DUST Search - Tank vs AV: In my opinion.

Takahiro Kashuken wrote:

Skihids wrote:

Takahiro Kashuken wrote:

With the current levels of tank speed i do expect webifiers to be put in next to counter act it

Also 1 hardener for each tank? lolno because without hardeners the tank is squishy as it is, thats the whole point of active hardeners but they come with a big consequence of PG/CPU

The issue is the balance of the "waves of opportunity" that underpins the current vehicle philosophy.

As I understand it the invulnerability of the active hardener is supposed to be balanced by the time the vehicle is out of the fight and in cool down. The pilot is doing 3x the damage for 1/3 the time.

If you increase the active time percentage you will throw off the balance unless you decrease the DPS done during the active phase.

If a HAV is doing 4x the damage of a light weapon and is nigh invulnerable 50% of the time it is worth two sets of boots on the ground. At that point it makes sense to have more tanks than infantry.

I understand the desire for more active time from a pilot's perspective, but we have to maintain an overall game balance or we will end up with TANK514.

So you put restrictions on tanks, what about infantry? 3dmg mods on a suit can be easily done but you dont hear about restrictions for infantry and thats double standards

If i have the skills to fit the mods i should be able to do so

If i want 3 hardeners on then thats my choice such as putting on 3 dmg mods on a suit

With 3 hardeners i may seem invulnrable but im not, a FG will hit me hard and sometimes i wish i had a 2nd hardener to put on at that moment and i run anyways but also i sacrifice the abilty to put on a dmg mod or a booster to kick start my shield regen

Once you start putting on restriction on things where does it stop? only 1 plate and repper allowed on everything now, this is supposed to be a game where you can put a sniper on a fat suit and no small turrets on your vehicles

Also your wrong on the HAV, i cant enter a building or go up the stairs and hack an objective, if i play FW and 3 obj are in a compound im useless, we dont have vehicle friendly maps to begin with because infantry has places they can move from and to where a tank cannot follow


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2513	Posted - 2013.12.13 05:04:00 - [1] - Quote Making "Waves of Opportunity" work The "waves of opportunity" philosophy says a vehicle can engage very powerfully for a limited amount of time before disengaging for cool down. The idea is that the advantage of near immunity is counter balanced by being out of combat for an extended period, leaving your team a man down. For this to work the cool down must be proportional to the extra damage the player can inflict, and that seems to be where the plan is breaking down. A large turret can out DPS a light infantry weapon by a fair multiple, but that's not the only advantage. The HAV pilot doesn't have to actively avoid return fire so he is more effective while invulnerable. That suggests the active period should be a small fraction of the cool down. Complex hardeners with L5 backup skills make this a near 1:1 ratio. CCP intends vehicles to be used to breach a heavily defended objective, but the pilot doesn't just wait to be called in and may prefer to go after soft targets instead. A pilot wandering around the edge of battle might not have to activate hardeners at all. He can be invulnerable to light weapons for an extended period of time until engaged by serious AV. All this suggests that a vehicle is a force multiplier. One player becomes as effective as two or more with boots on the ground. I'm not sure what the best fix is. If you increase cool down times enough to balance them damage wise you risk benching them for 3/4 of the match and pilots will complain about boredom. Webifiers could achieve a decent balance and CCP alluded to that a year ago, but there's nary a word about it in months so it's not likely to help out soon.
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2513	Posted - 2013.12.13 14:33:00 - [2] - Quote CCP Remnant wrote: wripple wrote: Quote: We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs. May I make a suggestion? -Greatly reduce the damage and RoF for all turrets by 25% and have the operation bonus increase it by 5% per level -Reduce the speed and torque for all HAVs by 50% and make HAV operation give 10% back per level. As it currently stands anyone can pick up a militia stock fit HAV and completely dominate even seasoned vets. This suggestion would grant only those who spend the SP full power of the HAV. Tanks will still have the damage and speed they do now, you just have to get level 5 in order to use it. Problem with that is that if you start new players out with the worst handling and worst performing tank possible, they'd hardly be incentivized to skill into it, and even if they were it wouldn't be terribly fun until they did, don't you think? That extends to AV as well. If AV doesn't have a decent ROE nobody is going to skill into it and the only proto AV we will have are the vets who already skilled into it. Chasing armor away only to have it return again, ultimately getting no rewards will quickly kill any incentive to engage vehicles. Bring back WPs for damage inflicted and you make it more enticing.
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2514	Posted - 2013.12.13 14:44:00 - [3] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: With the current levels of tank speed i do expect webifiers to be put in next to counter act it Also 1 hardener for each tank? lolno because without hardeners the tank is squishy as it is, thats the whole point of active hardeners but they come with a big consequence of PG/CPU The issue is the balance of the "waves of opportunity" that underpins the current vehicle philosophy. As I understand it the invulnerability of the active hardener is supposed to be balanced by the time the vehicle is out of the fight and in cool down. The pilot is doing 3x the damage for 1/3 the time. If you increase the active time percentage you will throw off the balance unless you decrease the DPS done during the active phase. If a HAV is doing 4x the damage of a light weapon and is nigh invulnerable 50% of the time it is worth two sets of boots on the ground. At that point it makes sense to have more tanks than infantry. I understand the desire for more active time from a pilot's perspective, but we have to maintain an overall game balance or we will end up with TANK514.
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2514	Posted - 2013.12.13 15:21:00 - [4] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Skihids wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: With the current levels of tank speed i do expect webifiers to be put in next to counter act it Also 1 hardener for each tank? lolno because without hardeners the tank is squishy as it is, thats the whole point of active hardeners but they come with a big consequence of PG/CPU The issue is the balance of the "waves of opportunity" that underpins the current vehicle philosophy. As I understand it the invulnerability of the active hardener is supposed to be balanced by the time the vehicle is out of the fight and in cool down. The pilot is doing 3x the damage for 1/3 the time. If you increase the active time percentage you will throw off the balance unless you decrease the DPS done during the active phase. If a HAV is doing 4x the damage of a light weapon and is nigh invulnerable 50% of the time it is worth two sets of boots on the ground. At that point it makes sense to have more tanks than infantry. I understand the desire for more active time from a pilot's perspective, but we have to maintain an overall game balance or we will end up with TANK514. So you put restrictions on tanks, what about infantry? 3dmg mods on a suit can be easily done but you dont hear about restrictions for infantry and thats double standards If i have the skills to fit the mods i should be able to do so If i want 3 hardeners on then thats my choice such as putting on 3 dmg mods on a suit With 3 hardeners i may seem invulnrable but im not, a FG will hit me hard and sometimes i wish i had a 2nd hardener to put on at that moment and i run anyways but also i sacrifice the abilty to put on a dmg mod or a booster to kick start my shield regen Once you start putting on restriction on things where does it stop? only 1 plate and repper allowed on everything now, this is supposed to be a game where you can put a sniper on a fat suit and no small turrets on your vehicles Also your wrong on the HAV, i cant enter a building or go up the stairs and hack an objective, if i play FW and 3 obj are in a compound im useless, we dont have vehicle friendly maps to begin with because infantry has places they can move from and to where a tank cannot follow I'm not advocating specific restrictions, but rather a balance. HAVs are supposed to be "Bunker Busters" that multiply the DPS of one merc to break through a heavy defense. That multiplication must be balanced somehow or it becomes a necessity to run to not be at a disadvantage. The "Wave" philosophy uses time out of the fight as the balance factor. I am cautioning you that if you remove the balance factor you break the philosophy. Yes there are other subtle balance factors the enter the equation as well. A HAV pilot can't hack a point while in his vehicle. That just means you can't have a team of 100% pilots, it doesn't mean you can't have a team of 50% pilots. We don't have to restrict infantry modules to run the balance calculation. Simply take the average DPS by a dropsuit and use that as the base value for comparison to the HAV turret. If the STD large turret is putting out 4x the DPS of the average DPS of the STD light weapon you should start with a base 1:4 ratio of active to cooldown. I say base because you may want to tweak it based on factors like not being able to enter certain spaces.
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2516	Posted - 2013.12.13 16:42:00 - [5] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: The wave factor is still in In each match periodically i have to retreat or i push my tank too far and risk losing it either against AV or other tanks I cannot sit there and take a mountain of damage unless the enemy are idiots and are shooting at me with the wrong AV weapon or doing it when my hardeners are on or are just leaving me alone and firing an AR at me Yday i went 41/0 in a blaster maddy and they did have swarms and were firing at me except i had my hardeners on and they just kept coming out to get shot at, not once did anyone flank and tbh i did get pushed back a few times and we did lose the game heavily anyways because the infantry were bad on my side and didnt push the bridge even tho i kept mowing them down Even in that match i had to push when the time was right and retreat when i need to The question is how much time you spent in active mode on the bridge vs. time hiding, and did that balance the extra DPS you brought to bear? At 41/0 it seems that your HAV made you at least as effective as two infantry units. If your side had four HAVs it would be the equivalent of having 20 players on your side. If that becomes the norm, then each side will run as many HAVs as they can and still cap objectives. In Ambush that may mean 100% tanks.
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2525	Posted - 2013.12.13 17:53:00 - [6] - Quote I love piloting as much or more than AV so I'm not trying to nerf anything in particular. I'm looking for a fun challenge for everyone because this is a game after all. A great mindset is to imagine you get to set the rules and your opponent gets to pick which role each of you play. That's the equivalent of the "You cut, I choose" method of cutting a desert in half. Each role in the game needs to be balanced against the others. Each advantage must come with a disadvantage to balance. You might think that you want an unbalanced OP role, but in reality that would get boring fast. Some folks play to get a trophy, but most really play for the challenge and a free trophy is meaningless to them. There are no bragging rights to fishing with dynamite. Sure, watching the explosions and counting the fish is fun at first, but after a day or so the fun would pale. (Ok, not so good analogy, fishing is boring and explosions are ALWAYS fun) Let's instead take bowling. The challenge is to knock down the pins and avoid the gutters. Now we alter the balance by dropping plastic bumpers into the gutters so you can't throw a gutter ball. Every initial throw is guaranteed to knock down some pins. How much fun is that game? Are you going to go bragging about your bumper bowling score? Now to make it even easier we add a ramp you can roll your ball down for perfect aim. Once you set it to get a strike each time will you continue to play? My guess is you would get bored fast. The best game provides multiple roles, each with a unique set of challenges all balanced. Any role that has a clear advantage detracts from the whole. So the basic idea of "waves of opportunity" is a good one. A single pilot can be as effective as several but for a reciprocal amount of time. That adds variety while maintaining balance. You just have to watch that your waves don't smooth out the the point they devolve into the equivalent of passive power.
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2525	Posted - 2013.12.13 18:34:00 - [7] - Quote SHANN da MAN wrote: The problem with HAV vs. AV is that they removed PRO HAV's but didn't remove PRO AV ... The way it should work is - MLT/STD AV counters MLT/STD Vehicles - Installations ADV AV counters ADV Vehicles PRO AV counters PRO Vehicles When they removed PRO HAV's they had to rebalance AV , so that now - MLT/STD AV counters MLT/STD LAV's - Installations - Ineffective vs. HAV's or Dropships ADV AV counters ADV LAV - MIL/STD HAV and Dropships PRO AV counters ADV HAV and Dropships (but not very well) Until they either add back PRO HAV's and rebalance, or remove PRO AV and rebalance, the AV vs. Vehicles will always be broken. I'm not so sure they plan to add stronger vehicles. Regardless, the defensive modules are identical in strength so we have all the proto defenses to balance against. It would appear that CCP wants all vehicles to have similar defensive strengths, just varying by how long they are active. As such they can and should balance the full range of AV against the current vehicles.
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2526	Posted - 2013.12.13 18:53:00 - [8] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Rei Shepard wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: With the current levels of tank speed i do expect webifiers to be put in next to counter act it Also 1 hardener for each tank? lolno because without hardeners the tank is squishy as it is, thats the whole point of active hardeners but they come with a big consequence of PG/CPU Oh wow aswesome, then we would need 1 guy to web it and 3 guys to shoot it to counter 1 guy in a tank that costs roughly as much as my proto-suit..... Teamworks hurts You want to solo with an AR? How about we put restrictions on suits too so you can only have 1 dmg mod 1 rep 1 plate etc We have restrictions. Infantry doesn't get to be invulnerable. That's a pretty big drawback compared to vehicles.
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2526	Posted - 2013.12.13 19:14:00 - [9] - Quote Infantry has zero access to hardener modules. With access to hardener modules comes the need for some counterbalance. There has to be some restrictions on vehicle use of hardeners since infantry gets NO use of them. That's the point of comparison, not armor plates or damage mods.
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2526	Posted - 2013.12.13 19:52:00 - [10] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Skihids wrote: Infantry has zero access to hardener modules. With access to hardener modules comes the need for some counterbalance. There has to be some restrictions on vehicle use of hardeners since infantry gets NO use of them. That's the point of comparison, not armor plates or damage mods. So you want infantry to have hardeners? Are you being deliberately obtuse? We are speaking about balancing infantry and vehicles, therefore we have to address the differences. A major advantage vehicles possess is the use of hardeners that give them the increased ability to tank damage. That is a deliberate design decision to add diversity to the game. Give it to infantry and you thwart your effort at variety. So with great power comes the need for an equal disadvantage. That is the cool down period where a vehicle is more vulnerable. It's Superman's kryptonite. As a hero he would be very boring without his vulnerability. The comics would be dull and people would tire of reading of his pounding the bad guy if he was never in any danger of losing.

Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2535	Posted - 2013.12.14 03:51:00 - [11] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: Double post, sorry: Skihids for CPM!!!!!!! Edit: Skihids wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: So you want infantry to have hardeners? Are you being deliberately obtuse? We are speaking about balancing infantry and vehicles, therefore we have to address the differences. I did warn you didn't I? Like argueing with a 5 year old. I should know, my kid's 7 and still hasn't grown out of it. Double edit (on a double post.... hmmm who'da think it....): If you keep this shizz up Skihids, you are gonna end up farming a LOT of likes off of me. Yes, yes you did. But I can't help it. I really want this game to succeed and to be fun for everyone (which is pretty much the same thing). I assume that everyone is rational until liven otherwise.