DUST Search - AV players, would you accept a temporary removal of advance weapons?

All Channels

General Discussions

AV players, would you accept a temporary removal of advance weapons?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1963	Posted - 2013.10.03 10:27:00 - [1] - Quote I know it would suck, and I sure wouldn't want to do it. But lets be honest here, this is nothing to do with nerfing AV or making the game suck for AV players while re-building vehicles. I just honestly wonder how CCP intends to balance vehicles VS av if they are starting with standard vehicles and working their way up from there (slowly). play-testing that will yield some data that's pretty difficult to shift though and interpret unless everything was standard vs standard. And on another point I think it would be prudent before 1.7(vehicles?) to add the amarr and min standard vehicle variants. What good is 'balancing' the bottom up of only two races and then pluggin in the last 2 randomly? Thoughts?
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1965	Posted - 2013.10.03 10:31:00 - [2] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: So you want to remove the advanced but leave our proto stuff alone huh I like the way you think har har. Implied removal of anything advance or better, to match vehicles so this can actually be accessed tier by tier symmetrically. the goal: balance AV+vehicles, vehicles vs vehicles. vehicle vs vehicle is starting out with just standards and (should include all races). You'd think to do av vs vehicles would require standards for any proper analysis. This helps ensure neither vehicles nor AV end up OP at any point between standard to proto
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1965	Posted - 2013.10.03 10:44:00 - [3] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: Nguruthos IX wrote: Delta 749 wrote: So you want to remove the advanced but leave our proto stuff alone huh I like the way you think har har. Implied removal of anything advance or better, to match vehicles so this can actually be accessed tier by tier symmetrically. the goal: balance AV+vehicles, vehicles vs vehicles. vehicle vs vehicle is starting out with just standards and (should include all races). You'd think to do av vs vehicles would require standards for any proper analysis. This helps ensure neither vehicles nor AV end up OP at any point between standard to proto Yes balance is important but so far CCP hasnt really shown they can balance the tiers between similar play styles let alone two that play completely different from each other so if Im going to support removing tiers Im not going to say lets just remove the AV tiers so the tankers stop crying but lets gut the entire system and start from scratch with just one tier Just that alone would drastically simplify balancing the system IMO I wasn't aware ground balance was that off. But if consensus points that it is, that'd be fine too.
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1965	Posted - 2013.10.03 10:50:00 - [4] - Quote Jack McReady wrote: you can remove them if I get a respec It's obvious that anyone thing being changed as drastically as vehicles were, or having tiers removed temporarily will be getting a respec. They'll prob do a full respec to keep things simple. Also the AV-vehicle and vehicle-vehicle balance somewhat lies independent of ground-ground. As there's not really a whole lot of consideration on light weapons vs vehicles. So these systems Could be tested independently if needed, ie: vehicles and av stripped to standard this time. ground all stripped to standard later. And with the ground-ground would balance AV weapon efficiencies vs ground units like forge or plasma cannon.
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1965	Posted - 2013.10.03 10:53:00 - [5] - Quote Vyzion Eyri wrote: I'm hoping (and by the looks of it my hopes are pretty well founded) that they're going to test out a tiercided model for vehicles. I mean, even the WIP stats on these vehicles are pretty damn high, coupled with optional turrets, makes the potential for VERY tough vehicles, even against prototype AV. So if I'm not mistaken this is going to be a very interesting few months. do explain the term tiericide
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1966	Posted - 2013.10.03 11:10:00 - [6] - Quote Jack McReady wrote: Nguruthos IX wrote: Jack McReady wrote: you can remove them if I get a respec It's obvious that anyone thing being changed as drastically as vehicles were, or having tiers removed temporarily will be getting a respec. They'll prob do a full respec to keep things simple. Also the AV-vehicle and vehicle-vehicle balance somewhat lies independent of ground-ground. As there's not really a whole lot of consideration on light weapons vs vehicles. So these systems Could be tested independently if needed, ie: vehicles and av stripped to standard this time. ground all stripped to standard later. And with the ground-ground would balance AV weapon efficiencies vs ground units like forge or plasma cannon. I really hope there will be a respec, everyone would benefit from it. fresh air for everyone, testing and feedback can be speed up and new players can correct mistakes... Nguruthos IX wrote: Vyzion Eyri wrote: I'm hoping (and by the looks of it my hopes are pretty well founded) that they're going to test out a tiercided model for vehicles. I mean, even the WIP stats on these vehicles are pretty damn high, coupled with optional turrets, makes the potential for VERY tough vehicles, even against prototype AV. So if I'm not mistaken this is going to be a very interesting few months. do explain the term tiericide tiercide means that all suits are about equal, they only differ in specialization. Does that reflect Eve as of now?
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1967	Posted - 2013.10.03 11:53:00 - [7] - Quote Toby Flenderson wrote: Nguruthos IX wrote: I know it would suck, and I sure wouldn't want to do it. But lets be honest here, this is nothing to do with nerfing AV or making the game suck for AV players while re-building vehicles. I just honestly wonder how CCP intends to balance vehicles VS av if they are starting with standard vehicles and working their way up from there (slowly). play-testing that will yield some data that's pretty difficult to shift though and interpret unless everything was standard vs standard. And on another point I think it would be prudent before 1.7(vehicles?) to add the amarr and min standard vehicle variants. What good is 'balancing' the bottom up of only two races and then pluggin in the last 2 randomly? Thoughts? I think you have a good point and I would be willing to do this myself. The only problem is I'm sure it won't be a popular choice so my willingness to comply would be useless. Another thing to consider would be when the new dropsuits come out (whenever that may be); do we ask people to go back to using standard dropsuits? Or is the addition of dropsuits too subtle compared to reworking vehicles and do not require the same measures to be taken? Suppose that is yet to be seen
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1967	Posted - 2013.10.03 11:56:00 - [8] - Quote Mortedeamor wrote: assuming proto and adv turrets were also removed of course...tanks currently deal proto dmg they just dont take it. Well a small vehicle turret should be equal to or greater than any small arms fire. And so moving from STD to proto wouldn't change much vs infantry but it does have MASSIVE implications for vehicle vs vehicle balance. I don't see how they could balance vehicles without considering proto turrets modules in a standard vehicle vs another vehicle
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1967	Posted - 2013.10.03 11:56:00 - [9] - Quote Vin Mora wrote: Why are people forgetting that they are releasing vehicle and weapon rebalances at the same time? So AV will be rebalanced with the new vehicles. But how? Unless they start at the same rate and work up from there?
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1967	Posted - 2013.10.03 12:00:00 - [10] - Quote Banning Hammer wrote: Only if you accept a temporary removal of you turrets. I mean if that's what's best. I'm not sure if it factors out the same way because if anything vehicle turrets would be balanced against infantry Suits. So...see where this is going? We also going to strip out all suits to standard and work up from there? If not the best dividing line is as I stated above. STD-AV dmg vs STD-vehicle HP. STD-vehicle(all modules) vs STD-vehicle(all moduels).

Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1967	Posted - 2013.10.03 12:03:00 - [11] - Quote J Falcs wrote: I am all for tiericide. Fantastic move on the EVE side. I was very very surprised when they kept the tiers in Dust 514 Uprising. It seemed archaic compared to the EVE model of all ships have a place/specialty. I would like to see more suits with differing bonuses that encourages specialization. Based on layout and bonuses, suits can be more general, filling two roles in one, and on the other hand a suit that fills one role very well. I would say same goes for vehicles, although I think vehicles lend themselves very well to the T3 model of eve ships. Base hulls but certain "parts" can turn the ship from assault to transport or to logistic (dropship example). T3 seems to be what they're going for with vehicles
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1967	Posted - 2013.10.03 12:11:00 - [12] - Quote Banning Hammer wrote: This community is getting stupider by the hour.... I see tanks going 30-0 / 40-0 in regular basics, most AV weapons are useless against them... and you want to temporally remove the only weapons that can make them run for cover now and again ? I have a better idea; Just remove Dropsuits altogether, and lets make Dust 514 a Vehicles only game. QQ much? any tank going 30 and 0 is when nobody goes AV because they're lazy and want easy infantry assist kills or they are terrible. Av is cheap, costs little SP and I've never met a tank I couldn't put the finishing blow on with a militia forge and some AV nades. A. "remove the only weapon". Are are impling you think the only weapon capable of killing a vehicle is (proto) forge? lawl? B. remove dropsuits. Ok QQ Queen.
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1967	Posted - 2013.10.03 12:27:00 - [13] - Quote calisk galern wrote: to be clear you want to remove advanc and better in swarms, forge guns, grenades, and proximity mines? i'd get a good laugh I guess with how easy of a time good tank pilots would have. I think you're missing the point In other words let me get this clear: You want vehicles to have half their roles stripped out, modules removed, and hulls all stuck at standard. While you Blap at them with a proto assault forge gun and Lai AV nades. And you expect this will somehow give CCP a better picture of how to adjust balance against AV and vehicles? When no vehicle will last more than 2 seconds on the field?. How the hell am I supposed to survive more than a moment in a STD dropship when everyone on the enemy team already has proto swarms? This guy should be CPM. He's totally unbiased and sensible /s
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1968	Posted - 2013.10.03 12:29:00 - [14] - Quote Banning Hammer wrote: Nguruthos IX wrote: Banning Hammer wrote: This community is getting stupider by the hour.... I see tanks going 30-0 / 40-0 in regular basics, most AV weapons are useless against them... and you want to temporally remove the only weapons that can make them run for cover now and again ? I have a better idea; Just remove Dropsuits altogether, and lets make Dust 514 a Vehicles only game. QQ much? any tank going 30 and 0 is when nobody goes AV because they're lazy and want easy infantry assist kills or they are terrible. Av is cheap, costs little SP and I've never met a tank I couldn't put the finishing blow on with a militia forge and some AV nades. A. "remove the only weapon". Are are impling you think the only weapon capable of killing a vehicle is (proto) forge? lawl? B. remove dropsuits. Ok QQ Queen. AV cheap ? Die 5 times in a row just to "scare" a tank away ? and then die another 5 times trying to hunt it down ? I actually spent about 500,000 isk in battles just trying to "scare" a tank away from a position ...with not rewards... No WP, not kills... not ISK... NOTHING. Just helping my team to defend an area... that is it. That's funny. You sound terrible. All I have is lev-3 AV nades and I can kill any tank alone or with 1 team mate depending on enemy team's support. If you're spending that much ISK, dying that much, and only managing to 'scare vehicles' away then god help you that's just a reflecting of your almost unfathomable ineptness. L2P
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1968	Posted - 2013.10.03 12:33:00 - [15] - Quote Banning Hammer wrote: Nguruthos IX wrote: calisk galern wrote: to be clear you want to remove advanc and better in swarms, forge guns, grenades, and proximity mines? i'd get a good laugh I guess with how easy of a time good tank pilots would have. I think you're missing the point In other words let me get this clear: You want vehicles to have half their roles stripped out, modules removed, and hulls all stuck at standard. While you Blap at them with a proto assault forge gun and Lai AV nades. And you expect this will somehow give CCP a better picture of how to adjust balance against AV and vehicles? When no vehicle will last more than 2 seconds on the field?. How the hell am I supposed to survive more than a moment in a STD dropship when everyone on the enemy team already has proto swarms? This guy should be CPM. He's totally unbiased and sensible /s Let me get this straight.... you don't want Prototype weapons destroying you STD tank ? I am hearing this correctly ? idk where you're hearing that, nobody ever said it. What exactly is wrong with you?
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1968	Posted - 2013.10.03 12:45:00 - [16] - Quote Banning Hammer wrote: [quote=Nguruthos IX] Quote: How the hell am I supposed to survive more than a moment in a STD dropship when everyone on the enemy team already has proto swarms? How can you seriously complain about this with a straight face...You know how much SP and ISK proto swarm launchers cost ? Sorry, now I know you're trolling.
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1968	Posted - 2013.10.03 12:49:00 - [17] - Quote PS as it is 2 people with militia swarms or 1 person with a militia forge is area-of denial on penalty-of-death to any dropship. Being on the ground means you're liable to be rushed by anyone with even basic AV nades.
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1968	Posted - 2013.10.03 12:56:00 - [18] - Quote Jack McReady wrote: Nguruthos IX wrote: PS as it is 2 people with militia swarms or 1 person with a militia forge is area-of denial on penalty-of-death to any dropship. Being on the ground means you're liable to be rushed by anyone with even basic AV nades. except that swarms will not bring a dropship down... trololo afterburner. failed reading comprehension again I see. Area of denial = DS must flee any range within locking area (huge) OR it will die. translation: new character with no SP or ISK can neutralize a whole vehicle for free. Don't even need proto swarms if it's annoying you.
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1968	Posted - 2013.10.03 12:58:00 - [19] - Quote Banning Hammer wrote: Sgt Buttscratch wrote: Banning Hammer wrote: Nguruthos IX wrote: calisk galern wrote: to be clear you want to remove advanc and better in swarms, forge guns, grenades, and proximity mines? i'd get a good laugh I guess with how easy of a time good tank pilots would have. I think you're missing the point In other words let me get this clear: You want vehicles to have half their roles stripped out, modules removed, and hulls all stuck at standard. While you Blap at them with a proto assault forge gun and Lai AV nades. And you expect this will somehow give CCP a better picture of how to adjust balance against AV and vehicles? When no vehicle will last more than 2 seconds on the field?. How the hell am I supposed to survive more than a moment in a STD dropship when everyone on the enemy team already has proto swarms? This guy should be CPM. He's totally unbiased and sensible /s Let me get this straight.... you don't want Prototype weapons destroying you STD tank ? I am hearing this correctly ? When I saw his post I figured those with narrow minds would enter with the rawr rawr djibawr. IMO it would be a btter test of current vehicles to see their survivabilty versus MLT/STD/ADV, ADV is still very tricky for tanks, they catch you off guard or being cocky they can destroy you fast, also they are very good for getting a tank to retreat. What they don't have is patheticly OP abilities. I am narrow minded ? Seriously, do you know how much SP you have to invest in an AV weapon to get it to the point that does some "serious" damage ? Then to that add CPU and PG restrictions, which means that you will need Core skills too.. and most likely also a Proto suit to use it. Now... add all the SP and ISK.... done ? now.. talk me who is being narrow minded Yeah because all of that sounds like absolute **** compared to the exact same arguements coming from vehicles with more merit. AV takes a lot of SP to be effective? Are you kidding me? Know how much SP it takes to make any vehicle remotely viable? They're not even viable when maxxed. Proto swarms are expensive? You don't even need them but if you wanted how can you justify that compared to the million isk DS that goes down when 2 militia forge train it? Get outta here
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1968	Posted - 2013.10.03 13:01:00 - [20] - Quote Skihids wrote: Not that we players haves say in it, but just insider the long term. Whatever AV stays in is going to be balanced against STD vehicles, then ADV and PROTO vehicles will be added back. If I were an AV player I would demand AV be striped down to STD for the balance pass against STD vehicles. That is unless they want proto AV balanced to kill STD vehicles so that ADV vehicles can finally do to them what proto Av has been doing to us for the last year. Sure man, if that's what they want. Screw it I'm ok with that. Just thought it'd be better for, you know, the game and all to do this right. lol

Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1968	Posted - 2013.10.03 13:04:00 - [21] - Quote Side note: They also need to balance militia vehicles and militia AV. Previously totally ignored. I can be more effective than my entire team in any game with militia gear and ZERO ground SP Try pulling that stunt with a militia dropship or militia tank. You'll be shat on by the first simple av nade that hits you or militia forge gun will 2 shot you before you could move after the first hit. Militia vehicles as of yet have been completely worthless for anything other than suicide. This paradigm deserves to be looked at and changed.
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1968	Posted - 2013.10.03 13:12:00 - [22] - Quote DS 10 wrote: Give me a lower leveled Assault FG and I'm cool with it. The issue with removing FGs is they're also effective vs installations and infantry. decent point on the complication of weapon variants as tiers go up. But what if that somehow ends up getting removed then you're right. It'd be ok. "The issue with removing FGs is they're also effective vs installations and infantry." Well not removing them just keeping them to a basic level. a militia FG+ militia damage mod 3 shots any installation currently. I believe it would direct shot any infantry as well. Like 1300+ dmg.
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1985	Posted - 2013.10.03 14:17:00 - [23] - Quote Shotty GoBang wrote: Nguruthos IX wrote: Thoughts? Hi Nine! It depends on how the vehicle changes pan out. I've read the vehicle thread and share the concerns of experienced Tankers and Pilots who appear -- at first glance -- to have far fewer options at their disposal. That said, we can't yet assign a threat-level to upcoming vehicle-mounted weaponry. If tank-mounted missile turrets, for example, can decimate squads in seconds then I suspect Proto AV will still be needed to maintain ground-unit balance. As for aerial balance, I suspect that Swarms will still pose little threat to Dropships (unless I've missed something). On Forge Guns, I'm inclined to agree with Pyrex's well-reasoned position: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc3TdcyHLTU It is problematic that a single infantry unit can clear the airspace for an entire match. That said, I feel for our fatties; it breaks my heart to see them running Duvolles over heavy weapons. A Forge Gun change should take into account the fact that the HMG is quite useless in half our maps. Just my two cents. - Shotty GoBang - Swarm Operation V / Proficiency III of course. Also I overheard in IRC some dev mention considering some buffs to the heavy Suit. I suppose that could be classified as rumor since it wasn't in some official capacity but I feel for heavies too and one area we could all agree on helping is their tankiness. I'll leave speculation for forge gun efficiency vs dropship till we have more data for an accurate picture.
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1986	Posted - 2013.10.03 14:22:00 - [24] - Quote RECON BY FIRE wrote: Nguruthos IX wrote: I know it would suck, and I sure wouldn't want to do it. But lets be honest here, this is nothing to do with nerfing AV or making the game suck for AV players while re-building vehicles. I just honestly wonder how CCP intends to balance vehicles VS av if they are starting with standard vehicles and working their way up from there (slowly). play-testing that will yield some data that's pretty difficult to shift though and interpret unless everything was standard vs standard. And on another point I think it would be prudent before 1.7(vehicles?) to add the amarr and min standard vehicle variants. What good is 'balancing' the bottom up of only two races and then pluggin in the last 2 randomly? Thoughts? Lol, no. You are obviously one of those few people who simply wants your tank to be as OP as possible instead of trying to create any sort of balance. A case can be made for the temporary removal of proto AV, but advanced? Youre just being a cry baby now. well first of all I've never driven a tank and never want to. Second I'm a cry baby for thinking std should be balanced against std? Same as it is or should be with suits? You might want to consider this: If you leave in adv AV to fight std vehicles in testing, then you'll likely end up with a skewed picture of balance that results in AV REQUIRING advanced weapons to kill STD vehicles/tanks/what have you. By clearing all the "noise" off the battle field CCP can make a proper scientific assessment of the status of AV and vehicle effectiveness.
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1986	Posted - 2013.10.03 14:26:00 - [25] - Quote Shotty GoBang wrote: RECON BY FIRE wrote: Lol, no. You are obviously one of those few people who simply wants your tank to be as OP as possible instead of trying to create any sort of balance. A case can be made for the temporary removal of proto AV, but advanced? Youre just being a cry baby now. IX is a famed dropship pilot (not a tanker). The Condors call him NG and here he is in Russia owned that proto goat
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1988	Posted - 2013.10.03 14:46:00 - [26] - Quote ZDub 303 wrote: What are you really balancing though? Std AV vs Std tanks with std modules? Std av vs std tanks with proto modules? What do you really expect ccp will learn from this? Well from the looks if it now it would be to balance STD vehicles -with proto modules against STD av -with proto modules aka basic forge gun + complex damage mods VS basic vehicle with complex shield extenders
Nguruthos IX PEN 15 CLUB 1988	Posted - 2013.10.03 14:48:00 - [27] - Quote RECON BY FIRE wrote: I don't really give a ** what you actually operate, you obviously don't care about actual balance. Ill tell you this, if a standard tank can be taken out by a standard Swarm that tank is not worth even owning. There is a difference in levels between vehicles and AV weapons. Back when we had Marauders they were "proto" tanks, so obviously there was never really much of an intention for a dropsuit/weapon style progression with vehicles. one guy with one medium AV weapon should not be able to solo a vehicle in any quick amount of time. That's for sure. Otherwise any time there's 2 AV on the field any vehicle would be **ed. Kinda like now with forge guns.