Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cosgar
ParagonX
5445
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 11:43:00 -
[61] - Quote
As far as vehicle balance goes, I can boil it down to one simple statement. As things are right now, I wouldn't be investing any SP into vehicles on my main and feel sorry for any new player that's in the process of doing so. Piloting just plain isn't fun. |
ULFBERH T
Dorsai Chaotix
1
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 12:52:00 -
[62] - Quote
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 |
Mortedeamor
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
285
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 14:34:00 -
[63] - Quote
your wp rating speaks as if forge is the lesser where as they are equivalent vs appropriate vehicle aver should get a wp based on dmg dealt for example 20 wp for ever 1 k dmg dealt but have the multiplier for wp reduce if the dmg is vs a less effective vehicle..this will promote hitting shield vehicles with forge and armor with swarms..you cant just give a fixed wp reward and then make it so small like that. it would effectively nerf the only rewards av specs get for running av. in a match where vehicles are spammed constantly i do between 100k dmg and 200 k dmg and recieve at least 50 k assuming their is standard or higher av. if the wp are to be based on dmg dealt it cannot be per hit landed but amount of dmg dealt..this would also promot av specs using lower end gear for example asa prof V swarmer and forger it would be beneficial for me to swap to lower end gear and give said tank a chance because i would get more wp for doing so..as i would be able to dmg said tank without killing it and harvest it. the rewards certainly cant be hits dealt most tanks die by the second swarm shot so that 10 wp per tank kill.
where as if you do it my way..said tank may have 6000 armor and hardeners i had to deal closer to 10 k dmg to kill it so at 10 wp per k i would get 100 wp for that at 20 i would get 200..maybe 15 would be a better more solid number..but anyways a method like this certainly ups rewards for lesser av units. and gives incentive for greater av units to play nice |
Mortedeamor
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
285
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 14:38:00 -
[64] - Quote
i do think it would be a good idea to make that wp reward for the kill be based on what your using vs what your fighting for example if i am using proto av vs a gunlogi or madrugar i should get drastically less wp for insta popping them and the same vice versa with weaker gear vs stronger vehicle for example if its 15 wp per 1 k dmg dealt for swarms vs equiv gear it should be like 20 if your using 1 tier weaker than said tank 25 if it 2 tiers for example a mlt av specc fighting a proto tank assuing such a thing existed by himself..but said proto tanker sucks and doesnt kill aver..while the aver might not be able to insta out dps the tank and kill it he can hold it off repeatedly to great advantage both for his own games wp rewards and his team safety.. |
Monkey MAC
killer taxi company General Tso's Alliance
727
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 15:10:00 -
[65] - Quote
jerrmy12 kahoalii wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Sheild tanks
Passive Health: Pitiful (1K- 3K) 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
The large acti modules last 45secs tops but require 2-3min *sigh* its called hit and run, not hit and hide, 30 sec cooldown max, as it's already too much, 2 shot forge gun, you serious? make it more op whydontcha, no noob solo'ing tanks please. modules have delay before activation so it'd be impossible to survive in a shield tank+armor would be more OP. max 5800 hp shields, maybe slightly less, but max hp buff is NEEDED to counter forge guns/flux nades, 45 sec for modules is too long for hit and run, maybe 20-25 sec. hardeners get buff to max 35% dr proto and 20 sec long duration.
I am merely giving examples they can always be tweaked. Hit and Run won't apply to tanks in the same manner as dropsuits. Tankers and dropsukts are entirely different beasts and should be treated as such.
Unlike dropsuits you have to consider a tanks time in the "hotzone" not just the engagement time. I said 45 secs because a shield tanker will likely need to spend 5secs either side of his attack, enterering or leaving the "hotzone" especially with such low passive health.
If you kept health as low as it is or around that point in my example, the sheild tanker would only get 15secs before he needs to leave on your modules. However armour tanker are slower than a snail in jelly so they are likely to require 10-15 secs either side just to get in and out. This is why he has so much passive health, he couldn't cut it with active modules because he would need to leave before he got there.
As for the cool down, I was trying to generous enough to the infantry. 2mins tops is sensible enough, its enough time for you to headback to the safe/redzone, restock on ammo and return to the fight.
Also you have to consider time to retaliate. If a sheild tank has a 30sec colldown on modules you don't exactly get much time to push, and the constant cycle of actives it will be indestructible. If your are gonna keep up a barage of fire for 25-30secs you have to be prepared to give the enemy team time to counterattack, for the sake of balance.
With an armour tank who stays in engagement longer, his over heat allows the enemy time for mini counter attacks. But frequently and unlike the sheild tank they are more likely to be forced out of the engagement zone by av!
Tankers wanted power, thats what Im giving them, but it has to come at a price! |
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars Amarr Empire
309
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 15:34:00 -
[66] - Quote
KING CHECKMATE wrote:Now 1st off i must say we are doing this wrong. The community, me included, is fighting almost daily ,Tankers vs AV and now our posts are unproductive. Now OBVIOUSLY everyone has a different point of VIEW. ... This post is NOT TO DISCUSS anything, but to share what WE THINK would help balance the game towards an enjoyable experience.Tankers and AVers are both invited now PLEASE take into consideration CCP might read this so keep it balanced and as less biased as possible. Now before you start with your; you are not a tanker crap i'll say.Im an AVer.But i have 2 tanker accounts now one over 8 mill armor tank and a new one 3 mil shield tanker (God those things are awful) Im going to start:- Armor tank HP buff (AT LEAST +50% more HP) + Slight speed reduction (So that when equipped with Torque increasing modules or/and Nitro they will be fast but not as fast as shield tanks) - Shield HP buff (At least +40% more HP,they would still have la lot less HP than Armored tanks) + Regenerator buff -Shield tanks are supposed to,same as shield dropsuits, to be hit and run abusers. They need at least a 100%-200% increase in shield regen per second (Say from 22 to 44 or 66 per second).This would make the hit and run strategy viable. -AV STAYS THE SAME- Both type of tanks have increased damage reduction vs non AV weapory.- Prox mines Have a big buff, making them the ULTIMATE AV weapon,but the most annoying to use This helps the balance since tanks would be a lot harder to kill with at least 8000-14000 HP (armor tanks) and AV in general will only be able to push them back, BUT if they eat some prox mines they would be highly damaged.This is balance: TAnks die less to AV in general, tanks die easily to Prox Mines, making ZONING and positioning the new AV vs Tank WAR. -AVers Get WP for Conecting hits to tanks, say 30WP per hit (in case o plasma cannons and FGs),10 WP per grenade and 5 per swarm. THIS WAY Av specialists have an incentive to keep Tanks at bay.This WP were assigned to have some relation between them but it might be a smaller amount per hit/ Just used as examples. - Dropships need a Buff in general.HP,SPeed and WP gain- LAVs are good as they are.People who heavily invested in LAVs still have powerful vehicles, yet BPO and MLT are crap. I wouldnt touch it.LAV are balanced. - This bro here posted this i think its worth a mention.It regards showing AV infantry on the vehicles map while they are using Lock on with their swarms: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=111974&find=unread-Also swarms SHOULD stay with their Lock-on capability,but missiles should be able to be destroyed..... Again this is MY opinion and the idea of this thread is NOT to discuss them,but to provide YOUR opinion on what should be done. THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION POST, just post your ideas on what needs to be balanced and PLEASE, TROLLS are not welcome , TY.
Or you can wait to see what changes they are doing for vehicles, THEN create posts.
/thread |
Monkey MAC
killer taxi company General Tso's Alliance
736
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 21:30:00 -
[67] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:KING CHECKMATE wrote:Now 1st off i must say we are doing this wrong. The community, me included, is fighting almost daily ,Tankers vs AV and now our posts are unproductive. Now OBVIOUSLY everyone has a different point of VIEW. ... This post is NOT TO DISCUSS anything, but to share what WE THINK would help balance the game towards an enjoyable experience.Tankers and AVers are both invited now PLEASE take into consideration CCP might read this so keep it balanced and as less biased as possible. Now before you start with your; you are not a tanker crap i'll say.Im an AVer.But i have 2 tanker accounts now one over 8 mill armor tank and a new one 3 mil shield tanker (God those things are awful) Im going to start:- Armor tank HP buff (AT LEAST +50% more HP) + Slight speed reduction (So that when equipped with Torque increasing modules or/and Nitro they will be fast but not as fast as shield tanks) - Shield HP buff (At least +40% more HP,they would still have la lot less HP than Armored tanks) + Regenerator buff -Shield tanks are supposed to,same as shield dropsuits, to be hit and run abusers. They need at least a 100%-200% increase in shield regen per second (Say from 22 to 44 or 66 per second).This would make the hit and run strategy viable. -AV STAYS THE SAME- Both type of tanks have increased damage reduction vs non AV weapory.- Prox mines Have a big buff, making them the ULTIMATE AV weapon,but the most annoying to use This helps the balance since tanks would be a lot harder to kill with at least 8000-14000 HP (armor tanks) and AV in general will only be able to push them back, BUT if they eat some prox mines they would be highly damaged.This is balance: TAnks die less to AV in general, tanks die easily to Prox Mines, making ZONING and positioning the new AV vs Tank WAR. -AVers Get WP for Conecting hits to tanks, say 30WP per hit (in case o plasma cannons and FGs),10 WP per grenade and 5 per swarm. THIS WAY Av specialists have an incentive to keep Tanks at bay.This WP were assigned to have some relation between them but it might be a smaller amount per hit/ Just used as examples. - Dropships need a Buff in general.HP,SPeed and WP gain- LAVs are good as they are.People who heavily invested in LAVs still have powerful vehicles, yet BPO and MLT are crap. I wouldnt touch it.LAV are balanced. - This bro here posted this i think its worth a mention.It regards showing AV infantry on the vehicles map while they are using Lock on with their swarms: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=111974&find=unread-Also swarms SHOULD stay with their Lock-on capability,but missiles should be able to be destroyed..... Again this is MY opinion and the idea of this thread is NOT to discuss them,but to provide YOUR opinion on what should be done. THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION POST, just post your ideas on what needs to be balanced and PLEASE, TROLLS are not welcome , TY. Or you can wait to see what changes they are doing for vehicles, THEN create posts. /thread
No most definitely not, this is just a brainstorm, our opinions, simething ccp can prehaps draw on if they so choose! |
KING CHECKMATE
TEAM SATISFACTION
1287
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 21:33:00 -
[68] - Quote
Keri Starlight-''I'm totally stunned to hear the words "buff" and "tanks" in the same sentence coming from you! '' I've never been against improving vehicles per se.I might have exagerated.What really triggers me off is NERF AV threads X3
CharCharOdell-You got a tanker alt? hmm...well, at least you are trying. come to 'Honey Badger' chat and identify yourself. I'll even give you a proto tank to try out. I have 2 Alts with Tanks, 1 with Dropships (which i cant still fly for s****).1 Uses Gallante tanks (9mill sp) ,the new one a Caldari tank (3mill , i know sad). If you want to be better at your job , know your enemy right? Plus i dont have anything to do with my ISK in my main account KC....
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). Well, i think a Base HP buff would help all and all (THE PG BUFF IS ALSO A MUST I MUST SAY),of course your ideas are more detailed and i do like the idea of making tanks Invencible/Berserk mode for 60 secs and then squishy again. This promotes support/Hit and run and will separate real tankers from whiny b*tches.....
+1 to ur ideas to.Ty for sharing.
Duran Lex- Or you can wait to see what changes they are doing for vehicles, THEN create posts. AS IT IS, i prefer having everyone sharing their opinions on how best it would be to balance this tahn having 30000 TAnks vs AV rage posts that promote nothing but insults. PLUS, its not too late,maybe some of us come with some great idea CCP might use,and vehicle patch wont come till 1.6 ... |
CharCharOdell
Shining Flame Amarr Empire
1001
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 00:29:00 -
[69] - 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.
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. |
KING CHECKMATE
TEAM SATISFACTION
1291
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 00:49:00 -
[70] - Quote
CharCharOdell wrote:
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.
MAn an Amarr Tank does sound tasty..... |
|
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
900
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 01:04:00 -
[71] - 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 -
[72] - 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 -
[73] - 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...... |
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe
Planetary Response Organisation
421
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 01:34:00 -
[74] - Quote
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. |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
902
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 01:40:00 -
[75] - 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. |
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe
Planetary Response Organisation
422
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 01:55:00 -
[76] - Quote
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. |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
905
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 02:10:00 -
[77] - 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. |
Cosgar
ParagonX
5458
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 02:32:00 -
[78] - 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. It should be easier to disable a tank than outright destroy one. |
KING CHECKMATE
TEAM SATISFACTION
1294
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 02:35:00 -
[79] - Quote
Thanks for keeping this post civil.Keep the ideas for balancing coming. Im reading all of them and we have some good stuff here.
TY again. |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
906
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 02:52:00 -
[80] - 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. |
|
Eurydice Itzhak
Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State
220
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 03:32:00 -
[81] - Quote
sixteensixty4 wrote:I cant really comment on amour tanks as i've only +3 in skills for them and never use them, so for shields... and maybe both
a pg increase so i can play with my fits a little more, it seems even after going the full hog on a useless skill tree (gunlogi skill tree is full of cpu reducers that seem worthless) im still stuck with the same boring fits
possibly, a little hp buff, 500-1500
again, i dont like the skill tree, madrugers got a + to reps and a - to pg used, where all we got is useless cpu, i never run out of cpu, so am left thinking wtf is up with our skill tree...
speed, i dont know the lore and whats meant to be faster, but g'logi is slow as hell, and to fit a booster, i need to sacrifice a passive hardener, same for the scanner and heatsink, this goes back to wack fitting options for a gunlogi
shield hardener only lasts for 10 seconds (if my mind is correct), which is kinda useless ( the hardener not my mind)
I think like dropsuits, the skill tree should buff tanks the more you put in, and while they do to a extent, i dont think they do enough
and active modules , which is where i think the balance should be, should be a bit beefier from what they are now
all in all, actives need buffing and something needs be done when it comes to maddy vs g'logi to even them out a little
"post written while drunk **** my spellings"
I've been complaining about this for forever. Caldari tanks have no difference between 6m sp and 30m sp.
Their skills are completely useless.
I read they are going to make sp count for more in vehicles but Tbh they're likely just nerfing the base to make fully upgraded what we have currently. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
903
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 03:45:00 -
[82] - Quote
You'd rather have tanks removed from the game. Go away. |
Vell0cet
Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire
334
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 03:50:00 -
[83] - Quote
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. |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
914
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 04:29:00 -
[84] - 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. |
CharCharOdell
Shining Flame Amarr Empire
1007
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 05:19:00 -
[85] - Quote
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. |
Cosgar
ParagonX
5460
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 05:48:00 -
[86] - Quote
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. |
Shion Typhon
Intara Direct Action Caldari State
270
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 08:09:00 -
[87] - Quote
OK, disclosure first, I NEVER drive a tank, ever, I barely drive LAVs. I'm also not very AV, I have Adv Swarms, no forge and no high end vehicle AV grenades so you could say I'm one of the least qualified to make any judgements about HAVs in Dust.
However, I have played just about every PVP game out there (including vehicle/AV roles or equivalent roles where vehicles don't exist) and many of the problems with Dust vehicles are by no means confined to this game. The same issues come up again and again across games. PS2 is Dust's closest cousin and it is still struggling with this problem.
My basic position is "Dust tanks (HAVs) are underpowered and have a broken risk/reward model".
However, the way CCP is going about fixing it, and the community is encouraging them down this path, is completely the wrong way to go about it and will lead to even more problems in the future.
Firstly 3 principles: 1) You can't balance around ISK for two reasons: a) In a highly variable economy you will have parties for whom no amount of ISK is a penalty and hence they can afford only the best at all times, regardless. If you price for these people then the rest simply can't afford to participate at all, creating an ultra-capitalist elitism. It also creates the vehicle-lobbyist problem where the main aim is to prevent the loss of a vehicle at all costs. b) in a closed lobby shooter match compared to an open world, all balancing needs to be done around that match. In EVE you can have frigates vs titans because the open world allows numbers to be brought to bear, in a 16v16 closed match this isn't an option. This is why you see money in MMOs but not in FPSs, there's a reason for that, its because its bad game design, not revolutionary. At the silliest extreme you make a vehicle so expensive that to make up for that it has to be powerful enough to solo the whole enemy team.
Tl;dr : ISK balancing = bad.
2) Mobility as a balancing variable is VERY VERY BAD, AS BAD AS ISK. For armoured vehicles like tanks mobility is the number one game crushing force multiplier. No other factor more quickly moves your vehicle from wildly underpowered to wildly overpowered in such a short span. For a practical example go observe the Magrider in Planetside 2. It's a grav hover tank that can side strafe in a world of tread/wheeled-based vehicles. In its original form it was completely and utterly broken, no other vehicle need enter the field, it didn't matter if it had the worst armour and weapons because you just couldn't hit it, even with guided missiles, it would just dance around shooting at you until you died then run off to kill your 5 buddies one at a time.
You also see the same problem in other PVP games where one "class" can run much faster than the others, giving them the ability to define at all times based on class choice rather than skill when combat occurs (ie on their terms, never yours). Guild Wars 2 and many other fantasy MMOs/PVP games suffer from this (exacerbated by the melee vs ranged angle).
Tl;dr: Mobility is a balancing factor but it is so crushingly powerful that it is almost impossible to use in a balanced way.
3) Vehicle balancing needs to be scalable across every situation and avoid binary results(this is my major point). Vehicles need to be balanced when they appear in the lowliest pub match and also balanced in the most insane inferno of organised competitive play. This isn't impossible.
OK, so far CCP are ballsing up principles 1 & 3 and hopefully they don't try 2. So what is the fundamental problem?
The problem is that Dust uses EVE model for tanking where the tanking outcome is mostly a binary decision, either you are invulnerable to the forces facing you or you pop like a soap bubble, no scale.
An example of a similar issue in the MMO world was a PVP game where the defining stat for all combat was magic resistance. The binary nature was that everyone simply stacked nothing but magic resistance or its opposite, magic accuracy. depending on who stacked higher you were either immune to 95% of all skills or it had no effect and you popped. Bad design.
Planetside 2 suffers from a similar problem because they have set their equivalent of repairing tools rate far far far too high. This means a tank with no engineer is a free kill and a tank with 2 engineers is completely and utterly unkillable.
Invisibility in games is a similar binary problem, you can either be seen and die screaming or can't be seen and are unkillable, similarly bad design (next time someone wants to put invisibility in their game they should try the shadow clones/displacer method instead hint hint CCP).
The problem with a binary decision is that it actually ends up disadvantaging everyone, there is no winner, its simply worst of all choices. Lets look at some game play issues at a theorycrafting level but ignore tiers of AV gear and vehicles because tiers just make the problem even worse, not better.
Lets say you have the situation where one AV guy can kill one tanker with a few shots, clearly not ideal because the infantryman has a mobility advantage orders of magnitudes higher than the tank. So CCP's first choice is to increase the tank-stable capacity of the vehicle so that one guy can't kill that HAV. The first ramification of this decision is you have made a single AV player a non-factor, nothing he does by himself matters, unless he is coordinated and most likely comm'd with a fellow AV team mate he may as well put down his swarm and go kill infantry. |
Shion Typhon
Intara Direct Action Caldari State
270
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 08:10:00 -
[88] - Quote
So now we have two AV guys ready and willing. If they focus fire they can crack that tank in a few shots and kill it, so the result for the tanker is he is back in the same position of losing his vehicle and has gone nowhere from his perspective. Now that team of guys can find themselves a vantage point and because they can crack one tank they can crack any tank, so now the battlefield is a no go zone for every tank. No matter how many tanks are spawned these two guys can crack each one as they roll off the nanite production line. In organised matches this problem skyrockets because you end up with the AV nest problem where X AVers are supported by 1-2 "refuelers" who can keep them rolling all day and denying the entire battlefield to vehicles permanently.
So now CCP increases the tank-stable level again so it takes 3 guys ... I'm sure you can see where this arms race is going. Eventually you get to needing 15/16 guys to crack a tank but he still cracks so the tanker is no better off and all you have done is break the infantry side of the game. When you use a tank-stable crack/no crack binary model the tanker never gets ahead and the infantry just get more and more annoyed, no one wins.
This new model that CCP is proposing is simply an extended, worse version of the same above problem. Their "surge" model suggests a situation where a vehicle is even more uncrackable followed by a period of higher weakness. This just creates windows where AV infantry get to feel useless, punctuated by periods where tankers get to feel bored and frustrated because they have no choice but to retreat from the field until the next period of godmode. It also reduces the feeling of skill either the tanker or AVer have because battles normally only take place during godmode where you either brought enough people to crack CCP's attempt at balance or you didn't. Bad design.
So what do you do?
You need a system that is less binary and rewards players for good play, not just having an unbeatable/worthless fit and runs across the whole match.
Ideally you want a completely scalable solution where a bad tanker loses his tank slowly to a small, bad AV team and quickly/instantly to a large, good AV team. A mid range tanker loses his tank slowly to an average AV team but quickly to a good large AV team and so on until at the final point the game's best tanker is in a see-saw position of managing to keep his tank vs a large good AV team to the end of a match.
This means looking at the vehicle tanking/repairing paradigm and also the AV model at the same time.
What are the main issues? CCP needs to:
1) Change to a HP based tanking model 2) Introduce between-match repairs and scale back (somewhat) in game repairs 3) Radically overhaul (scale back) the ammunition model for AV weapons
1) A HP based model means you get that "wearing down" model of game play. It avoids the windows of win/no-win prevalent in the surge/godmode model. You can "go aggressive" any time you want at your choice but that choice comes with a consequences of likely getting stripped down faster than if you played conservatvely. Lets say for the sake of your team you decide you absolutely need to stay and fight and keep this point and are prepared to sacrifice yourself to do so. It means a highly geared, high skill tanker can sustain an "all-in" fight for much longer than the bad newbie but even the newbie can survive for a while in the same environment.
You might ask "how does this fix the 15/16 people going AV problem?" It doesn't completely fix it, 15 people will still destroy a high HP HAV but it makes the choice/tradeoff much more fair and much more linear/scalable. For each person on the enemy team who joins the AV side, the quicker the enemy tanks will wear down but it doesn't result in either no kills vs insta-kills
How much HP is enough? I'm not sure, but if its 5x current HP then that isn't something to be scared of, you simply need to make that decision first then balance the AV damage/ammo availability around it.
A HP model also reduces the problem of tiers because being high tiered simply means more durability and substantially extended lifespan rather than being completely unkillable vs a lower tier.
2) If you are going to have a HP based model which gives massive survivability against alpha/co-ordinated strikes you can't then turn around and rebreak it by giving it excessive repair.
I would suggest hand held reppers no longer repair HAVs, you need a chain of handheld reppers repair LAVs, logi-LAVs repair HAVs. Then you need to make a leap of faith, ignore EVE and lore and accept that both armour and shields do not naturally self repair, or only do so very slowly (ie 10 mins to rep a HAVs full HP load). Also, being hit by "new damage" stops the regen process for some period of time (PS2's nanite regen module is actually a VERY good system, being hit by any AV damage stops regen for around 10-15 seconds before the regen restarts, quite balanced).
You could still have in game repair by supply modules or the area directly under the MCC, it means someone who has ****** luck or is massively outgunned can at least make the choice of completely withdrawing from combat for a substantial tme period to regen. You would have to be careful how you balanced this.
You also need to have between match repair combined with a major drop in vehicle costs to remove the binary cost horror currently in place. A super tanker who plays like a tard still suffers ISK cost at the same level a newbie who completely lost his tank does. This way the ISK cost is directly related to your in match performance. It also discourages the whole "recall" problem because once you've taken 99% damage you don't get a free ticket out of being a failure by recalling the vehicle. If you recall at 50% HP, that's your call. |
Shion Typhon
Intara Direct Action Caldari State
270
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 08:11:00 -
[89] - Quote
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 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. |
Vell0cet
Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire
337
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 14:46:00 -
[90] - Quote
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).
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |