DUST Search - Adding Tread (or engine) HP, making vehicles more vulnerable without buffs or ne...

Nazz'Dragg wrote:

Komodo Jones wrote:

Piraten Hovnoret wrote:

or just remove tanks as they are now...

=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé

Ya want tanks to be killable by infantry, well generally infantry doesn't have many options in real life, in today's unconventional warfare you can have rocket launchers or IEDs or toss a grenade in the pilot's seat, we have ways to counter the heavy weapon (RPG) like ablative armor plates and a cage like barrier like a giant bumper wrapped around the thing, slanted hulls underneath vehicles mitigate damage to the passengers inside but bombs can still take off a wheel, and we don't really have a way to throw a grenade in the cockpit in this game.

Having a way to disable vehicles is about as IRL as you can get with the mechanics set in place right now without making it horribly unbalanced. If you lower HP on tanks they they're weak and anyone can kill them with AV, same effect if you buff AV.

If you want more realism then you need to do away with just simple overall hit points, because really where do hit points exist in real life? If I punch you in the same spot over and over that spot is going to be hurt, you don't have overall hit points that get lowered.

I think that with this plan you could add a real positive effect on this balancing issue they're trying to work out, it is more realistic, it doesn't force anyone to make sacrifices or make anyone's vehicle or suit or weapon obsolete, it would just simply level the playing field.

How about adding certain penalties if certain conditions are met. Such as, when a vehicle shields get totally depleted there shield booster enter/reenter cool down thus making them more venerable, equally when a there are armour drops by a third there weapons cease to function as they have been damaged and won't work again infill repaired sufficiently.
This in my mind would add a bit of realism to this balance argument. Further more it would really mean that a sole AV could drive off a tanker even though they may not be able to destroy it.
No sane tanker would hang around if they have no shields and/or can't shoot back.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 287	Posted - 2013.12.15 19:04:00 - [1] - Quote At this point in the game, the vehicles definitely have a place in dust and are a very fearsome and prevalent force. But I think there's a problem when a person who is heavily specced into AV anything can't kill a militia tank on their own. You can nerf and buff all you want until you find just the right numbers but here's the problem, there will be more vehicles coming out, not to mention the pilot suits and probably more AV weapons to follow, how time consuming will this be to try to balance and re-balance numbers just by trial and error? You'll be at it for the rest of the game's lifespan. So I propose a simple (in concept, idk about the programming) mechanic to make vehicles more vulnerable while leaving all of the numbers of current AV and vehicle HP the same, just have a separate HP for the treads or thrusters (or wheels I guess). In terms of tanks, once the treads are shot they will be nearly immobilized until something happens to return functionality, maybe a self repair system or someone with a rep tool, during this time you can hammer away until the thing goes boom. Regarding AV weapon changes, the numbers should stay the same but should target different parts of the tank: -AV grenades and proxi mines only do damage to the treads -Swarm launchers only do damage to the main hull -Plasma cannons do direct damage to whatever they hit and splash to everything else -Forge guns and remote explosives deal damage to whatever they hit. In this way, AV weapons are still relatively weak and teaming up still has advantages, but if you're smart or heavily specced into AV you could single handedly kill a tank, and there's multiple ways to do it. A forge gun could just aim down and hammer the thing until the hull gives in. You could have a scout with AV grenades to immobilize it, and then run up and plant REs on the tank and boom. Could set a trap of proxi mines and then get to cover with a swarm launcher or get high up with a plasma cannon and hammer away while it sits there vulnerable. Now this should function differently depending on the tank too, for example it wouldn't make sense for a shield tank to have separate, weaker shield for the treads. -For shield tanks, any damage with a light or heavy weapon will damage the shields until they're depleted, then damage can be done to the treads. The exception being proxi mines, and AV grenades, as these are basically contacting the treads themselves and wouldn't give enough room for kinetic barriers to mitigate damage; So those 2 weapons would be able to ignore shields and go right in to kill the treads, giving the shield tank a death sentence. -Armor tanks, because they don't have alot of shields, are very vulnerable to tread damage, however because they have built in armor self repair, they can be immobilized only for a short period of time until they recover; So armor tanks could be slowed down more easily but not for very long, still long enough to get a few shots in. This same concept could be applied to other vehicles of course, if a dropship takes a forge round to the thrusters or gets close enough for AV grenades to hit, should just fall right out of the sky. Proxi mines would stop an LAV dead in their tracks, not killing the vehicle but leaving it vulnerable to kill the driver and passengers. Alot of text I know but I feel like this could work. Thoughts? This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 290	Posted - 2013.12.15 19:58:00 - [2] - Quote Destroying a dropships thrusters should disable them unless you have a repairer strong enough to return them to functioning condition and are a good enough pilot to regain control before it crashes, this might be a problem with armor dropships as the thrusters may be destroyed very easily so you may constantly be flailing about in the sky and would have to have something like a heavy repairer on it, so maybe give the armor dropship thrusters more defense to prevent them from being knocked out of the sky with like 1 hit from a forge. Shield dropships would see basically no change though, if their shields are bypassed by brute force they're probably going down in the next shot anyway, but if they got close enough for AV grenades then any dropship would be in trouble. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 290	Posted - 2013.12.15 20:18:00 - [3] - Quote Meh I think a change in mechanics of how shields would would be good, I don't see why it's not more of a bubble than a skin anyway, I'm thinking these are like mass effect shields that are just a bubble that activates when something traveling fast enough to do damage gets within range, and then the shield just reacts. However an AV grenade would be slow enough to not be perceived as a threat and attach itself to the hull inside of that bubble and bypass any shield interference. That's the logic behind it, but honestly it's just the fact that the plan doesn't work if things like AVs and proxi mines can't bypass shields, it still limits infantry in what they can do and I think this game should reward more people for getting that close and taking such a risk. By this logic melee and nova knives should bypass shields too which again, I think that's completely reasonable, adds a mechanic to the game that makes it a little more complex, and if you get that close you should be rewarded somehow. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 290	Posted - 2013.12.15 20:35:00 - [4] - Quote lol nooo I like tanks where they are now, they just need a weak spot so infantry have a chance :) This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 290	Posted - 2013.12.15 21:11:00 - [5] - Quote Piraten Hovnoret wrote: or just remove tanks as they are now... =ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé Ya want tanks to be killable by infantry, well generally infantry doesn't have many options in real life, in today's unconventional warfare you can have rocket launchers or IEDs or toss a grenade in the pilot's seat, we have ways to counter the heavy weapon (RPG) like ablative armor plates and a cage like barrier like a giant bumper wrapped around the thing, slanted hulls underneath vehicles mitigate damage to the passengers inside but bombs can still take off a wheel, and we don't really have a way to throw a grenade in the cockpit in this game. Having a way to disable vehicles is about as IRL as you can get with the mechanics set in place right now without making it horribly unbalanced. If you lower HP on tanks they they're weak and anyone can kill them with AV, same effect if you buff AV. If you want more realism then you need to do away with just simple overall hit points, because really where do hit points exist in real life? If I punch you in the same spot over and over that spot is going to be hurt, you don't have overall hit points that get lowered. I think that with this plan you could add a real positive effect on this balancing issue they're trying to work out, it is more realistic, it doesn't force anyone to make sacrifices or make anyone's vehicle or suit or weapon obsolete, it would just simply level the playing field. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 290	Posted - 2013.12.15 21:26:00 - [6] - Quote Xaviah Reaper wrote: Komodo Jones wrote: if a dropship takes a forge round to the thrusters or gets close enough for AV grenades to hit, should just fall right out of the sky ... Im going to take a massive guess and assume you like using forge guns and want to completely anti-buff the dropship. However, the rest of your ideas are pretty cool in terms of tank killing. I think once a dropship has a thruster blown out, it goes into a spiral with no turning control, and fire blazing out the broken thruster until it either crashes or self repair systems (default to every vehicle) kick in. For tanks, i think it should be immobilized for 10 seconds. Dropships, 8 seconds, LAVs, 4 seconds. I do like using forge guns but I only have a militia fit lol, while seeing a dropship burn and spiral out of control would be glorious it would be hard to do with a militia forge gun and SHOULD be hard to do with anything but a prototype breach with buttloads of damage mods. With anything else it should take at least 2 hits, 1 to break through the shields and scratch the surface of the thrusters, 1 more to knock it down, you need to hit the thing twice in the same spot which would be difficult. This is mostly for tanks but I feel that it could be adapted somehow to dropships as well, maybe not have a separate HP bar for thrusters like the treads with tanks but just say if you get hit too hard in the thrusters you start to lose control no matter how much armor your ship has left. So any damage would still apply to the ship as a whole but target the thrusters and you will take it down quicker. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 294	Posted - 2013.12.16 22:57:00 - [7] - Quote Korvin Lomont wrote: Well simply give them a disadvantage when they are in module cooldown like: -25% Turret Rof, -25% Turret Speed, -25% Speed and -50% Module efficacy and duration on activated modules during cooldown. That way tanks would be vulnerable while in cooldown but remain powerfull with activated modules. it's just forcing them to pull out and which module has to be on cooldown for all of this to happen? hardeners? Why should a vehicle be nerfed to **** without a hardener? doesn't really make sense to have anything affected by that except ehp This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 294	Posted - 2013.12.16 23:02:00 - [8] - Quote Korvin Lomont wrote: Timothy Reaper wrote: Korvin Lomont wrote: Well simply give them a disadvantage when they are in module cooldown like: -25% Turret Rof, -25% Turret Speed, -25% Speed and -50% Module efficacy and duration on activated modules during cooldown. That way tanks would be vulnerable while in cooldown but remain powerfull with activated modules. The main problem isn't the strength provided by modules, it's the fact that all tanks have to do is hit the nitrous and get out of range of most hand-held AV weapons in two seconds, jumping whatever hills happen to be in the way Dukes of Hazzard style. What Komodo suggest would open up more strategic gameplay for both vehicles and AV without having to nerf or buff either one. Even though the programming for these features may be a little tricky, I would to see it implemented. Oh I don't want the modules nerfed at all, they should be powerfull but once cooldown starts there needs to be a weakness. Currently there is no weakness other than not having the module on. And CCP wanted the cooldown to be weak spot for AV to kick but you could just activate another hardener or your nitros to get out before AV can react. My suggestion may not be perfect but I guess it could work as well and may be easier to implement ^^. Having Hardpoints to destroy is great don't get me wrong but it would take quite some effort to make them work and it would require some modules reworked as well in a way that the effect of damaging or destroying a hardpoint s noticeable. The only reason tanks are still powerful and hard to kill without hardeners is because CCP needs to work on numbers for the modules, for example I think we can all agree that 300/sec passive armor repair for an armor tank is a bit ridiculous lol This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 295	Posted - 2013.12.16 23:48:00 - [9] - Quote Nazz'Dragg wrote: Komodo Jones wrote: Piraten Hovnoret wrote: or just remove tanks as they are now... =ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé Ya want tanks to be killable by infantry, well generally infantry doesn't have many options in real life, in today's unconventional warfare you can have rocket launchers or IEDs or toss a grenade in the pilot's seat, we have ways to counter the heavy weapon (RPG) like ablative armor plates and a cage like barrier like a giant bumper wrapped around the thing, slanted hulls underneath vehicles mitigate damage to the passengers inside but bombs can still take off a wheel, and we don't really have a way to throw a grenade in the cockpit in this game. Having a way to disable vehicles is about as IRL as you can get with the mechanics set in place right now without making it horribly unbalanced. If you lower HP on tanks they they're weak and anyone can kill them with AV, same effect if you buff AV. If you want more realism then you need to do away with just simple overall hit points, because really where do hit points exist in real life? If I punch you in the same spot over and over that spot is going to be hurt, you don't have overall hit points that get lowered. I think that with this plan you could add a real positive effect on this balancing issue they're trying to work out, it is more realistic, it doesn't force anyone to make sacrifices or make anyone's vehicle or suit or weapon obsolete, it would just simply level the playing field. How about adding certain penalties if certain conditions are met. Such as, when a vehicle shields get totally depleted there shield booster enter/reenter cool down thus making them more venerable, equally when a there are armour drops by a third there weapons cease to function as they have been damaged and won't work again infill repaired sufficiently. This in my mind would add a bit of realism to this balance argument. Further more it would really mean that a sole AV could drive off a tanker even though they may not be able to destroy it. No sane tanker would hang around if they have no shields and/or can't shoot back. That's completely fair, no problem with that, systems just start falling apart if enough damage is taken, as long as it affects mobility at some point because that's the main problem right now is that they can bail at any sign of danger, but disabling them in any way would be a huge advantage. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 297	Posted - 2013.12.17 15:10:00 - [10] - Quote Chief-Shotty wrote: Sounds interesting but at the same time I think some AV weapons buff. I be pissed if i kept throwing AV nades at a tank but it only affects the treads especially if already disabled. Unless it actually hurts the HP on whatever the av lands on such as the turret or hull. Still waiting for a recoiless rifle to mount on my dune buggy oh i mean minmatar LAV Av grenade damage could be increased but still only damage to treads, the reason being that you would just have the same problem as before where people just toss down a hive and spam grenades to kill tanks, AV grenades doing damage to the hull would just be too easy because at that point what is the point to use remote explosives or ANY other AV? Especially when you don't need to sacrifice much to equip it and you can just be a 1 man army. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.

Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 297	Posted - 2013.12.17 15:16:00 - [11] - Quote Thurak1 wrote: Komodo Jones wrote: Piraten Hovnoret wrote: or just remove tanks as they are now... =ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé Ya want tanks to be killable by infantry, well generally infantry doesn't have many options in real life, in today's unconventional warfare you can have rocket launchers or IEDs or toss a grenade in the pilot's seat, we have ways to counter the heavy weapon (RPG) like ablative armor plates and a cage like barrier like a giant bumper wrapped around the thing, slanted hulls underneath vehicles mitigate damage to the passengers inside but bombs can still take off a wheel, and we don't really have a way to throw a grenade in the cockpit in this game. Having a way to disable vehicles is about as IRL as you can get with the mechanics set in place right now without making it horribly unbalanced. If you lower HP on tanks they they're weak and anyone can kill them with AV, same effect if you buff AV. If you want more realism then you need to do away with just simple overall hit points, because really where do hit points exist in real life? If I punch you in the same spot over and over that spot is going to be hurt, you don't have overall hit points that get lowered. I think that with this plan you could add a real positive effect on this balancing issue they're trying to work out, it is more realistic, it doesn't force anyone to make sacrifices or make anyone's vehicle or suit or weapon obsolete, it would just simply level the playing field. There are other AV options out there for infantry. I forgot what they are called but there is a sight guided missile that infantry can carry you launch it then keep the target in the reticle and the missile will follow that right along and the soldier doesnt have to be very close to use it. Pretty much as long as its within sight the missile can hit. I would love to see this in dust especially to use vs snipers :) I don't really know why swarm launchers aren't dumbfire lol, and I imagine the plasma cannon is supposed to be like an RPG but it moves way too slow, can't wait to see the minmatar RPG though. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 298	Posted - 2013.12.17 18:02:00 - [12] - Quote Borrowing from other systems to activate modules? Could be a cool mechanic, plus it would separate tankers who have a high amount of SP to a low amount, access to better modules with less penalties. Though I guess the whole point of the PG and CPU allocation is that there's enough reserved to run the modules without any sacrifices, but it would be interesting to say once you exceed 60% or 70% PG then modules start borrowing from other systems. That sound's more like the whole idea of tech fittings where you basically just build the thing from the ground up, how much PG CPU health speed and module slots the thing has, which would be great but that's very far off. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 298	Posted - 2013.12.17 18:50:00 - [13] - Quote I guess the idea behind this isn't so much "how can we force vehicles vs infantry to be more balanced" as "how can we create an environment where players can balance it themselves". We all know what it's like to have our "OP" dropsuits balanced for us by updates, first ones to get hit were heavies from the uprising patch, then caldari logies. I'd rather not keep up this pattern because it just annoys people, and instead just introduce something new that people can safely and reasonably exploit and adjust to. As long as the numbers for the tread HP are set well there shouldn't be any backlash, save from people who want to dominate the field and never die but I always say too ******* bad to those people. My logic for this is that when I run my prototype suit, my expensive, ridiculously powerful suit, I rarely die. However when I do get killed, with all of the upgrades and buffs I can manage, who is there to blame but myself? It's rarely the case that someone's gun is just inherently better, if I die it's either because I missed, or I didn't notice they were there, or I ran out into an open field like a moron, never that they just had better stuff than me in that maxed out suit. This is the mentality I feel should be put on tankers, because tanks are massive, heavily defensed, overpowered fits. They can kill any suit in 1 hit, or clear a street with a blaster or missile launcher, and right now the only way they can blame themselves for getting killed is if they make a wrong turn and get stuck. You give them this "weak spot" and suddenly they can be killed by making mistakes; they could be killed by charging into a city, or by staying in 1 place for too long, or basically getting tunnel vision and not paying attention to potential threats. It puts the onus on the pilot and not on the other team for not calling in a decent rail tank. If it's set up to be still possible to survive your treads being knocked out, just like it's possible to survive being pinned down with low health, then all it does is provide a reason for tankers to be more reserved, it's a reminder that they could be destroyed if they get themselves in a bad situation, that they're not invincible, it's a self nerf. It still leaves them the option of just being a shock tanker, like a cheap shotgun scout blasting through without a care in the world, but it does make them vulnerable while still giving them a chance. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 298	Posted - 2013.12.17 18:53:00 - [14] - Quote Lynn Beck wrote: I think in terms of hitting a dropship's engines, it should drop power by 50% when destroyed. So if you knock out both engines, the pilot is moving 50% slower, and he has to keep thrusting to not fall. If you blow out just the left, it'll spin left (slowly) and will strafe left slower. Right strafe would be same speed, just you can't slow down. Actually that makes more sense because it does still have the stabilizers in the front...Yeah ok if one of the engines is knocked out it should still stay in the air but just be more difficult to handle, but by the time the other engine is knocked out the dropship should be dead anyway because of how much damage it's taken. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 299	Posted - 2013.12.21 11:30:00 - [15] - Quote bump! This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.