|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Samael Artico
Company of Marcher Lords
Amarr Empire
21
   |
Posted - 2013.12.14 05:11:00 -
[1] - Quote
Turrets. CCP seems to have this idea that Blasters should be AP and Railguns should be AV, with missiles being the middle ground between the two. This is misguided and hurts balance. Large Turrets should be primarily AV, Small Turrets should be primarily AP. Medium Turrets (once they arrive) should be midway.
How does one accomplish this? For one, make it harder for Large Turrets to hit infantry. My good friend Ulysses came up with an idea of improving turret tracking by linking it to inaccuracy at fast turn rates, as illustrated here. The basic idea is that when a turret tracks too quickly, it becomes less accurate. This wouldn't be too much of a problem if you're trying to hit, say, an enemy HAV, but would significantly reduce your ability to hit a small moving target, like infantry. Additionally, I personally believe this inaccuracy should also apply when the vehicle is in motion (for Large Turrets mostly, Small Turrets wouldn't be affected by this at all).
That's a good start, but it's not enough. So, I propose that turrets must charge prior to use (the larger they are, the more they must charge). Projectiles and Missiles have the lowest charge time, Hybrids have a moderate amount, and Lasers have the most. This is conversely related to Ulysses's tracking inaccuracy penalties, where Lasers are the least affected by tracking speed, and Projectiles the most.
That's the gist of it. If those changes are implemented, I think vehicle balance will dramatically improve. The amount of tanks running around all willy nilly will lower quite a bit, as they won't be able to solo infantry as well as they can now. There's more balancing necessary, of course, but I think this is as decent of a start as any. |
Samael Artico
Company of Marcher Lords
Amarr Empire
22
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 08:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
Otavio Martins wrote:Nope.
Great argument there, bub.
Alena Ventrallis wrote:An interesting idea, but blasters are meant to be AP, and rails are AV, with missiles in the middle.
I already acknowledged the current system in the OP, but I also stated that I disagree with it.
Text Grant wrote:And no OP. Make all these active modules last half as long with twice the cooldown. That way 1 AV person can make a tank ineffective just like 1 tank turns one infantry into an AV (ineffective). Then balance would be closer and vehicles don't have to die.
What? What's wrong with my idea? |
Samael Artico
Company of Marcher Lords
Amarr Empire
22
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 08:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
Text Grant wrote:Infantry still can't kill tanks. I don't want a bandaid. I want surgery. This is a broken game and it needs fixed.
I never said that I only wanted this change. I want other changes, too, but I think this is a decent idea. |
Samael Artico
Company of Marcher Lords
Amarr Empire
22
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 08:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
Two "nopes" in a row. When will you people start giving your reasoning instead of just your opinion? |
Samael Artico
Company of Marcher Lords
Amarr Empire
23
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 09:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
ALT2 acc wrote:Samael Artico wrote:Two "nopes" in a row. When will you people start giving your reasoning instead of just your opinion? because small turrets are for small vehicles and no one would bring in a tank if only they can hurt another tank, which would be stupid
I think someone's forgetting that all HAVs have two Small Turret slots.
Don't like teamwork? That's fine. You'll lose efficiency, but you can still pull it off.
Also, they would still be useful against installations and other vehicles. |
Samael Artico
Company of Marcher Lords
Amarr Empire
23
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 09:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
Text Grant wrote:Samael Artico wrote:Text Grant wrote:Infantry still can't kill tanks. I don't want a bandaid. I want surgery. This is a broken game and it needs fixed. I never said that I only wanted this change. I want other changes, too, but I think this is a decent idea. Add all your ideas to your OP maybe?
One suggestion per thread, right? Well, I suppose I could add more, but most of my other ideas have already been suggested ad nauseum, or are fairly obvious, or I have yet to articulate. |
Samael Artico
Company of Marcher Lords
Amarr Empire
23
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 09:36:00 -
[7] - Quote
ALT2 acc wrote:Samael Artico wrote:ALT2 acc wrote:Samael Artico wrote:Two "nopes" in a row. When will you people start giving your reasoning instead of just your opinion? because small turrets are for small vehicles and no one would bring in a tank if only they can hurt another tank, which would be stupid I think someone's forgetting that all HAVs have two Small Turret slots. Don't like teamwork? That's fine. You'll lose efficiency, but you can still pull it off. Also, they would still be useful against installations and other vehicles. using a tank, that can only(basicly)hurt other tanks which can only hurt other tanks is stupid my infrantry need piloting if i need guners to kill
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say.
This wouldn't make them useless against infantry, it would just make Large Turrets harder to use against infantry. Additionally, they would still work pretty well against Dropships, LAVs and Installations. Small Turrets would still be perfectly viable, too. I'm not suggesting this because I dislike HAVs. In fact, I love HAVs. If I disliked HAVs, I would just ask for a flat-out nerf. With this, HAVs are still effective against enemy materiel, but not overpowered against infantry (at least, not without assistance from some gunners in the crew... heheh). |
Samael Artico
Company of Marcher Lords
Amarr Empire
41
|
Posted - 2014.01.01 17:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
Text Grant wrote:Why hasn't CCP fixed this obvious problem yet?
No one really knows, Doctor Grant. No one really knows. |
|
|
| |
|