DUST Search - Only Thing currently that merits my opinion.

Six 7 wrote:

Ghosts Chance wrote:

you meantioned pre 1.7 balance without mentioning that all infantry was invisable outside the 50m mark.

alowing AV infantry to just stand in open spaces spamming without any danger whatsoever, and without the tank knowing where to properly retreat to unless he had boots on the ground.

tankers used teamwork in the form of AV spotters so that they diddnt get insta blapped by invisable people 400m away.

you realise that the numbers of AV damage as a percent of total heath havnt really changed right?

now its about 80% of the damage you used to do pre 1.7 when hardeners are on

and about 150% the damage you used to do pre 1.7 when they are off.

thats not a huge difference when all defences are up.

the real difference is AV isnt invisable anymore.

I posted on your topic, defenses down mean nothing when your out of range in 3 secondsGÇª and your talking to the wrong av'er about standing in the open. WIth respect not all av are F***tardsGÇª but yes a lot are


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Vrain Matari ZionTCD Public Disorder. 1374	Posted - 2013.12.19 15:57:00 - [1] - Quote Izlare Lenix wrote: I think tanks and AV would be perfectly balanced right now if tanks cost about 4x as much. Quadruple the price and people won't be inclined to keep spamming tank after tank because one tank loss and u probably break even for the game or even go negative. This will reduce a lot of casual tankers spamming cheap ass militia tanks. If the constant flow of cheap tanks were reduced than a smart AV/tank squad could remove the tank threats or at least keep them at bay. Increase the price and a lot of the problems with tank spamming will solve themselves. We learned a hard lesson in EVE: ISK can never be used in balancing arguments. Because there are already peeps in DUST so wealthy they could run & lose Proto tanks(if they existed) all day everyday for a month and not break a sweat. And if that isn't bad enough, when we connect to EVE the wealth available to individuals and corps will be off the charts - you will have corps that are literally a million times richer than other corps. They will also have EVE-alliance sugar daddies to back them up with trillion ISK injections if they need it. When that happens we'll all see very quickly that using ISK to balance in New Eden is a terrible mistake that only serves to create more severe imbalance later. It's a deal with the devil that looks good in the short term. Likewise, skillpoints invested don't help us balance either, because once that tank or weapon is on the field, skillpoints have absolutely no bearing on the gameplay. So how do we balance? There is only one way: by adjusting the vehicle/suit/weapon/equipment stats/abilities and looking hard at game mechanics. That is the only way we'll come up with a balance that doesn't turn to kittenpoop later. I support SP rollover.
Vrain Matari ZionTCD Public Disorder. 1374	Posted - 2013.12.19 16:07:00 - [2] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: dude if I had remote reps on my gunlogi I don't think there would be any thing that could stop me apart from an evenly machete tank and pilot crew. I have asked for severall fixes to the mlt tank spam from removing 1 low from the sica and 1 high from the soma pard with a 3.5% pg/cpu nerf this its self would end the mlt tank spam as quickly as I do when I enter a game. +1. Not saying i agree or disagree or have no valid opinion, saying that this kind of solution, focusing on in-game properties, is the only way we're going to balance vehicles with AV, or anything else for that matter. I support SP rollover.
Vrain Matari ZionTCD Public Disorder. 1374	Posted - 2013.12.19 16:28:00 - [3] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Valmorgan Aubaris wrote: I think it is absurd they can get out and put a tank back in their pocket if things don't go their way. Usually they get out in full proto gear and gun me down anyway. Tanks should: 1. Stay spawned once spawned untill end of match, period. 2. Tank drivers should only be allowed to wear a certain dropsuit (if any at all).. Come on now a guy driving a tank in a heavy dropsuit that can bail out and attack on foot in an instant? Yeah, ok. How about if Tanks could only be recalled behind the Red Line? This would not work for LAVGÇÖs as their purpose is getting people to where they need to be, and behind the Red Line is not where people need to be, but for HAVGÇÖs it might make sense. Just an idea, based on this post. Feel free to poke holes in it. I've been thinking about recall and combat. If we're all honest with each other then we have to admit that a mechanic that was intended to prevent players from being locked into a vehicle all match out of economic concerns is now being used as a combat mechanic. That's not what was intended and it is distorting the battlefield experience and the balancing conversation we're engaged in. Recall for tanks behind the redline only makes balance and makes sense. +1. I support SP rollover.
Vrain Matari ZionTCD Public Disorder. 1374	Posted - 2013.12.19 17:01:00 - [4] - Quote Six 7 wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: you meantioned pre 1.7 balance without mentioning that all infantry was invisable outside the 50m mark. alowing AV infantry to just stand in open spaces spamming without any danger whatsoever, and without the tank knowing where to properly retreat to unless he had boots on the ground. tankers used teamwork in the form of AV spotters so that they diddnt get insta blapped by invisable people 400m away. you realise that the numbers of AV damage as a percent of total heath havnt really changed right? now its about 80% of the damage you used to do pre 1.7 when hardeners are on and about 150% the damage you used to do pre 1.7 when they are off. thats not a huge difference when all defences are up. the real difference is AV isnt invisable anymore. I posted on your topic, defenses down mean nothing when your out of range in 3 secondsGÇª and your talking to the wrong av'er about standing in the open. WIth respect not all av are F***tardsGÇª but yes a lot are +1. My underlining. For me, this is one of the most critical variables in balancing infantry AV with vehicles: mobility. The huge difference in mobility is what determines the structure of engagements for good tankers. And even for poor tankers, once they know how to steer and hit the gas they can get themselves out of some stupid situations they should have never gotten into in the first place. This huge difference in velocities is something that infantry have no counter for, other than giving up and getting in a vehicle themselves. The lack of mobility is the primary killer of AV infantry, because the speed of vehicles can change the tactical geography around infantry much quicker than can be adapted to at 7 m/s. Finding a reasonable way to modify the +öV between tanks and infantry would instantly change battlefield dynamics. My opinion is the AV already have enough damage potential, and that with more mobility infantry would be able to give good tankers a run for their money if the AV'er played smart. I'm thinking we need to give infantry some kind of mobility platform(don't really care what it looks like) that allows the use of their handheld weapons, increases their speed(with a multiplier and/or a boost on a cooldown timer), but confers no other benefit. Reasonable drawbacks tbd later, but sig radius seem like a reasonable candidate. tl:dr By adjusting the +öV for tanks and infantry AV, we can achieve an interesting & dynamic balance that leads to fun & engaging gamelay, but one that will require players to play smart. Fools will continue to die just the same. I support SP rollover.
Vrain Matari ZionTCD Public Disorder. 1379	Posted - 2013.12.20 03:34:00 - [5] - Quote Shion Typhon wrote: Wrote this before the change, still applies and is why current tanking model will NEVER work. Tanking issues That was a pleasure to read Shion. +1. Your powers of analysis and your game design kung-fu are very good. Thank you for the education. And i agree with you, your solution works on several levels. Most importantly, it sets a rational foundation for vehicle-AV infantry interaction. I don't want to like it, mind you, because it seems so one dimensional: tanks become hitpoint buckets and AV become smaller negative-hitpoint buckets. But what i like and don't like doesn't really matter, i have to acknowledge that your solution addresses all the major issues successfully, and because it is a hitpoint model it is very stable and not easily exploited or distorted. On an aesthetic level i want Team Kong's punctuated-godmode approach to succeed, it seems more dynamic and perhaps romantic. I had identified the velocity gap as the primary variable and was looking for a gameplay-based way to narrow that gap and hence balance AV infantry vs. tanks. I acknowledge that it would be a tricky process, intuition tells me it's non-linear and nowhere near as stable a solution as yours. Still, there are many examples in science and engineering of inherently non-linear systems that admit robust stable solutions. Best known example would be solitonic waves, i suppose. In Wolfman's position i would be tempted to keep on trying but i would say this: the system is non-linear and has multiple inputs and it is going to be an uphill battle to find a stable solution, and if such a solution is found it will forever lock together certain properties of tanks with certain properties of AV infantry. These locked properties will effectively constrain any design that touches on it forever. Shion Typhon's solution's greatest strength is most likely that it leaves game designers unconstrained by the tank-AV balance and free to create without having to forever tend to a very tricky and game-breaking balance problem. A tough call. I support SP rollover.