|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Goric Rumis
Dead Six Initiative
Lokun Listamenn
271
   |
Posted - 2014.01.03 17:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
First and most importantly, the number one balancing factor--period--is map design.
Return AV weapons to 1.6 stats.
Let's leave these alone and see how other changes impact their performance. In any case, I would never return AV grenades to their previous levels without nerfing their damage against armored vehicles. AV grenades should be specifically for dealing with unarmored vehicles (LAVs and future small vehicles). AV grenade spam against tanks was far too effective and made dedicated AV pointless.
Slow tanks down
I can't see a good argument against it, but like all these other changes, it should be moderate. Reduce top speed by a bit and reduce acceleration even more. You should be able to hit a reasonable speed pretty quickly, but it should take a long time to get to top speed.
EMP grenades
I don't like the idea of completely paralyzing anybody during combat. Keep the game fun.
Vulnerable point
As described in the OP, I'm going to have to say no. Armored vehicles should be vulnerable only to specialists. LAVs can be vulnerable to infantry via snipers and grenades.
Stacking hardners
Absolutely needs to be fixed, although I think a decrease in running time is the way to go. Put in a penalty of 35% (compounded) for each additional hardener, applied to all hardeners, i.e., if you have two hardeners they both run at 65% of their normal time, and three hardeners run at 42% of their normal time. This way you still have a reason to equip multiple hardeners, but you're trading the amount of time you're hardened for the ability to be hardened more often. (And yes, you get a slight bonus to the amount of time you're hardened, but a 30% bonus is a more reasonable trade-off for using up multiple slots than a 100% bonus.)
Limit tanks to 1 or 2 per side at a time
No to artificial limits. See my post on maps (above) for a more reasonable approach to limiting vehicles.
Raise the price of tanks
Solves nothing. ISK is not a battlefield balancing factor.
Increase the spread of all large turrets
I would say no. You need a level of reliability with single-shot weapons, but it needs to be balanced out in other ways (such as the forge gun having no zoom and reduced splash). Increasing spread on blasters may be an option. To reduce effectiveness against infantry, modifying the maps is a much more elegant solution.
Infantry only battle options
See my post on maps (above), which solves this problem without segregating matches.
Prolonged deployment time for tanks
Makes the game less fun. My post on maps (above) solves this issue without requiring people to be on the bench for extended times.
Symmetric decrease of fire power and defense of tanks
I disagree with the sentiment that tanks shouldn't be tough. I also disagree with the sentiment that one person should be worth more than one person when he's in a tank. The only way to properly balance how difficult tanks are to destroy is to limit their effectiveness, by reducing their ability to engage infantry, by--you guessed it--re-working the maps.
In conclusion
Re-work the maps, reduce tank speed and acceleration, apply a stacking penalty to the running time of hardeners, and if it's still out of balance we can start tweaking AV weapons up, provided AV grenades are still largely ineffective against tanks when used on their own.
The Tank Balancing Factor No One Is Discussing
|
Goric Rumis
Dead Six Initiative
Lokun Listamenn
272
|
Posted - 2014.01.03 19:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
Stinker, I'm going to disagree with you on several points, although I respect your reasoning. Also, I wish you would have posted in my thread so we could keep the map conversation in the same place. I will double-post this response there in the interest of being comprehensive.
Stinker Butt wrote:I've been playing this game since early in closed beta, and we average a new map about every 4-5 months. So waiting for new maps to be made and old to be redesigned is extremely unlikely.
I will concede that the effort would take a lot of time, but I won't concede that it isn't the necessary solution. The temporary solution will have to be something that leaves tanks weakened, but it should only be seen as a temporary solution while the maps are improved.
Stinker Butt wrote:And second, making maps where you don't really need to deal with the problem, doesn't really solve the problem.
But this isn't avoiding the problem. Suppose we take vehicles out of the equation. On a perfectly flat, open map, snipers appear to be overpowered. They are able to kill anything in sight. Suppose I'm a shotgun scout on that map--obviously I'm not getting any kills, because I consistently die 300m from the nearest enemy. Wouldn't adding more cover and more CQC areas to the map solve the problem of the ostensibly OP sniper, without having to nerf the sniper's weapon?
I'm proposing precisely the same kind of change for vehicles: that infantry are more able to control the terms of engagement. The problem is not necessarily that vehicles are too strong (although I still believe they are), but that the maps are designed in such a way that they can always engage in an advantageous manner, without any drawbacks. Re-designing the maps to give vehicles places where they can engage at an advantage (open spaces between structures) and places where vehicles and infantry can match one another (the areas surrounding structures) is just good design. Balancing out their extreme dominance of open spaces is the fact that they are entirely powerless to enter structures, at least on their own terms, and therefore absolutely need good infantry if they hope to win.
If you suppose for a moment a team of 12 tanks and 4 infantry, versus a team of 16 infantry, the team of infantry should be at an advantage because it's able to dictate the terms of engagement--but, all things being equal, the same team may be at a disadvantage against a team of 3 tanks and 13 infantry. That's balanced: People playing a variety of meaningful roles should do better than everyone doing the same thing.
Giving AV a position of strength at these structures is critical to making it work. Right now AV engage tanks from wherever they can happen to find a little cover, and in my experience (with forge guns) it's almost always too exposed, too accessible to enemies (or too inaccessible to me), and insufficiently elevated (unless I'm a mile away). If you want to dominate the domain of vehicles, you bring a vehicle--but if you don't, there needs to be a viable option to get the job done, and that's AV.
Stinker Butt wrote:1 minute isn't that long to wait to instantly become the most OP person on the map.
My problem with the wait time is this statement. There shouldn't be a minimum wait time to become the most OP person on the map. There shouldn't be a "most OP person on the map." Everything has a counter, and everything has limitations.
The Tank Balancing Factor No One Is Discussing
|
Goric Rumis
Dead Six Initiative
Lokun Listamenn
292
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 17:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
You should post this in some tanker threads so you also get them to vote. I suspect the number would go up to more like 15%. Which would still be far from the majority that some tankers seem to believe it is.
The Tank Balancing Factor No One Is Discussing
|
|
|
| |
|