| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jason Pearson
3839
   |
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
Buff Standard AV, also remove Advanced and Proto turrets.
Balance.
King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician
You're a total git, Jason. - Kingbabar
|
Tectonic Fusion
961
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:09:00 -
[2] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:Buff Standard AV, also remove Advanced and Proto turrets.
Balance.
Keep swarm damage the same, and add ADV/PROTO tanks.
Balance.
Solo Player
Squad status: Locked
|
Michael Epic
The Neutral Zone
204
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:09:00 -
[3] - Quote
Is that a recipe for never ever being able to stomp militia tankamania? |
Delta 749
Kestrel Reconnaissance
2428
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:10:00 -
[4] - Quote
Remove blaster turrets, balance
Im not drunk, the planet just happens to be especially wobbly today.
|
Jason Pearson
3840
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:11:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tectonic Fusion wrote:Jason Pearson wrote:Buff Standard AV, also remove Advanced and Proto turrets.
Balance. Keep swarm damage the same, and add ADV/PROTO tanks. Balance.
Proto AV needed to kill standard tanks
Sir, how does one kill a proto tank?
King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician
You're a total git, Jason. - Kingbabar
|
Rusty Shallows
753
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:34:00 -
[6] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:Tectonic Fusion wrote:Jason Pearson wrote:Buff Standard AV, also remove Advanced and Proto turrets.
Balance. Keep swarm damage the same, and add ADV/PROTO tanks. Balance. Proto AV needed to kill standard tanks Sir, how does one kill a proto tank?
If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank.
Although it's hard to completely dismiss it. With 1.7 it shows the Devs are still capable of abandoning all logic and reason.
MCC Lounge Lizard
Forums > Game
Fix the game CCP
|
Korvin Lomont
United Pwnage Service
RISE of LEGION
448
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:38:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tectonic Fusion wrote:Jason Pearson wrote:Buff Standard AV, also remove Advanced and Proto turrets.
Balance. Keep swarm damage the same, and add ADV/PROTO tanks. Balance.
Hardly as swarms are rather useless now and totally outclassed by RE's.
To OP definitely yes all this vehicle vs AV mess is IMHO mostly related to this nonsense of having AV Proto weaponry while only having std Vehicles (ok in chromosome we had additionally adv Vehicles) |
DUST Fiend
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
9862
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:45:00 -
[8] - Quote
Put two heavies on either side of a seesaw
Balance
Assault Dropship Montage
Incubus Pilot, AV Specialist, Fat Scout DUST addict
|
Soraya Xel
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
1040
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:46:00 -
[9] - Quote
Rusty Shallows wrote:If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank.
What they need to do, is force HAVs to operate as three-person vehicles (or particularly, be particularly more effective as a three-person vehicle), and then introduce MAVs as a more balanced solo slaying vehicle.
I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
|
Jason Pearson
3842
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:46:00 -
[10] - Quote
Rusty Shallows wrote:Jason Pearson wrote:Tectonic Fusion wrote:Jason Pearson wrote:Buff Standard AV, also remove Advanced and Proto turrets.
Balance. Keep swarm damage the same, and add ADV/PROTO tanks. Balance. Proto AV needed to kill standard tanks Sir, how does one kill a proto tank? If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank. Although it's hard to completely dismiss it. With 1.7 it shows the Devs are still capable of abandoning all logic and reason.
You say that, but 1.7 brought good ideas and changes, it is just a pain to balance because standard is ****, however I can walk all over non hardened vehicles with Proto Swarms or a Proto Forge.
King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician
You're a total git, Jason. - Kingbabar
|
|
|
Jason Pearson
3842
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:48:00 -
[11] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:Rusty Shallows wrote:If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank. What they need to do, is force HAVs to operate as three-person vehicles (or particularly, be particularly more effective as a three-person vehicle), and then introduce MAVs as a more balanced solo slaying vehicle.
I better get my SP back if a Dev, in one of their fits of bad decisions, decides this is the way to go.
King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician
You're a total git, Jason. - Kingbabar
|
Severance Pay
Krullefor Organization
Minmatar Republic
999
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:49:00 -
[12] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:Rusty Shallows wrote:If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank. What they need to do, is force HAVs to operate as three-person vehicles (or particularly, be particularly more effective as a three-person vehicle), and then introduce MAVs as a more balanced solo slaying vehicle.
^ this. Who ever heard of a Tank that can be operated by a single person? If it is gonna take 3 people to kill a tank, it better damn will require 3 people to operate.
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
|
Eltra Ardell
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
282
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:51:00 -
[13] - Quote
ITT: Bad Ideas |
Jason Pearson
3845
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:52:00 -
[14] - Quote
Eltra Ardell wrote:ITT: Bad Ideas
Enlighten us with your glorious wisdom.
King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician
You're a total git, Jason. - Kingbabar
|
Cody Sietz
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
1940
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:52:00 -
[15] - Quote
Buff swarms to original dmg, lose one missile per tier(3,4,5) and add one extra round to the mag(4 up from 3 but still not as good as the old 5)
"I do agree with you there though. shudders"
-Arkena Wyrnspire
|
Eltra Ardell
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
282
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:53:00 -
[16] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:Eltra Ardell wrote:ITT: Bad Ideas Enlighten us with your glorious wisdom.
I just did. |
Rusty Shallows
754
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:55:00 -
[17] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:Rusty Shallows wrote:Jason Pearson wrote:Tectonic Fusion wrote:Jason Pearson wrote:Buff Standard AV, also remove Advanced and Proto turrets.
Balance. Keep swarm damage the same, and add ADV/PROTO tanks. Balance. Proto AV needed to kill standard tanks Sir, how does one kill a proto tank? If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank. Although it's hard to completely dismiss it. With 1.7 it shows the Devs are still capable of abandoning all logic and reason. You say that, but 1.7 brought good ideas and changes, it is just a pain to balance because standard is ****, however I can walk all over non hardened vehicles with Proto Swarms or a Proto Forge.
1.7 isn't any better than Uprising 1.0 with regards to vehicles. The Devs just broke the game in the opposite direction. They should have only done the buffs and new weapons.
MCC Lounge Lizard
Forums > Game
Fix the game CCP
|
Jason Pearson
3845
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:58:00 -
[18] - Quote
Rusty Shallows wrote:
1.7 isn't any better than Uprising 1.0 with regards to vehicles. The Devs just broke the game in the opposite direction. They should have only done the buffs and new weapons.
I'm going to disagree, I find 1.7 much more enjoyable than previous builds, but now we've found out what works and what does not already, it's not as interesting. The waves of opportunity deal that the devs were going for could be the right thing for vehicles, but it does need tweaking.
King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician
You're a total git, Jason. - Kingbabar
|
Rusty Shallows
754
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:59:00 -
[19] - Quote
Severance Pay wrote:Soraya Xel wrote:Rusty Shallows wrote:If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank. What they need to do, is force HAVs to operate as three-person vehicles (or particularly, be particularly more effective as a three-person vehicle), and then introduce MAVs as a more balanced solo slaying vehicle. ^ this. Who ever heard of a Tank that can be operated by a single person? If it is gonna take 3 people to kill a tank, it better damn will require 3 people to operate.
Harsh. Although having a Driver a Large Turret Gunner would be fair for having that much of a game advantage. A more civilized option than nerfing.
MCC Lounge Lizard
Forums > Game
Fix the game CCP
|
Jason Pearson
3846
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:01:00 -
[20] - Quote
Battlefield lets you run solo in a tank..
And I seem to kill a lot more things in it than in DUST.
King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician
You're a total git, Jason. - Kingbabar
|
|
|
Benjamin Ciscko
The Generals
General Tso's Alliance
1174
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:02:00 -
[21] - Quote
+1 much easier to balance equal tiers against each other you don't want Proto AV stomping STD tanks the only available tanks into dust yet you don't want it entirely useless when PRO tanks come out put everything into the game and it is easier to balance.
Caldari Tanker/Minmatar Assault
Forum warrior lvl 1
|
Benjamin Ciscko
The Generals
General Tso's Alliance
1174
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:05:00 -
[22] - Quote
Rusty Shallows wrote:Severance Pay wrote:Soraya Xel wrote:Rusty Shallows wrote:If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank. What they need to do, is force HAVs to operate as three-person vehicles (or particularly, be particularly more effective as a three-person vehicle), and then introduce MAVs as a more balanced solo slaying vehicle. ^ this. Who ever heard of a Tank that can be operated by a single person? If it is gonna take 3 people to kill a tank, it better damn will require 3 people to operate. Harsh. Although having a Driver a Large Turret Gunner would be fair for having that much of a game advantage. A more civilized option than nerfing.
A. doesn't go along with lore
B. I have 5+ million sp into turrets a great deal of it into large turrets your telling me I now can't use what I invested like 3-4 months of grinding into.
I agree with team work be in important but via the form of LLAV's repping or gunners etc. not by ruining my gameplay experience.
Caldari Tanker/Minmatar Assault
Forum warrior lvl 1
|
Rusty Shallows
754
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:05:00 -
[23] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:Rusty Shallows wrote:
1.7 isn't any better than Uprising 1.0 with regards to vehicles. The Devs just broke the game in the opposite direction. They should have only done the buffs and new weapons.
I'm going to disagree, I find 1.7 much more enjoyable than previous builds, but now we've found out what works and what does not already, it's not as interesting. The waves of opportunity deal that the devs were going for could be the right thing for vehicles, but it does need tweaking.
The new game motto is: "If you're not in a HAV then this isn't the game for you." The Tank514 tags in signatures is an example of this mess.
Totally agree the concepts for 1.7 were great. They were just deployed in the worst way possible and need major fixes.
MCC Lounge Lizard
Forums > Game
Fix the game CCP
|
Jason Pearson
3847
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:09:00 -
[24] - Quote
Rusty Shallows wrote:Jason Pearson wrote:Rusty Shallows wrote:
1.7 isn't any better than Uprising 1.0 with regards to vehicles. The Devs just broke the game in the opposite direction. They should have only done the buffs and new weapons.
I'm going to disagree, I find 1.7 much more enjoyable than previous builds, but now we've found out what works and what does not already, it's not as interesting. The waves of opportunity deal that the devs were going for could be the right thing for vehicles, but it does need tweaking. The new game motto is: "If you're not in a HAV then this isn't the game for you." The Tank514 tags in signatures is an example of this mess. Totally agree the concepts for 1.7 were great. They were just deployed in the worst way possible and need major fixes.
We had AR514 in our sigs for a long time, it's still AR514 ;)
More often than not, I'm on foot now either with my RR or my forge stomping things, tanks win when spammed in ambush and when using teamwork to kill, solo they're not great. Problem is when you're up against 5 tanks and you're the only AVer, you're going to lose.
Watching Morte go up against several tanks in a 3man crew with swarms and two breach forge guns is terrifying, every tank on the field is a burning wreck.
King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician
You're a total git, Jason. - Kingbabar
|
Soraya Xel
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
1041
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:12:00 -
[25] - Quote
Rusty Shallows wrote:Severance Pay wrote:Soraya Xel wrote:Rusty Shallows wrote:If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank. What they need to do, is force HAVs to operate as three-person vehicles (or particularly, be particularly more effective as a three-person vehicle), and then introduce MAVs as a more balanced solo slaying vehicle. ^ this. Who ever heard of a Tank that can be operated by a single person? If it is gonna take 3 people to kill a tank, it better damn will require 3 people to operate. Harsh. Although having a Driver a Large Turret Gunner would be fair for having that much of a game advantage. A more civilized option than nerfing.
This is how I'd spec it out:
- Right now, HAVs are too powerful for solo players.
- Last build, HAVs were about right for solo players.
So, first, HAVs:
Heavy Attack Vehicles
Design goal: Team-based tool for breaking enemy lines and clearing defenses. Effectiveness scales with number of people in it.
- Same durability as current HAVs.
- Drivers seat is the front gun, with the forward firing arc.
- Gunners seat is the main turret.
- Engineers seat is the top small turret with the full firing arc.
- HAVs with one driver can still fire forward turret while driving, however the inability to fire behind them in that seat allows AV to flank, so it is easier to destroy. Note that the HAV driver can still switch to the gunner's seat, or switch to the engineer's seat to activate modules. Modules will run even if after you switch back to the other seats. When balanced correctly, a single dedicated AV should be able to kill it.
- HAVs with two people can have someone driving while another person switches between the main gun and modules seats. This means much more ability to fire while moving, aim behind, and in general, be a lot more effective at doing things. Which should make it harder to kill. When balanced correctly, it'll probably take two dedicated AV to kill it.
- HAVs with three people can use all features simultaneously. This three-man fire team, especially if working over voice comms, provides a near unstoppable force on the battle field. When balanced correctly, it'll take three or more dedicated AV to kill it.
However, the solo vehicle users do need a job. LAVs are transports, they really aren't able to fill the role, so it's time to pull out something we haven't heard of since the last fanfest: MAVs.
Medium Attack Vehicles
Design goal: Single player vehicle brawlers designed to provide heavy firepower for a price.
- Same durability as previous generation of HAVs.
- One person small tank.
- MAVs should take between 1 and 2 dedicated AV to kill, depending on skills and hull grade.
I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
|
Soraya Xel
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
1041
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:14:00 -
[26] - Quote
Depending on balance, I'd actually go for buffing the HAV a bit more, if it was designed to operate like the manner of my above post.
I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
|
Jason Pearson
3847
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:15:00 -
[27] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:Rusty Shallows wrote:Severance Pay wrote:Soraya Xel wrote:Rusty Shallows wrote:If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank. What they need to do, is force HAVs to operate as three-person vehicles (or particularly, be particularly more effective as a three-person vehicle), and then introduce MAVs as a more balanced solo slaying vehicle. ^ this. Who ever heard of a Tank that can be operated by a single person? If it is gonna take 3 people to kill a tank, it better damn will require 3 people to operate. Harsh. Although having a Driver a Large Turret Gunner would be fair for having that much of a game advantage. A more civilized option than nerfing. This is how I'd spec it out: - Right now, HAVs are too powerful for solo players. - Last build, HAVs were about right for solo players. So, first, HAVs: Heavy Attack Vehicles
Design goal: Team-based tool for breaking enemy lines and clearing defenses. Effectiveness scales with number of people in it.- Same durability as current HAVs. - Drivers seat is the front gun, with the forward firing arc. - Gunners seat is the main turret. - Engineers seat is the top small turret with the full firing arc. - HAVs with one driver can still fire forward turret while driving, however the inability to fire behind them in that seat allows AV to flank, so it is easier to destroy. Note that the HAV driver can still switch to the gunner's seat, or switch to the engineer's seat to activate modules. Modules will run even if after you switch back to the other seats. When balanced correctly, a single dedicated AV should be able to kill it. - HAVs with two people can have someone driving while another person switches between the main gun and modules seats. This means much more ability to fire while moving, aim behind, and in general, be a lot more effective at doing things. Which should make it harder to kill. When balanced correctly, it'll probably take two dedicated AV to kill it. - HAVs with three people can use all features simultaneously. This three-man fire team, especially if working over voice comms, provides a near unstoppable force on the battle field. When balanced correctly, it'll take three or more dedicated AV to kill it. However, the solo vehicle users do need a job. LAVs are transports, they really aren't able to fill the role, so it's time to pull out something we haven't heard of since the last fanfest: MAVs. Medium Attack Vehicles
Design goal: Single player vehicle brawlers designed to provide heavy firepower for a price.- Same durability as previous generation of HAVs. - One person small tank. - MAVs should take between 1 and 2 dedicated AV to kill, depending on skills and hull grade.
You lost me at "- Last build, HAVs were about right for solo players." and then I managed to see "- MAVs should take between 1 and 2 dedicated AV to kill" and then I was glad I skipped the post.
IT TOOK 3 ******* LAI DAI PACKED AV GRENADES TO KILL A 1.7MIL TANK, IF MAVS HAVE THE SAME SURVIVABILITY AS THAT, YOU'RE HAVING A ******* LAUGH WITH THE WHOLE "DEDICATED" AV THING.
King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician
You're a total git, Jason. - Kingbabar
|
Rusty Shallows
754
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:21:00 -
[28] - Quote
Benjamin Ciscko wrote:
snip
B. I have 5+ million sp into turrets a great deal of it into large turrets your telling me I now can't use what I invested like 3-4 months of grinding into.
I agree with team work be in important but via the form of LLAV's repping or gunners etc. not by ruining my gameplay experience.
And you have just zeroed in on the ONLY reason splitting up crew tasking is bad. Squading up can be hard like when posting in good chats "LSF," and no one has space. Then soon as you're squaded everyone is posting "RFx." Like some bad cosmic joke.
If HAVs are going to be a single player then other players need equal options against them in their chosen gaming experience. That is not the case right as the entire game is definitively one-sided right now.
MCC Lounge Lizard
Forums > Game
Fix the game CCP
|
Rusty Shallows
756
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:47:00 -
[29] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:Rusty Shallows wrote:Jason Pearson wrote:Rusty Shallows wrote:
1.7 isn't any better than Uprising 1.0 with regards to vehicles. The Devs just broke the game in the opposite direction. They should have only done the buffs and new weapons.
I'm going to disagree, I find 1.7 much more enjoyable than previous builds, but now we've found out what works and what does not already, it's not as interesting. The waves of opportunity deal that the devs were going for could be the right thing for vehicles, but it does need tweaking. The new game motto is: "If you're not in a HAV then this isn't the game for you." The Tank514 tags in signatures is an example of this mess. Totally agree the concepts for 1.7 were great. They were just deployed in the worst way possible and need major fixes. We had AR514 in our sigs for a long time, it's still AR514 ;) snip
You are killing me with nostalgia Jason. 
I think 1.7 is better than Chromosome which had the competing game tags AR514 and HAV514. When an infantry A-Game was squadded people using the assault suites (needle, wildcard EQ) and an Assault Rifle. Although HAV TCs back then had a steep SP threshold to get the Win-Button. Those new to the profession, lacking skillZ, or just unlucky to organizes AV we're killable. While I believe HAVs are broken now it's only a conditional thing like how FGs being able to camp hack-points is broken, not universal just situational.
If the HMG hot-fix didn't happen then I would have been calling this Rifles514 & HAV514 simply because the Heavy Frames would have been nerfed completely useless. Some of the Sidearm guys however are still screwed.
MCC Lounge Lizard
Forums > Game
Fix the game CCP
|
Zimander
Tickle My Null-Sac
25
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:53:00 -
[30] - Quote
Tectonic Fusion wrote:Jason Pearson wrote:Buff Standard AV, also remove Advanced and Proto turrets.
Balance. Keep swarm damage the same, and add ADV/PROTO tanks. Balance.
Remove AV TANKS SWARM
Balance
|
|
|
BL4CKST4R
WarRavens
League of Infamy
1533
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:55:00 -
[31] - Quote
Tectonic Fusion wrote:Jason Pearson wrote:Buff Standard AV, also remove Advanced and Proto turrets.
Balance. Keep swarm damage the same, and add ADV/PROTO tanks. Balance.
Your insane |
Maken Tosch
DUST University
Ivy League
6380
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:57:00 -
[32] - Quote
Remove intelligence.
Balance.
OK, CCP. When are knives finally going to be improved?
CLOSED BETA VETERAN SINCE REPLICATION BUILD
|
Soraya Xel
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
1043
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:58:00 -
[33] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:You lost me at "- Last build, HAVs were about right for solo players." and then I managed to see "- MAVs should take between 1 and 2 dedicated AV to kill" and then I was glad I skipped the post.
IT TOOK 3 ******* LAI DAI PACKED AV GRENADES TO KILL A 1.7MIL TANK, IF MAVS HAVE THE SAME SURVIVABILITY AS THAT, YOU'RE HAVING A ******* LAUGH WITH THE WHOLE "DEDICATED" AV THING.
AV grenades might need a look. AV in general could use some work, as a whole, both nerfs and buffs depending. Since AV grenades don't take up your main role, it should really take more people to take out a vehicle with those then with dedicated AV weapons like swarms or forge guns.
I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
|
Delta 749
Kestrel Reconnaissance
2430
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 22:25:00 -
[34] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:Battlefield lets you run solo in a tank..
And I seem to kill a lot more things in it than in DUST.
In Battlefield I can blast your treads and immobilize you leaving you vulnerable and reducing your effectiveness
Im not drunk, the planet just happens to be especially wobbly today.
|
Benjamin Ciscko
The Generals
General Tso's Alliance
1176
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 00:46:00 -
[35] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:Rusty Shallows wrote:Severance Pay wrote:Soraya Xel wrote:Rusty Shallows wrote:If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank. What they need to do, is force HAVs to operate as three-person vehicles (or particularly, be particularly more effective as a three-person vehicle), and then introduce MAVs as a more balanced solo slaying vehicle. ^ this. Who ever heard of a Tank that can be operated by a single person? If it is gonna take 3 people to kill a tank, it better damn will require 3 people to operate. Harsh. Although having a Driver a Large Turret Gunner would be fair for having that much of a game advantage. A more civilized option than nerfing. This is how I'd spec it out: - Right now, HAVs are too powerful for solo players. - Last build, HAVs were about right for solo players. So, first, HAVs: Heavy Attack Vehicles
Design goal: Team-based tool for breaking enemy lines and clearing defenses. Effectiveness scales with number of people in it.- Same durability as current HAVs. - Drivers seat is the front gun, with the forward firing arc. - Gunners seat is the main turret. - Engineers seat is the top small turret with the full firing arc. - HAVs with one driver can still fire forward turret while driving, however the inability to fire behind them in that seat allows AV to flank, so it is easier to destroy. Note that the HAV driver can still switch to the gunner's seat, or switch to the engineer's seat to activate modules. Modules will run even if after you switch back to the other seats. When balanced correctly, a single dedicated AV should be able to kill it. - HAVs with two people can have someone driving while another person switches between the main gun and modules seats. This means much more ability to fire while moving, aim behind, and in general, be a lot more effective at doing things. Which should make it harder to kill. When balanced correctly, it'll probably take two dedicated AV to kill it. - HAVs with three people can use all features simultaneously. This three-man fire team, especially if working over voice comms, provides a near unstoppable force on the battle field. When balanced correctly, it'll take three or more dedicated AV to kill it. However, the solo vehicle users do need a job. LAVs are transports, they really aren't able to fill the role, so it's time to pull out something we haven't heard of since the last fanfest: MAVs. Medium Attack Vehicles
Design goal: Single player vehicle brawlers designed to provide heavy firepower for a price.- Same durability as previous generation of HAVs. - One person small tank. - MAVs should take between 1 and 2 dedicated AV to kill, depending on skills and hull grade.
Someone's not getting my vote.
Caldari Tanker/Minmatar Assault
Forum warrior lvl 1
|
Racro 01 Arifistan
501st Knights of Leanbox
INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS
104
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 00:52:00 -
[36] - Quote
is it so bad for me to use a complex fitted madruagr with an ion cannon when my team is being proto stomped?
i played a match last night were my team lost 0-38 clones in ambush. enemy team was proto stomping and i got ahte mail just for using a complex fitted maddy with ion cannon to reduce thier clone count? how in any way are they entiled to rage at me when they are the wining team proto stomping?
if you ask me apart from low damage swarms vs armour tanks AV is fine.
adv flux nade x2 drops sheild tank shields ridicuos fast even if ahrdend
1 swarm volley kills sheild tank
armour tanks are far more stubborn to kill.
1-2 nades to drop sheilds
3rd nade to damage armour
2-3 volleys to kill tank if he is stuipd.
its not that ahrd to kill tanks with current AV. swarms should get a nice extra 50 dmaage per swamr though to balalcne them out. |
Scout Registry
416
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 00:53:00 -
[37] - Quote
Set HAV limit to 2/match.
Balance.
|
Shion Typhon
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
358
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 01:17:00 -
[38] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:Rusty Shallows wrote:
1.7 isn't any better than Uprising 1.0 with regards to vehicles. The Devs just broke the game in the opposite direction. They should have only done the buffs and new weapons.
The waves of opportunity deal that the devs were going for could be the right thing for vehicles, but it does need tweaking.
"Waves" is the worst idea ever, just really think about it and you'll see why. |
LEHON Xeon
Pradox XVI
Proficiency V.
33
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 01:28:00 -
[39] - Quote
Racro 01 Arifistan wrote:is it so bad for me to use a complex fitted madruagr with an ion cannon when my team is being proto stomped?
i played a match last night were my team lost 0-38 clones in ambush. enemy team was proto stomping and i got ahte mail just for using a complex fitted maddy with ion cannon to reduce thier clone count? how in any way are they entiled to rage at me when they are the wining team proto stomping?
if you ask me apart from low damage swarms vs armour tanks AV is fine.
adv flux nade x2 drops sheild tank shields ridicuos fast even if ahrdend
1 swarm volley kills sheild tank
armour tanks are far more stubborn to kill.
1-2 nades to drop sheilds
3rd nade to damage armour
2-3 volleys to kill tank if he is stuipd.
its not that ahrd to kill tanks with current AV. swarms should get a nice extra 50 dmaage per swamr though to balalcne them out.
0-38???? 0-38??? Lmao. I was in some matches earlier last week and because we got pinned by several madrugars even though I was running proto suits (eventually switched as I got tired of loosing them) and the stupid "smart respawn" system we lost 0-98 and some people got 71-0. There's no excuse for that crap because AV does absolutely nothing outside of planting a ton of REs. There wouldn't have been enough time in that match to even charge up one forge gun shot much less take out an entire tank.
Necrophillia: That Uncontrollable Urge To Crack Open A Cold One.
|
1st Lieutenant Tiberius
0uter.Heaven
813
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 01:58:00 -
[40] - Quote
Make current tanks ADV level, make the PRO a step better and the STD a step worse. Adjust AV accordingly.
Balance?
The Sinwarden
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |