DUST Search - CCP - Community Opinion on VEHICLE BALANCE

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.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Vrain Matari ZionTCD 958	Posted - 2013.09.24 23:50:00 - [1] - Quote Here's something i'd like to see. We all like to work in terms of hitpoints, hitpoints of tank, hitpoints of alpha damage, hitpoints dps. I've been thinking that this is a big PITA when damage gets recalibrated for a particular weapon or vehicle, and in terms of game design it's a LOT of accounting. In thinking about vehicle/AV balance lately if find myself thinking in terms of time or maybe active module cycles. So i ask myself questions like this: If a tanks role is to support infantry taking a point, how much time does that need? Two minutes maybe four minutes with a roll-in and bug-out buffer? Ok then, how long should it take for a forge to break that tank's tank? Or a swarm? Or AV grenades? Do i want a forge to be able to break a tank's tank in 10 seconds? 30 seconds? 2 minutes? If active hardeners can hold off a forge gun, how long should they be able to do that for? 30 seconds or 3 minutes? This might sound goofy, but i believe the value is that it kind of forces us to lay our cards on the table and talk about what kind of game we want to play, and it avoids all of that picky, annoying arithmetic. Let CCP do that - that's what we're paying them for, and they do work for us, after all.
Vrain Matari ZionTCD Public Disorder. 1379	Posted - 2013.12.20 03:57:00 - [2] - 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. Followed your link from the other thread here, Shion. Your solution works and is stable, so far as i can see. I have only one concern and that is the cost of repair - you yourself acknowledge this is also a form of ISK-based balancing. For some pilots, the cost of repair will be trivial. I like the damage/repair mechanic but don't see it as a deterrent - wealthy tankers will just keep an spamming tanks. Thoughts? I support SP rollover.