Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nguruthos IX
PEN 15 CLUB
1986
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 14:22:00 -
[61] - 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. |
Shotty GoBang
Pro Hic Immortalis
1412
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 14:24:00 -
[62] - Quote
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 ^ Footage courtesy of Bojo |
Nguruthos IX
PEN 15 CLUB
1986
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 14:26:00 -
[63] - 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 |
Shotty GoBang
Pro Hic Immortalis
1412
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 14:31:00 -
[64] - Quote
Nguruthos IX wrote: owned that proto goat
Dragged toward precipice and certain demise, the proto medium squeals (roughly translated): "Not fair! I'm immortal! I have a Duvolle!" |
RECON BY FIRE
Internal Rebellion
256
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 14:32:00 -
[65] - Quote
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. |
Jack McReady
DUST University Ivy League
610
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 14:42:00 -
[66] - 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. if a std tank cannot be taken down by std AV there is inbalance creating artificial numbers advantage. if you dont understand that then do yourself a favor and dont post because you have no clue drive well and not brainless rambo then your tank will do fine. 99% of tank deaths can be avoided by just using the brain and not overextending. |
ZDub 303
TeamPlayers EoN.
2115
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 14:44:00 -
[67] - Quote
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? |
Nguruthos IX
PEN 15 CLUB
1988
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 14:46:00 -
[68] - 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 -
[69] - 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. |
Coleman Gray
GunFall Mobilization Covert Intervention
744
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 14:54:00 -
[70] - Quote
Lets not be hastey here, fingers crossed, CCP have taken current AV into account and tanks can be made to match upto it. |
|
Rynoceros
Rise Of Old Dudes
837
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 15:10:00 -
[71] - Quote
They should be able to cover this in-house without touching the active game. Unless the Pilot suits are coming soon, then the entire vehicle balance is just a matter of changing some numbers here and there.
(Their obvious lack of opinion and not blue tagging Respec threads leads me to believe the real final respec is coming. CCP usually has no problem saying "No, we're not doing this/that. Not even SoonGäó" but have remained silent on those theeads.) |
Vrain Matari
ZionTCD
1017
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 15:11:00 -
[72] - Quote
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'd sign on for this. Let's get the testing/balancing out of the way ASAP. OP's proposal seems like a good place to start.
Also, CCP can re-intro weapons via streaming market updates, so can easily start stepping the AV tiers back up as resting progresses. |
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star. EoN.
1279
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 15:46:00 -
[73] - Quote
Nguruthos IX wrote: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
|
RECON BY FIRE
Internal Rebellion
257
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 16:02:00 -
[74] - Quote
Jack McReady wrote: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. if a std tank cannot be taken down by std AV there is inbalance creating artificial numbers advantage. if you dont understand that then do yourself a favor and dont post because you have no clue drive well and not brainless rambo then your tank will do fine. 99% of tank deaths can be avoided by just using the brain and not overextending.
How did you ever come up with such flawless logic? "Either accept my viewpoint or gtfo." So we will go with your viewpoint for a second here, you basically just said Gunnlogis and Madrugers should be able to be taken down with a standard Swarm. Ok, cool. You heard the man! Buff the Swarms! |
Slightly-Mental
Zumari Force Projection Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 23:42:00 -
[75] - Quote
proximity mines need a buff
make swarms a heavy only weapon and maybe remove 1 missile from shot
forge guns need a total rework
my thoughts from playing AV
|
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
1062
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 23:44:00 -
[76] - 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
Agreed |
SgtDoughnut
Red Star Jr. EoN.
241
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 23:47:00 -
[77] - Quote
All things relating to vehicles should be stripped down to the same level, AV included, its the only way to make it balanced and make it where we don't require an AV specialist in every squad just in case someone pulls a tank/derpship |
Godin Thekiller
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
1062
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 23:48:00 -
[78] - Quote
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
Picture if there was never a PROTO suit, and that all the suits were basically PROTO. That. Honestly, if that would have happened, and AV was left at advanced, I would be fine with that. Well, AV grenades would still need a nerf. |
Gallente Mercenary 08551380
The Vanguardians
45
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 00:23:00 -
[79] - Quote
I am a prototype forge gunner. Killing tanks is my special sauce
I just ran around in my LLAV trying to chase down this one tanker during a dominion for the entire match. He just shrugged off my shots like they were no big deal and proceeded to **** my face. The problem isint OP AV, its ******** tank drivers
If they removed proto AV, a well fit tank would be invincible. Even more so than they are now. |
pegasis prime
BIG BAD W0LVES
1116
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 00:56:00 -
[80] - Quote
Look at it this way. It is supposed to take team work to bring down a well specked hav not 1 merc with a proto win button. Now if CCPreleases std havs to be balanced against adv.and proto av then our proto and adv.vehicles will be incredably op. If any one who runs av thinks we should not be.allowd proto vehicles dosent want balance all.they want is a win button. And if you want to continue soloing vehicles battlefield/cod/anynother generic twich shooter is that way>>>>>>>.
Every one else ....lets just see what ccp.dose next. |
|
SgtDoughnut
Red Star Jr. EoN.
242
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 01:00:00 -
[81] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:Look at it this way. It is supposed to take team work to bring down a well specked hav not 1 merc with a proto win button. Now if CCPreleases std havs to be balanced against adv.and proto av then our proto and adv.vehicles will be incredably op. If any one who runs av thinks we should not be.allowd proto vehicles dosent want balance all.they want is a win button. And if you want to continue soloing vehicles battlefield/cod/anynother generic twich shooter is that way>>>>>>>.
Every one else ....lets just see what ccp.dose next.
Along that logic though why should 1 merc with a well specced tank take so many people to bring down? At that point you should have entire teams running tanks, only having 1 or 2 guys get out to hack objectives. If you have infantry in the game the vehicles need to be balanced against infantry not other vehicles. |
Alpha 443-6732
PEN 15 CLUB
88
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 01:06:00 -
[82] - Quote
fellow PEN 15 club member approves of this thread |
pegasis prime
BIG BAD W0LVES
1116
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 01:06:00 -
[83] - Quote
Some folks seem to have misconceptions aboit the levle of team work neede to bring down a hav and many times iv.said in many threads 3 mercs with the same tier av as the tank is balance as I often run with 2 co gunners so wheres the balance when 1 merc on a tower or somewhere beyond my rendering range can solo my extremely well.fitted tanks with 2 co gunners? Ill tell you whare the balance is ......its far far away in a distant galaxy. The verry reason pro havs were removed is because cod boys couldent solo them and done nothing but whine on here about it . |
Xocoyol Zaraoul
Superior Genetics
1204
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 01:14:00 -
[84] - Quote
As a die-hard HAV user... I hate to say it, but I am firmly against them removing any AV tiers, as we do need them to see how they perform against the "basic" vehicles.
Further gutting of the game would be just ridiculous, as painful as it may be to leave them in. |
Alpha 443-6732
PEN 15 CLUB
88
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 01:20:00 -
[85] - Quote
RECON BY FIRE wrote:Jack McReady wrote: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. if a std tank cannot be taken down by std AV there is inbalance creating artificial numbers advantage. if you dont understand that then do yourself a favor and dont post because you have no clue drive well and not brainless rambo then your tank will do fine. 99% of tank deaths can be avoided by just using the brain and not overextending. How did you ever come up with such flawless logic? "Either accept my viewpoint or gtfo." So we will go with your viewpoint for a second here, you basically just said Gunnlogis and Madrugers should be able to be taken down with a standard Swarm. Ok, cool. You heard the man! Buff the Swarms!
This guy is the idiot of the day! Congrats!
Standard shouldn't be balanced against standard? Had you been dropped on your head as a child? |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |