. HOWEVER, If there's 2 or 3 of those AV'ers, generally speaking, that vehicle should be a lot easier to take out (unless it's a special type such as Marauder), which should tank damage like a boss), or it's gone, unless the pilot finds a distraction and get the **** out of there. But that's if the AV'ers have somewhat good of a position; not like on the same plain right out in front of it, or around a corner. Also, not really for Forge Guns, but for swarms, they need countermeasures, or the swarms need a changed tracking, as it's pretty hard to avoid a swarm (unless you're a LAV that's already around a corner, or a DS that's already far away, in which not all of those vehicles are fitted to be able to run like that).
Swarms: The rendering needs fixed so you can see them better when they are launched. Also, like I said, they need a better tracking. Make it more flat, but make it a little bit faster. Lastly, make the lock on longer by another .2-.5 seconds, and increase the box size 4, and it's max ammo 8. 3/6 is too low imo.
Forges: Same as Swarms, make the rendering better so you can see them at range. Also, make the glow a different color, as it blends in to the environment a lot, as well as make it a little bit bigger (not by much, just slightly). Next, either make it less accurate at range (kinda bad idea), or or reduce it's optimal range, and raise it's damage drop off to the absolute range. Damage and charge up time is fine. Oh wait, before I forget, reduce that damn splash damage already!
AV nades: massive reduction for damage (I'm talking 60-80%). But, they get a slight range buff, and they get a EWAR effect that effects tracking on the turrets, speed, or active modules for a short period of time(like 10-15 seconds). They shouldn't be a killing factor, just something to scare the pilots and thinking that they're getting trapped. Also a helper for EWAR fits.
General Vehicles: The Tech 2 vehicles needs to be adjusted (and brung back), and adjusted, just like they are, or similar to in this: Click |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
884
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 02:18:00 -
[2] - Quote
KING CHECKMATE wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Since you asked nicely, I will post on exactly what I think needs changing: (note:I'm not covering the overall changes for vehicle hulls, as you guys probably know my opinion, and we really don't know how much they will change in the vehicle update in terms of max eHP) AV vs. Vehicles: I don't think that soloing should be a viable option for taking them down. They should only be good for suppressing them,. If you're pretty good, has perfect position and timing, and with a bit of luck, yea, you deserve that kill, but otherwise, no. HOWEVER, If there's 2 or 3 of those AV'ers, generally speaking, that vehicle should be a lot easier to take out (unless it's a special type such as Marauder), which should tank damage like a boss), or it's gone, unless the pilot finds a distraction and get the **** out of there. But that's if the AV'ers have somewhat good of a position; not like on the same plain right out in front of it, or around a corner. Also, not really for Forge Guns, but for swarms, they need countermeasures, or the swarms need a changed tracking, as it's pretty hard to avoid a swarm (unless you're a LAV that's already around a corner, or a DS that's already far away, in which not all of those vehicles are fitted to be able to run like that). Swarms: The rendering needs fixed so you can see them better when they are launched. Also, like I said, they need a better tracking. Make it more flat, but make it a little bit faster. Lastly, make the lock on longer by another .2-.5 seconds, and increase the box size 4, and it's max ammo 8. 3/6 is too low imo. Forges: Same as Swarms, make the rendering better so you can see them at range. Also, make the glow a different color, as it blends in to the environment a lot, as well as make it a little bit bigger (not by much, just slightly). Next, either make it less accurate at range (kinda bad idea), or or reduce it's optimal range, and raise it's damage drop off to the absolute range. Damage and charge up time is fine. Oh wait, before I forget, reduce that damn splash damage already! AV nades: massive reduction for damage (I'm talking 60-80%). But, they get a slight range buff, and they get a EWAR effect that effects tracking on the turrets, speed, or active modules for a short period of time(like 10-15 seconds). They shouldn't be a killing factor, just something to scare the pilots and thinking that they're getting trapped. Also a helper for EWAR fits. General Vehicles: The Tech 2 vehicles needs to be adjusted (and brung back), and adjusted, just like they are, or similar to in this: Click FAir enough. Thank you for your feedback.Again this is not to discuss your ideas but to put them all in a single Thread, so that with some luck CCP can read and grab some ideas from us.... Strangly enough.I agreed.... +1
I might update it, as I thought it would take way too long to retype all of it. I might just put a summary for each, although in my summaries, I usually go full on and end up typing out the full time. So yea, later.
Anyways, I knew you'd agree with my reasoning, as it's quite, well reasonable. You were just seeing fragments of it, and wasn't understanding the full picture. It's all good, happens to all of us |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
884
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 02:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:How many times did you reply to my thread, yet here you are, yet again, a non-pilot making another tank thread.
Calm your **** Spakry. He's trying to be civil. Just post your opinions. It's quite calming. It doesn't matter if he agrees. Just do it. |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
884
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 02:24:00 -
[4] - Quote
jerrmy12 kahoalii wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Sheild tanks
Passive Health: Pitiful (500- 1.5K) Equivalent Active Health: Collasal (20-30 K) Main turret power: Low Speed: Hypersonic Ammo reserves: Moderate ** Rail: 40 ** Blaster: 300 **Missile: 30 salvos
The sheild tank is all about hit and run, it can sponge enough damage via active modules to leave that pitiful base hp untouched. 2 Shots with a forge will be enough to fell a sheild tanker without his active modules. This makes sheild tanks perfect for a punching a hole in enemy defences.
The large active health means a sheild tanker doesn't need to be concerned about av while his modules are on. But when he is vunerable his lack of scanning means he is entirely dependent on infantry support. Passive modules help a little but only serve purpose to empower the active modules. Active modus allow a sheild tan shield tanks would be destroyed in 1 shot by that low hp. the point of a Caldari HAV is alot of shields, high speed but low armor, 4k passives or 3.6 would be right.
Fixed. Winmatar do shields as well, but they are the hit and run type. As in move in, hit hard with all of your ammo, GTFO. |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
884
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 02:27:00 -
[5] - Quote
KING CHECKMATE wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:KING CHECKMATE wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Since you asked nicely, I will post on exactly what I think needs changing: (note:I'm not covering the overall changes for vehicle hulls, as you guys probably know my opinion, and we really don't know how much they will change in the vehicle update in terms of max eHP) AV vs. Vehicles: I don't think that soloing should be a viable option for taking them down. They should only be good for suppressing them,. If you're pretty good, has perfect position and timing, and with a bit of luck, yea, you deserve that kill, but otherwise, no. HOWEVER, If there's 2 or 3 of those AV'ers, generally speaking, that vehicle should be a lot easier to take out (unless it's a special type such as Marauder), which should tank damage like a boss), or it's gone, unless the pilot finds a distraction and get the **** out of there. But that's if the AV'ers have somewhat good of a position; not like on the same plain right out in front of it, or around a corner. Also, not really for Forge Guns, but for swarms, they need countermeasures, or the swarms need a changed tracking, as it's pretty hard to avoid a swarm (unless you're a LAV that's already around a corner, or a DS that's already far away, in which not all of those vehicles are fitted to be able to run like that). Swarms: The rendering needs fixed so you can see them better when they are launched. Also, like I said, they need a better tracking. Make it more flat, but make it a little bit faster. Lastly, make the lock on longer by another .2-.5 seconds, and increase the box size 4, and it's max ammo 8. 3/6 is too low imo. Forges: Same as Swarms, make the rendering better so you can see them at range. Also, make the glow a different color, as it blends in to the environment a lot, as well as make it a little bit bigger (not by much, just slightly). Next, either make it less accurate at range (kinda bad idea), or or reduce it's optimal range, and raise it's damage drop off to the absolute range. Damage and charge up time is fine. Oh wait, before I forget, reduce that damn splash damage already! AV nades: massive reduction for damage (I'm talking 60-80%). But, they get a slight range buff, and they get a EWAR effect that effects tracking on the turrets, speed, or active modules for a short period of time(like 10-15 seconds). They shouldn't be a killing factor, just something to scare the pilots and thinking that they're getting trapped. Also a helper for EWAR fits. General Vehicles: The Tech 2 vehicles needs to be adjusted (and brung back), and adjusted, just like they are, or similar to in this: Click FAir enough. Thank you for your feedback.Again this is not to discuss your ideas but to put them all in a single Thread, so that with some luck CCP can read and grab some ideas from us.... Strangly enough.I agreed.... +1 I might update it, as I thought it would take way too long to retype all of it. I might just put a summary for each, although in my summaries, I usually go full on and end up typing out the full time. So yea, later. Ok. seems legit. I'll be around. TY again.
Anything bro. It's always good to be one the same page, and on the same team (even though you are a person who bows to a lesbian *****, I'll let that pass.)
|
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
885
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 02:41:00 -
[6] - Quote
echo47 wrote: I think the only things that would truely balance AV and vehicles is not in buffing or nerfing. I think the right solutionis to balance with small fixes.
An early warning system for vehicles in regards to lock ons and location of AV.
Lower the cost in ISK and SP for purchasing and using tanks and dropships. Or start item for item player trading to help cover losses for vehicle users.
Fix rendering, and invisible swarms.
Nerfs and buffs for either AV or vehicles should be an absolute last resort. From previous expierence we know how those can turn out, and the amount of time it can take to fix.
1: There is really obvious things that needs lowering in price (such as the scattered blasters), but lowering the price entirely wouldn't help. It has been proven that balancing on ISK NEVER works.
2: Early warning systems would be good. Agreed.
3: That's something you can think of as a bug. A really broken bug.
4: It's Blam! Goddamn fault for constantly nerfing them when we said "Stop, they're fine". Chromosome was fine other than some little things, and balance to the infantry side. But nooooo, he had to keep the nerf train rolling. The damn idiot.
Big changes don't really need to happen (other than the ideas Wolfman is thinking of, which seems cool. Like the repairers being weaker, but active 24/7. But hopefully, they're not as bad as the infantry ones). But changes do need to happen. But I think you get the "little stuff" that does need attention as well. |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
900
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 01:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
jerrmy12 kahoalii wrote:CharCharOdell wrote:I read through this, wanting to troll you, really bad, but I actually agree with everything except the madrugar speed nerf. I'm more in favor of either a passive caldari damage buff, because a speed buff is out of character for caldari, and is the place for the minmitar.
All in all, not bad ideas, but buffing the base HP won't do anything good, because it's so low. Buffing the modules is what would help. either that or a massive (35% pg buff).
I want to see tanks become battering rams OR seige weapons, where they are nearly invulnerable for 60 seconds OR they can take out anything that moves in a couple shots for 30 seconds. Then they should go right back to being paper thin. This way, the smart tankers will be nigh unkillable, but a good 85% wont last 2 minutes- as it should be. caldari suits are fastest. less HEAVY armor means more speed and is balanced, currently armor is faster than shield.
Caldari suits are not the fastest. They are the second slowest. Same for the vehicles, and same for the ships in EVE. |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
901
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 01:16:00 -
[8] - Quote
ULFBERH T wrote:Just my 2 cents as an AV man.
Vehicle armor plates plates should have a penalty to speed just like drop suits. As for buffing tanks HP there is some very good ideas posted and even I agree Tanks need more HP (honestly it should take atleast 3 AV guys that focus fire on a tank to take em down).
Swarms need a buff to missle speed, but they should also be able to be shot down by gun fire. Swarms are next to useless against dropships or LAVs because of their speed and maneuverability. A well fitted dropship only dies to a forge gun.
Forge guns need a debuff to splash damage, this solves a lot of infantry deaths to forge gunners just splash killing guys. Now if that gunners hits an infantry dead on... well, he earned that kill.
Prox mines, STD 800, ADV 900, Proto 1000 per mine. This allows mines to be used effectively in blocking off areas from vehicles or cripple tanks in ambush that was setup for it. (ITS A FREAKING MINE! mines do lots of damage to vehicles... its their purpose. I've seen HMVEES, tanks and APCs crippled or destroyed because of mines)
AV grenades need a buff in the sense that packed grenades need to do more damage, hence "PACKED". Also they need to explode on contact with the freaking LAV and not bounce off because the LAV is at full speed.
Plasma cannon needs either less drop or faster flight (I say both) not to mention that if its 1 shot per clip.... the damge needs to be increased A LOT more then what it's at now. Heck its plasma, if you hit the turret it should cause the tankers main gun to over heat. It may not kill the tank but it denies the tank that area plus that should increase plasma cannon use as AV instead of anti infantry in enclosed spaces.
again my 2 cents as an AV guy
1: What part of "armor plates slow down vehicles" don't you get? If you put on a 180mm plate, you're slower than equivalent Caldari HAV. Don't believe me? Try it for yourself.
2: yea, but they should save shooting down swarms until they can make it perfectly. If a bug happens, and they can't be, it'll be an ultimate troll.
3: Wait, so you want swarms to be even better against LAV's and DS's, but just ROFL stomp HAv's, as swarms in their current state destroy HAV's (I've sen both sides of it, and it isn't pretty). No.
4: Agreed. I'll be able to spot them with my scanners, so I don't even care.
5: Only the faster flight and flatter angle from those are any good. reload is a better last idea. Reason? the PC isn't a EWAR tool, so making it have a EWAR effect, plus an apparent damage buff is stupid. damage is fine. Applying that damage is iffy.
6: Denied, because you said AV nades need more damage. You have honestly never tried to seriously pilot from that statement, so You probably don't know how it feels to get hit by those things (I've taken out DS's with them for Christ's sake). What they need is a role change. Rather, they should be more of a EWAR tool, as I said in my post. |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
902
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 01:20:00 -
[9] - Quote
CharCharOdell wrote:jerrmy12 kahoalii wrote:CharCharOdell wrote:I read through this, wanting to troll you, really bad, but I actually agree with everything except the madrugar speed nerf. I'm more in favor of either a passive caldari damage buff, because a speed buff is out of character for caldari, and is the place for the minmitar.
All in all, not bad ideas, but buffing the base HP won't do anything good, because it's so low. Buffing the modules is what would help. either that or a massive (35% pg buff).
I want to see tanks become battering rams OR seige weapons, where they are nearly invulnerable for 60 seconds OR they can take out anything that moves in a couple shots for 30 seconds. Then they should go right back to being paper thin. This way, the smart tankers will be nigh unkillable, but a good 85% wont last 2 minutes- as it should be. caldari suits are fastest. less HEAVY armor means more speed and is balanced, currently armor is faster than shield. I hate to bring lore into the equation, but ultimately, this is what will become of tanks (i think) CALDARI = best glass cannons because they have fast enough shield recharge to get hit once, when OHKing something from 500m away, then drop back, charge up in 20 seconds, and shoot again. No other tank can use the railgun the same way a caldari tank can. MINMITAR = Basically the Gunlogi in Chrome. Super fast, lightly defended, and with the ability to stack a good damage mod, while still being able to 'speed tank'; this enables it to run in, kill everything it can in 10 seconds, and run away. It is either the weakest tank, or the tankiest LAV; much like the winmitar assault suit. GALLENTE = Fast armor tankers. Make the best tankers for shock tactics. Able to become nearly invincible for a minute and fight on the front, then run away with exceptional speed and rep back up in the rear. AMARR = Slow omni-tanks. The highest HP of all tanks. Not fast enough to close distance, hit, and run away, but fighting at a medium to long distance, and providing direct fire support; while being able to fend off even gallente tanks, slug it out with caldari in long range engagements, and tank most of the winmitar's damage. However, the loss of speed and poor shield recharge, combined with e necessity to use armor plates, disables this tank from being a good glass cannon, or a powerful offensive tank for more than one engagement.
Yea, this. This is basically how the racial HAV's should work. Although, you were (hopefully) exaggerating on that range for the Caldari HAV's...... |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
902
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 01:40:00 -
[10] - Quote
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote:Everyone is focusing on whether vehicles need more HP or less, or how much damage and range AV should have. These are all stopgaps.
What we need are completely new features. We need capacitor. We need electronic warfare. Without those vehicle balance is never going to work.
At this point, capacitor isn't needed. EWAR? yea. But the basis of vehicle vs. AV balance needs fixing first imo, as if it's not perfect, EWAR would be ineffective, or just make it worse for pilots. |
|
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
905
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 02:10:00 -
[11] - Quote
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote:I don't think you really appreciate the degree to which those two factors are going to change the vehicle/av landscape. Depending on implementation it could mean HAVs tha can perma-run their reps and hardeners. It could mean stasis webifiers so vehicles can't flee when they're getting low. Saying "let's get the basics done before we do those" is like saying "it's about to snow, I should shovel the driveway" because at that point everything we know about vehicle balance will be irrelevant.
repps aren't going to work how they do now whenever the vehicle update. Armor reps will always be active, and shield repps will just jump starts the passive shield regen. So it'll only be useful for perma hardeners and such, and those don't even take up much cap, so it'll be useless. Lastly, getting down the basics down first is like building a house. you put the base down first (vehicles), then you put up the walls(AV). And then you decorate the house to make it look pretty (anything that effects both of these, such as EWAR). If the house isn't built properly, even if it's very pretty, a storm will have a better chance of taking down the house. |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
906
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 02:52:00 -
[12] - Quote
Cosgar wrote:Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote:Everyone is focusing on whether vehicles need more HP or less, or how much damage and range AV should have. These are all stopgaps.
What we need are completely new features. We need capacitor. We need electronic warfare. Without those vehicle balance is never going to work. It should be easier to disable a tank than outright destroy one.
If I see EWAR coming after me, I'm gone. |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
914
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 04:29:00 -
[13] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote:Vehicle capacitors! This will reward skilled players by giving them more flexibility than long cool downs, but has the same result that vehicles will have times when their cap is low and they're vulnerable, and other times when they have full cap and are ready to be very nasty. Vehicle prices are probably fine where they are. For tanks, look at the ISK cost of all suits and vehicles killed by tanks, vs the cost of all tanks destroyed. This will give you the ISK-efficiency of tanks and is a reasonable starting place for balancing price if you guys decide to make changes here. If tanks are too squishy, (I"m not convinced they are) focus buffs on the support, and not the tanks themselves. I.e. focus on making remote repping from LLAV's and dropships with a decent range, and gameplay mechanics that make it practical for them to regularly run together as a team. If swarms are a problem, don't nerf swarms, make a turret that can only be mounted on LAV's that will counter swarms (either defender rockets, or maybe a very wide e-war beam that does 0 damage but signals all warheads to detonate prematurely). The focus should be away from the solo tanker in an invulnerable box of destruction, but more of a tool that is incredibly powerful when properly supported by the rest of the squad, but weak when alone. Also CCP, you should do my Quick/Dirty Test Range Implementation Idea. This would help pilots/tankers test fits and strategies against various opponents, so they don't have to do it under fire with lots of real ISK on the line. Edit: Forgot to add that they do need to fix rendering issues for vehicles. It's not fair for vehicles to get blown up by invisible swarms and forge gunners.
1: Like I told the gentleman on the last page, according to what Wolfman has told us so far, caps won't really work for vehicles anymore, so I'd rather not. EWAR that would work like vampires or neuts would just lower active times or raise cooldowns, but full caps, no.
2: Countermeasures are needed for swarms, and to be able to shoot down swarms by any means are needed as well, but making a single weapon the only thing to shoot them down, but suck ass in all other areas is a very bad idea.
3: Swarms have gone from being DS oriented to becoming a insane HAV killer. They need a complete overhaul.
4: It's already about getting support from others. If I see AV, I'll call it out then run, while they do the dirty work (they=my squad). I do covering fire for them to move to another spot, etc. It's already about teamwork and support. Don't make it completely reliant on support to do anything. |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
919
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 21:36:00 -
[14] - Quote
CharCharOdell wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:CharCharOdell wrote:jerrmy12 kahoalii wrote:CharCharOdell wrote:I read through this, wanting to troll you, really bad, but I actually agree with everything except the madrugar speed nerf. I'm more in favor of either a passive caldari damage buff, because a speed buff is out of character for caldari, and is the place for the minmitar.
All in all, not bad ideas, but buffing the base HP won't do anything good, because it's so low. Buffing the modules is what would help. either that or a massive (35% pg buff).
I want to see tanks become battering rams OR seige weapons, where they are nearly invulnerable for 60 seconds OR they can take out anything that moves in a couple shots for 30 seconds. Then they should go right back to being paper thin. This way, the smart tankers will be nigh unkillable, but a good 85% wont last 2 minutes- as it should be. caldari suits are fastest. less HEAVY armor means more speed and is balanced, currently armor is faster than shield. I hate to bring lore into the equation, but ultimately, this is what will become of tanks (i think) CALDARI = best glass cannons because they have fast enough shield recharge to get hit once, when OHKing something from 500m away, then drop back, charge up in 20 seconds, and shoot again. No other tank can use the railgun the same way a caldari tank can. MINMITAR = Basically the Gunlogi in Chrome. Super fast, lightly defended, and with the ability to stack a good damage mod, while still being able to 'speed tank'; this enables it to run in, kill everything it can in 10 seconds, and run away. It is either the weakest tank, or the tankiest LAV; much like the winmitar assault suit. GALLENTE = Fast armor tankers. Make the best tankers for shock tactics. Able to become nearly invincible for a minute and fight on the front, then run away with exceptional speed and rep back up in the rear. AMARR = Slow omni-tanks. The highest HP of all tanks. Not fast enough to close distance, hit, and run away, but fighting at a medium to long distance, and providing direct fire support; while being able to fend off even gallente tanks, slug it out with caldari in long range engagements, and tank most of the winmitar's damage. However, the loss of speed and poor shield recharge, combined with e necessity to use armor plates, disables this tank from being a good glass cannon, or a powerful offensive tank for more than one engagement. Yea, this. This is basically how the racial HAV's should work. Although, you were (hopefully) exaggerating on that range for the Caldari HAV's...... It's what kept the Gunlogi and Madrugar on even terms in Chrome and we need to return to that.
You also think that ridiculous damage that could 2 shot a very good fitted HAV was a good thing too. 200-300 meters is better, not 500. |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
919
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 21:38:00 -
[15] - Quote
Cosgar wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Cosgar wrote:Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote:Everyone is focusing on whether vehicles need more HP or less, or how much damage and range AV should have. These are all stopgaps.
What we need are completely new features. We need capacitor. We need electronic warfare. Without those vehicle balance is never going to work. It should be easier to disable a tank than outright destroy one. If I see EWAR coming after me, I'm gone. Pretty much works with what Wolfman's direction for tanks: Vulnerable, but not weak.
Which is why I like him. |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
921
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 22:01:00 -
[16] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Vell0cet wrote:Vehicle capacitors! This will reward skilled players by giving them more flexibility than long cool downs, but has the same result that vehicles will have times when their cap is low and they're vulnerable, and other times when they have full cap and are ready to be very nasty. Vehicle prices are probably fine where they are. For tanks, look at the ISK cost of all suits and vehicles killed by tanks, vs the cost of all tanks destroyed. This will give you the ISK-efficiency of tanks and is a reasonable starting place for balancing price if you guys decide to make changes here. If tanks are too squishy, (I"m not convinced they are) focus buffs on the support, and not the tanks themselves. I.e. focus on making remote repping from LLAV's and dropships with a decent range, and gameplay mechanics that make it practical for them to regularly run together as a team. If swarms are a problem, don't nerf swarms, make a turret that can only be mounted on LAV's that will counter swarms (either defender rockets, or maybe a very wide e-war beam that does 0 damage but signals all warheads to detonate prematurely). The focus should be away from the solo tanker in an invulnerable box of destruction, but more of a tool that is incredibly powerful when properly supported by the rest of the squad, but weak when alone. Also CCP, you should do my Quick/Dirty Test Range Implementation Idea. This would help pilots/tankers test fits and strategies against various opponents, so they don't have to do it under fire with lots of real ISK on the line. Edit: Forgot to add that they do need to fix rendering issues for vehicles. It's not fair for vehicles to get blown up by invisible swarms and forge gunners. 1: Like I told the gentleman on the last page, according to what Wolfman has told us so far, caps won't really work for vehicles anymore, so I'd rather not. EWAR that would work like vampires or neuts would just lower active times or raise cooldowns, but full caps, no. 2: Countermeasures are needed for swarms, and to be able to shoot down swarms by any means are needed as well, but making a single weapon the only thing to shoot them down, but suck ass in all other areas is a very bad idea. 3: Swarms have gone from being DS oriented to becoming a insane HAV killer. They need a complete overhaul. 4: It's already about getting support from others. If I see AV, I'll call it out then run, while they do the dirty work (they=my squad). I do covering fire for them to move to another spot, etc. It's already about teamwork and support. Don't make it completely reliant on support to do anything. EDIT: Before I forget, hopefully, SOONtm, we'll get the weapons lab to test our **** before we take it out on the field. Capacitors are a much richer way of balancing module activations. They work phenomenally well in EVE, are easy to understand, and they highlight the cost/benefit nature of fitting. Do I want to sacrifice the HP buffer on my tank to load up on capacitor rechargers so I can permanently run my armor repper? I'm getting hit by incoming AV, should I burn up cap by activating my afterburner and flee? Do I use my repper and shoot the guy? Should I run my scanner, even though it will give me a smaller cap pool if I come under fire? These are choices that a skilled tanker/pilot will make, and the right answer will depend on the person making them and the current tactical situation on the ground. Having e-war affect cooldowns isn't nearly as intuitive, and is much harder to track and manage (you're managing cool-downs on multiple modules simultaneously). If all modules share a single resource, you only have to manage that one resource. Plus the capacitor system is inherently appealing to all EVE players. It's one of the reasons I've not speced into vehicles (a lack of Amarr options is another reason). EDIT: Can you point me to where CCP Wolfman mentioned capacitors? I've searched and couldn't find anything.
Like I just stated, the items in EVE that take up the most cap are
1: active speed boosters
2: repairers
The repairers are becoming a more passive route, to where the armor ones will be active all the time like the infantry ones, while the Shield ones will just jump start the passive shield repair and keep it on until it hits overheat. Therefore, this would only effect the speed tankers, and that wouldn't be fair. So no. And as for your edit, he didn't; he had posted this |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
921
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 22:03:00 -
[17] - Quote
Shion Typhon wrote:3) The one downside to a HP model is the easy accessibility to ammo for AV. If you have infinite ammo you can just pour it on until he dies. You need to revamp ammo completely to make it much harder to come by so the AV guy needs to be consider how he uses his ammo in the same way the tanker needs to consider whether to go in hard or hang back.
This probably translates to no AV ammo from nanohives, only from supply depots, or 1 missile/forge load completely consumes a hive so they only get used in emergencies not as endless fuel for AV nests. It also means no unreachable rooftop gunners because they run out of ammo quickly. The general position should be "an equivalently equipped AV user should be able to do X% of a HAVs total HP before needing to back off into reload mode and 2X% before he needs to make his way to a supply depot. A HP+ammo model also allows a n AV user to choose how he spreads his ammo pool's worth of dmg (some damage across a couple of targets vs all dmg on one target).
You could also introduce a small ISK cost so that the cost to buy missiles/forge cartridges is some portion of the ISK it costs a tanker to repair the damage it does (would also discourage forge gunners using shots on infantry) (yes I know this is balancing by ISK but its probably a semi-appropriate area to do it in)
I see above me some people have mentioned capacitors for vehicles but in reality this is simply a risk/problem-transfer rather than a risk-problem solution. Capacitors are simply a proxy for a second binary equation problem where you need to solve the same issue on a second meta-level to the armour itself. IF you solve the problem at a conceptual level with the tanking paradigm you don't need capacitors. Just think about it a bit.
I am aware there are many other issues in vehicle land (passengers, render range etc) which I haven't touched on but you need to get this part right first.
From a pilots perspective, this makes no sense. It's your opinion, and that's fine, but I'd rather not. |
|
|
|