Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
455
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 23:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
reserved
Nuff Said
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
455
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 23:54:00 -
[2] - Quote
reserved
Nuff Said
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
455
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 23:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
reserved
Nuff Said
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1684
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 23:55:00 -
[4] - Quote
First
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
455
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 23:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
reserved
Nuff Said
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Learning Coalition College
3774
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 23:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
reserved
I am your scan error.
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
455
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 23:56:00 -
[7] - Quote
you ass
Nuff Said
|
killer carrot top
Eternal Beings Proficiency V.
8
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 23:57:00 -
[8] - Quote
Not first or reserved |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
455
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 23:57:00 -
[9] - Quote
reserved
Nuff Said
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1684
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 23:57:00 -
[10] - Quote
My apologies, thought you were done
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
462
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 00:08:00 -
[11] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:My apologies, thought you were done
lol, yeah, It takes forever with the spam prevention bullshit. Post wait 30 seconds, post wait 30 seconds lol.
Nuff Said
|
gbh08
Intara Direct Action Caldari State
203
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 00:16:00 -
[12] - Quote
I've not read the whole thread yet, i will, im just going to point out
"So basically, with max skills you can activate the second hardeners 15 seconds into the duration of the first, and maintain hardeners non stop. So a maxed tanker can essentially negate any amount of downtime needed. "
That that ^ isnt true, unless you run 3 hardners, im not saying hardeners are acceptable as they are, there not, but with max skills theres a 5-6 second window with no hardeners, and again, im not saying thats cool, its far too short, but yeah, your wrong |
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1685
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 00:18:00 -
[13] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:My apologies, thought you were done lol, yeah, It takes forever with the spam prevention bullshit. Post wait 30 seconds, post wait 30 seconds lol.
I slightly disgree with your point on rail turrets, while I see what you mean with the drawback. The Sniper has high alpha AND high range, the railgun which the sniper is modeled upon, then also gets a HROF, it gets a shotguns rate of fire.
I move instead of taking range take overall DPS, a rail should pop almost all but the strongest vehicles in 3 shots, but having time to land 3 consecutive shots without fail is what will make the railgun balanced.
This then means if you have superior positioning you can be popping tanks to the cows come home, but by the same stretch, if you charge in you won't have the rate of fire to compete at short range.
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Learning Coalition College
3775
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 00:23:00 -
[14] - Quote
I have yet to test it, but I soon hope to give a full demonstration on how OP hardeners are.
How?
I managed to fit a dropship with a PAIR of 120mm armor plates- this thing has as much eHP as some of my HAVs. I will also fit one with a single 60mm plate and a hardener.
I will fly each of them in front of an enemy railgun (hardener on, ofc) and see how many shots it takes to take down each. If the hardened one lasts longer than the one that has far more eHP than any dropship was meant to have (which will probably be the case), something is seriously wrong.
I am your scan error.
|
Benjamin Ciscko
The Generals General Tso's Alliance
1409
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 00:31:00 -
[15] - Quote
Waaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo looooooonnnnnnnggggggggg tooooooooooooooooooooooooo readdddddddddddddddddddddddd.............................................
Caldari Tanker/Minmatar Assault
Forum warrior lvl 1
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
465
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 00:40:00 -
[16] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:My apologies, thought you were done lol, yeah, It takes forever with the spam prevention bullshit. Post wait 30 seconds, post wait 30 seconds lol. I slightly disgree with your point on rail turrets, while I see what you mean with the drawback. The Sniper has high alpha AND high range, the railgun which the sniper is modeled upon, then also gets a HROF, it gets a shotguns rate of fire. I move instead of taking range take overall DPS, a rail should pop almost all but the strongest vehicles in 3 shots, but having time to land 3 consecutive shots without fail is what will make the railgun balanced. This then means if you have superior positioning you can be popping tanks to the cows come home, but by the same stretch, if you charge in you won't have the rate of fire to compete at short range.
I think the biggest distinction I can make here is the Vulnerability of said infantry sniper. A rail tank has full invincibility against small arms fire. A infantry sneaking up on a sniper, is not the same as an infantry sneaking up on a rail sniper. A tank rail sniper is FAAAR harder to dislodge when compared to a mere infantry sniper.
What I'm more for though, isn't something as simple as taking damage while keeping range. It's about creating 2 different types of turrets that fulfill the same roles.
Your range railgun, does say half the damage now, but let's say we double the range, reduce the heat cost and ROF, increase clip size. It doesn't hit very hard, but it shoots faster, able to fire more shots, and a larger clip to compensate.
Your heavy hitter on the other hand, has reduced range, but the current damage, and a slower rate of fire, maybe more heat build up.
Nuff Said
|
Wallaby1
The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine
79
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 00:43:00 -
[17] - Quote
wow my eyes is bleeding!! lol but good points , in my opinion tanks are fine its the AV weapons that need work because there to OP ...lol jk , but seriously AV weapons are a joke the swarms rof and range is laughable , the plasma cannon either needs a clip or mag instead of this 1 shot BS or maybe just make its trajectory more similar to a rail because those things are dang useless!! the forge guns seem to be doing a nasty amount of damage to my tanks so i cant complain about them , but seriously i feel like a douche just sitting there eating up 3 rounds of swarms and taking 500 dmg to my shields! its not very fair it takes at least 6 swarm volleys before im starting to run for cover!! not to mention i can pick off the av infantry 1 by 1 with a blaster so easily!! |
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll
Osmon Surveillance Caldari State
529
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 00:49:00 -
[18] - Quote
Really long winded balancing post when half of the AV equipment isn't ingame yet...
If you can read this, it means you are reading.
Unless you are skimming
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
467
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 00:59:00 -
[19] - Quote
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Really long winded balancing post when half of the AV equipment isn't ingame yet...
You are missing the point.
Nuff Said
|
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll
Osmon Surveillance Caldari State
529
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 01:05:00 -
[20] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Really long winded balancing post when half of the AV equipment isn't ingame yet... You are missing the point. Webifiers will slow down tanks. Electronic warfare will weaken hardeners...
If you can read this, it means you are reading.
Unless you are skimming
|
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
470
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 01:33:00 -
[21] - Quote
Wallaby1 wrote:wow my eyes is bleeding!! lol but good points , in my opinion tanks are fine its the AV weapons that need work because there to OP ...lol jk , but seriously AV weapons are a joke the swarms rof and range is laughable , the plasma cannon either needs a clip or mag instead of this 1 shot BS or maybe just make its trajectory more similar to a rail because those things are dang useless!! the forge guns seem to be doing a nasty amount of damage to my tanks so i cant complain about them , but seriously i feel like a douche just sitting there eating up 3 rounds of swarms and taking 500 dmg to my shields! its not very fair it takes at least 6 swarm volleys before im starting to run for cover!! not to mention i can pick off the av infantry 1 by 1 with a blaster so easily!!
Hold up, I'm getting to that. The point here is that it's not as simple as pointing out one thing and fixing it. One thing like damage, has many variables applied to it. You think this is long winded
What I want, is for tanks to be more vehicle vs vehicle focused and less on killing infantry. No the blasters shouldn't be an hmg in an invincible tank. I know how deadly blasters are, and with the current state of tanks, infantry can't deal with them.
The way I'm currently thinking (mind you this is theory, and I'm liable to change my mind in the future) infantry act as support. But tanks have a lesser impact on infantry game, and are focused more on vehicles. But same as infantry provides "support" the tank provides "support" in turn. But the support must be equal, Infantry limited against tanks, tanks limited against infantry, as far as killing power goes.
Nuff Said
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
470
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 01:47:00 -
[22] - Quote
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Really long winded balancing post when half of the AV equipment isn't ingame yet... You are missing the point. Webifiers will slow down tanks. Electronic warfare will weaken hardeners...
Those are good additions, but at what cost comes with slowing the tank. What kind of counter can the tank use. Where do you lose out by slowing the tanker.
For every gain, you need a loss.
I don't think it's as simple as saying a factor is broken so adding a counter should fix it, but let's keep the broken factor. I can see things getting out of skew rather quickly.
Basically with tanks, they stripped them down to the basics with the idea to build them back up from the ground up. The way I see it, they need to fix the current balance before they go about adding new things to the mess, which come with a mess of their own.
Nuff Said
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
1342
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 01:56:00 -
[23] - Quote
So buff missiles for AV somehow, nerf blasters for AI and railguns across the board? Or rather, specialise the railguns?
Happily printing ISK with permahardeners and MLT blasters.
Just let me get a couple mil more before nerf, CCP!
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
4055
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 02:04:00 -
[24] - Quote
You sir get a cookie.
But not peanut butter.
PEANUT BUTTER COOKIE MASTER COOKIE
So when are we gonna get those Matari Vehicles?
Please don't be SoonGäó
|
Operative 1171 Aajli
Bragian Order Amarr Empire
1098
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 02:06:00 -
[25] - Quote
Madrugar is a Gallente tank. Gallente are supposed to zoom in quick and fight close. Therefore, the speed mods need to be reduced in duration but provide a faster spurt of power to overcome initial torque. Right now they have longer duration with less speed.
Rail is Caldari therefore it is supposed to be long range. It is BS right now that the rail is the best close range weapon too. Solution is to return the spool up time with the recharge time and quicker overheat along with a repeating feature like before that meant reduced damage for each subsquent shot. I shouldn't have to play dances with tanks so much at CQ with a rail and a rail user shouldn't feel comfortable in CQ.
Right now no SP non-tankers are finding it way to easy to call in mil fit, one off rail dmg mod tanks and that is effectively closing out any other type of play. Why use anything else when the rail does it all? Also, this is giving tankers a bad name because non-tankers are complaining about tanks when the problem is non-tankers are taking advantage of mil tanks to gain a cheap advantage. If only skilled tankers could apply that power you wouldn't see the tank spam.
Likewise, a mil or basic rail shouldn't have that long of a range. I'd like to see range added as a skill or module that increases therail range to the present range. Even better would be to have different ranges to the turret tiers. Standard would fire about one third the length of a map like iron Delta and the proto could reach to about three fourths.
Make infantry happy and bring back a need to have a small turret gunner for effective anti infantry by reducing the large blaster RoF to more an anti vehicle, particularly LAV, role.
I'd like to see only one small turret on the tanks and that would be on the top instead of defaulting to the front.
Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
|
Alena Ventrallis
The Neutral Zone
529
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 02:07:00 -
[26] - Quote
Tanks should be for killing other vehicles, and LAVs - drop ships should be for anti infantry. They need to add dispersion to blasters large and small. Slow large blaster ROF. Give small blasters some target sticky whatever (not aim assist, but where the aimpoint slows down when over an enemy.) And large blasters get aim sticky, but only on other vehicles, not infantry. Then, LAVs are actually worth more than heavy transport. Perhaps even give LAVs a small buff to health. And tanks won't be instawin buttons (save against vehicles) |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
471
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 02:39:00 -
[27] - Quote
gbh08 wrote:I've not read the whole thread yet, i will, im just going to point out
"So basically, with max skills you can activate the second hardeners 15 seconds into the duration of the first, and maintain hardeners non stop. So a maxed tanker can essentially negate any amount of downtime needed. "
That that ^ isnt true, unless you run 3 hardners, im not saying hardeners are acceptable as they are, there not, but with max skills theres a 5-6 second window with no hardeners, and again, im not saying thats cool, its far too short, but yeah, your wrong
My math, Proto hardeners have a cooldown of 24 seconds. The skills at max gives you 25% to cooldown and uptime.
So .25 * 24seconds = 6 + 24 = 30 seconds
Downtime is 60 seconds, so 60 * .25 = 15, 60 - 15 = 45 seconds
So I admit, I no doubt made a false statement.
Total up time is 30 seconds per one mod and 45 seconds down Assuming we use them one at a time, there is an overlap. Individually no, grouped yes.
So 15 seconds into the second mod, assuming you are using 2 hardeners, you can activate the the first mod again. So, with max skills, you can maintain at least one hardener most all of the time. The point though, is that hardeners last WAY TOO LONG. That's a full minute of uptime with 2 hardeners cycled, and before the second wears off, the first is cooldown, but after this inital cycle there will be a few seconds of down time. But not until after a full minute and a half though cycling hardeners.
The point with 3 hardeners, is to maintain 2 when needed, at least one all the time. With skills this would be much easier, but I would think of a less SP invested tanker going this route, rather than one with the skills.
Nuff Said
|
wripple
WarRavens League of Infamy
118
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 03:38:00 -
[28] - Quote
More classes of HAVs perhaps? We saw standard, logo and scout LAVs in the past, each with their own set of pros and cons. Perhaps what we need is the introduction of logistics, assault and scout tanks.
First, reduce turret damage and damage mod efficacy (you'll see why in a second)
-Scout class will have lower module count and base HP, but move at current 1.7 HAV speeds.
-Assault class will move marginally slower than scouts with similar 1.7 module count. Bonus to damage mods and turret damage per level of operation.
-Logistics class will move at 1.6 HAV speeds or even slower, have higher base HP and should be the most expensive class. This should also have a reasonably useful built in module that will justify high cost and low mobility. |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
473
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 13:49:00 -
[29] - Quote
Added a section on blaster, and a piece on Infantry vs Tanks.
Nuff Said
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star. EoN.
2304
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 14:19:00 -
[30] - Quote
Way too long with alot of gibberish
Speed is fine - Get a LAV instead
Hardeners are fine, you miss out on fitting other things
Rails are supposed to be high alpha long range
Missiles are fine, they are also high alpha and do well against vehicles
Blasters are fine, mostly AI anyways because the other 2 turrets are crap
Infantry are idiots, they expect to stand at the same point and kill tank after tank, if you want to kill a tank chase it ffs, if it moves use a damn lav, if its shield dont use swarms when its shiny etc etc etc
All your examples are bias, tanks battles do not consist of both tanks meeting somwhere and then both activating everything at the same time so you only do 50% dmg to them
The battles are tactics, you hit them when there hardeners are down, or bait them into your optimal, what happens if you miss a shot, what happens if its double tanked, what happens if you need to reload etc etc etc
Intelligence is OP
|
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
473
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 15:22:00 -
[31] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Way too long with alot of gibberish
Speed is fine - Get a LAV instead
Hardeners are fine, you miss out on fitting other things
Rails are supposed to be high alpha long range
Missiles are fine, they are also high alpha and do well against vehicles
Blasters are fine, mostly AI anyways because the other 2 turrets are crap
Infantry are idiots, they expect to stand at the same point and kill tank after tank, if you want to kill a tank chase it ffs, if it moves use a damn lav, if its shield dont use swarms when its shiny etc etc etc
All your examples are bias, tanks battles do not consist of both tanks meeting somwhere and then both activating everything at the same time so you only do 50% dmg to them
The battles are tactics, you hit them when there hardeners are down, or bait them into your optimal, what happens if you miss a shot, what happens if its double tanked, what happens if you need to reload etc etc etc
Taka man, you are completely missing the point.
From a balance perspective:
Why is speed fine?
How are hardeners fine, and what is it that I miss out on. Hardeners are arguably the most important thing you can fit, you don't miss out on anything, hardeners are where it's at. I have yet to get to the modules yet, later today I will. The point though is that a extender and a hardener should benfit you somewhat equally. Extenders are useless for gunnlogis and for a maddie, I think they are better off with a hardener and healz. And I demonstrated, how a Sp invested tanker can mitigate nearly all of their down time cycling hardeners.
WHY are rails supposed to have high alpha and high range. How do these compare in relation to other turrets, ups and downs.
Missiles are fine, how? How are they "fine". They are very situational, where a rail works at all ranges.
Blasters are fine? How so. How is it fine, that a tank immune to most AV and small arms fire, uses a turret that is designed for killing infantry. Enjoy your I win button while you can, it WILL be going away.
Way to generalize all of AV into one category, idiots. I can clearly see, that you do not AV. And I can tell you didn't read my post fully. The point I made is that if tanks want infantry interaction limited towards them, then tanks need limited interaction with infantry. Infantry provide "SUPPORT" against tanks, same as tanks provide "SUPPORT" to infantry. And no, support does not mean outright killing, but driving back.
I chose of course to use a situation, in which both tanks stood on equal ground tactically speaking. In equal engagements, neither tank should hold an outright advantage over another. That is why I choose that, tactics are another thing altogether, where you try to steal the advantage from the other. Because the train of thought should be, a head on engagement can go both ways, so what tactic can I use to skew things in my favor.
You make statements, but you have no logical reasoning behind it. You simply "Expect" things to be this way because now things are working in your favor. There are real issues, and simply brushing them aside, blaming it on infantry, is well, STUPID.
Nuff Said
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star. EoN.
2307
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 15:40:00 -
[32] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Way too long with alot of gibberish
Speed is fine - Get a LAV instead
Hardeners are fine, you miss out on fitting other things
Rails are supposed to be high alpha long range
Missiles are fine, they are also high alpha and do well against vehicles
Blasters are fine, mostly AI anyways because the other 2 turrets are crap
Infantry are idiots, they expect to stand at the same point and kill tank after tank, if you want to kill a tank chase it ffs, if it moves use a damn lav, if its shield dont use swarms when its shiny etc etc etc
All your examples are bias, tanks battles do not consist of both tanks meeting somwhere and then both activating everything at the same time so you only do 50% dmg to them
The battles are tactics, you hit them when there hardeners are down, or bait them into your optimal, what happens if you miss a shot, what happens if its double tanked, what happens if you need to reload etc etc etc Taka man, you are completely missing the point. From a balance perspective: Why is speed fine? It has an engine its fineHow are hardeners fine, and what is it that I miss out on. Hardeners are arguably the most important thing you can fit, you don't miss out on anything, hardeners are where it's at. I have yet to get to the modules yet, later today I will. The point though is that a extender and a hardener should benfit you somewhat equally. Extenders are useless for gunnlogis and for a maddie, I think they are better off with a hardener and healz. And I demonstrated, how a Sp invested tanker can mitigate nearly all of their down time cycling hardeners. - They are fine, i cant fit boosters/extenders/speed mods/dmg mods, its means i cant speed away as fast, it means if 2 FG work together to **** me i cant boost back shield etc etc etcWHY are rails supposed to have high alpha and high range. How do these compare in relation to other turrets, ups and downs. - Its long range high dmg like a sniper and generally useless in cqc and short rangeMissiles are fine, how? How are they "fine". They are very situational, where a rail works at all ranges. - All turrets are situationalBlasters are fine? How so. How is it fine, that a tank immune to most AV and small arms fire, uses a turret that is designed for killing infantry. Enjoy your I win button while you can, it WILL be going away. - Not an i win button, how do you kill AV players? use a blaster because all the other turrets are useless at killing infantry, they are fine and they actually kill because hit detection has been fixedWay to generalize all of AV into one category, idiots. I can clearly see, that you do not AV. And I can tell you didn't read my post fully. The point I made is that if tanks want infantry interaction limited towards them, then tanks need limited interaction with infantry. Infantry provide "SUPPORT" against tanks, same as tanks provide "SUPPORT" to infantry. And no, support does not mean outright killing, but driving back. - PROF 4 in FG and can use proto swarms, also proto fatsuit and complex dmg mods, i can solo tanks but prefer to use a 2nd FG since teamwork makes it easier I chose of course to use a situation, in which both tanks stood on equal ground tactically speaking. In equal engagements, neither tank should hold an outright advantage over another. That is why I choose that, tactics are another thing altogether, where you try to steal the advantage from the other. Because the train of thought should be, a head on engagement can go both ways, so what tactic can I use to skew things in my favor. - Tanks are not on equal ground in any situation, thus its flawed before you begin You make statements, but you have no logical reasoning behind it. You simply "Expect" things to be this way because now things are working in your favor. There are real issues, and simply brushing them aside, blaming it on infantry, is well, STUPID.
Intelligence is OP
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
476
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 18:01:00 -
[33] - Quote
Operative 1171 Aajli wrote:Madrugar is a Gallente tank. Gallente are supposed to zoom in quick and fight close. Therefore, the speed mods need to be reduced in duration but provide a faster spurt of power to overcome initial torque. Right now they have longer duration with less speed.
Rail is Caldari therefore it is supposed to be long range. It is BS right now that the rail is the best close range weapon too. Solution is to return the spool up time with the recharge time and quicker overheat along with a repeating feature like before that meant reduced damage for each subsquent shot. I shouldn't have to play dances with tanks so much at CQ with a rail and a rail user shouldn't feel comfortable in CQ.
Right now no SP non-tankers are finding it way to easy to call in mil fit, one off rail dmg mod tanks and that is effectively closing out any other type of play. Why use anything else when the rail does it all? Also, this is giving tankers a bad name because non-tankers are complaining about tanks when the problem is non-tankers are taking advantage of mil tanks to gain a cheap advantage. If only skilled tankers could apply that power you wouldn't see the tank spam.
Likewise, a mil or basic rail shouldn't have that long of a range. I'd like to see range added as a skill or module that increases therail range to the present range. Even better would be to have different ranges to the turret tiers. Standard would fire about one third the length of a map like iron Delta and the proto could reach to about three fourths.
Make infantry happy and bring back a need to have a small turret gunner for effective anti infantry by reducing the large blaster RoF to more an anti vehicle, particularly LAV, role.
I'd like to see only one small turret on the tanks and that would be on the top instead of defaulting to the front.
There was a post on the overall goal CCP was trying to achieve with tanks. I can't seem to find it, was back in 1.5 or so. If anyone can find it, please link.
They stated their views of how the tanks should work. The gallente were to be the stand and deliver, an in your face tank, that focused more on taking damage. Able to engage the enemy for an extended time.
Caldari are to be the Hit and Run type, get in fast, do damage, and get back out. Engagements are to be limited.
That was CCP's official statement on the matter, once they started working on fixing tanks.
As far as rails go, agreed, they can't be the best at everything. Some would disagree, but if we want balance this kind of thinking needs to stop. Want to do high alpha, then you have to give something up.
A lot of people like to compare a rail tank to a sniper. While there are similarities, the infantry sniper is at a disadvantage when not at range. That's the point people miss, said sniper doesn't generally kill in CQC or mid range combat. They MUST use the range, because they are far to vulnerable when close. See, that is the trade off, You may gain range and high alpha, but you lose out in defenses(trade off for damage) and range is limited by the scope(long range, not effective in mid or cqc).
A rail tank is nothing like that. They can kill at range, maintain a damage mod for dps, effective in CQC and mid range combat, can still fit for heavy tanking, immune to anything but other tanks and AV. Where are the downsides to using a rail??
Rails are the go to weapon for busting tanks, because they excel in all areas, and have virtually no weakness. Broken.
Milita tanks are another story, and I'm getting to them in my OP.
Nuff Said
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1699
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 18:27:00 -
[34] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Operative 1171 Aajli wrote:Madrugar is a Gallente tank. Gallente are supposed to zoom in quick and fight close. Therefore, the speed mods need to be reduced in duration but provide a faster spurt of power to overcome initial torque. Right now they have longer duration with less speed.
Rail is Caldari therefore it is supposed to be long range. It is BS right now that the rail is the best close range weapon too. Solution is to return the spool up time with the recharge time and quicker overheat along with a repeating feature like before that meant reduced damage for each subsquent shot. I shouldn't have to play dances with tanks so much at CQ with a rail and a rail user shouldn't feel comfortable in CQ.
Right now no SP non-tankers are finding it way to easy to call in mil fit, one off rail dmg mod tanks and that is effectively closing out any other type of play. Why use anything else when the rail does it all? Also, this is giving tankers a bad name because non-tankers are complaining about tanks when the problem is non-tankers are taking advantage of mil tanks to gain a cheap advantage. If only skilled tankers could apply that power you wouldn't see the tank spam.
Likewise, a mil or basic rail shouldn't have that long of a range. I'd like to see range added as a skill or module that increases therail range to the present range. Even better would be to have different ranges to the turret tiers. Standard would fire about one third the length of a map like iron Delta and the proto could reach to about three fourths.
Make infantry happy and bring back a need to have a small turret gunner for effective anti infantry by reducing the large blaster RoF to more an anti vehicle, particularly LAV, role.
I'd like to see only one small turret on the tanks and that would be on the top instead of defaulting to the front. There was a post on the overall goal CCP was trying to achieve with tanks. I can't seem to find it, was back in 1.5 or so. If anyone can find it, please link. They stated their views of how the tanks should work. The gallente were to be the stand and deliver, an in your face tank, that focused more on taking damage. Able to engage the enemy for an extended time. Caldari are to be the Hit and Run type, get in fast, do damage, and get back out. Engagements are to be limited. That was CCP's official statement on the matter, once they started working on fixing tanks. As far as rails go, agreed, they can't be the best at everything. Some would disagree, but if we want balance this kind of thinking needs to stop. Want to do high alpha, then you have to give something up. A lot of people like to compare a rail tank to a sniper. While there are similarities, the infantry sniper is at a disadvantage when not at range. That's the point people miss, said sniper doesn't generally kill in CQC or mid range combat. They MUST use the range, because they are far to vulnerable when close. See, that is the trade off, You may gain range and high alpha, but you lose out in defenses(trade off for damage) and range is limited by the scope(long range, not effective in mid or cqc). A rail tank is nothing like that. They can kill at range, maintain a damage mod for dps, effective in CQC and mid range combat, can still fit for heavy tanking, immune to anything but other tanks and AV. Where are the downsides to using a rail?? Rails are the go to weapon for busting tanks, because they excel in all areas, and have virtually no weakness. Broken. Milita tanks are another story, and I'm getting to them in my OP.
Snipers can be used at close range though. Its HARDER to hit close up, prehaps you could remove the 3rd Person view markings or something. And don't bother arguing with Takihiro he thinks Rail tanks are the reason infantry AV is balanced.
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
476
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 18:31:00 -
[35] - Quote
Taka I can't begin to describe to you how uneducated your responses are. I know your stance, I've seen a lot of posts you have made, and they are ALWAYS the same. Use some damn sense man. For example.
I ask, why is speed fine? You respond because it has an engine. REALLY! I did not know that, so all engines make things go fast. I feel SOOO enlightened. I can forget about generators, or tug boat engines, or any other engine that is meant for anything other than propulsion. Jesus, really???
Hardeners, your response : They are fine, i cant fit boosters/extenders/speed mods/dmg mods, its means i cant speed away as fast, it means if 2 FG work together to **** me i cant boost back shield etc etc etc. DO YOU TANK. Hardeners are the ONLY thing you want to use on your tank, with a damage mod OR a booster. Extenders are broken and useless in comparison to hardeners. The reason hardeners are used over the other types, because they are currently part of what makes tanks OP.
I asked about rails and you respond: Its long range high dmg like a sniper and generally useless in cqc and short range. Again I ask, do you even tank. Any good tanker knows, that rails work well at long range AND cqc to mid range. Add in a gunnlogi to the mix, and you can speed up turret tracking, turning your tank in the same direction you turn your turret. It works so well with a gunnlogi, because they are AGILE.
About missile turrets, you respond, all turrets are situational. Yeah, good job you are right. None though are as situational as missile turrets. Lol.
Tanks are not on equal ground in any situation, thus it's flawed before you can begin, you say. I ask AGAIN do you tank? I can't begin to count the number of times I have squared off on equal ground. You can't pretend that it doesn't happen. Those situations I described, those events actually happened. I don't make **** up fella, I speak from experience.
Nuff Said
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
476
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 18:32:00 -
[36] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Operative 1171 Aajli wrote:Madrugar is a Gallente tank. Gallente are supposed to zoom in quick and fight close. Therefore, the speed mods need to be reduced in duration but provide a faster spurt of power to overcome initial torque. Right now they have longer duration with less speed.
Rail is Caldari therefore it is supposed to be long range. It is BS right now that the rail is the best close range weapon too. Solution is to return the spool up time with the recharge time and quicker overheat along with a repeating feature like before that meant reduced damage for each subsquent shot. I shouldn't have to play dances with tanks so much at CQ with a rail and a rail user shouldn't feel comfortable in CQ.
Right now no SP non-tankers are finding it way to easy to call in mil fit, one off rail dmg mod tanks and that is effectively closing out any other type of play. Why use anything else when the rail does it all? Also, this is giving tankers a bad name because non-tankers are complaining about tanks when the problem is non-tankers are taking advantage of mil tanks to gain a cheap advantage. If only skilled tankers could apply that power you wouldn't see the tank spam.
Likewise, a mil or basic rail shouldn't have that long of a range. I'd like to see range added as a skill or module that increases therail range to the present range. Even better would be to have different ranges to the turret tiers. Standard would fire about one third the length of a map like iron Delta and the proto could reach to about three fourths.
Make infantry happy and bring back a need to have a small turret gunner for effective anti infantry by reducing the large blaster RoF to more an anti vehicle, particularly LAV, role.
I'd like to see only one small turret on the tanks and that would be on the top instead of defaulting to the front. There was a post on the overall goal CCP was trying to achieve with tanks. I can't seem to find it, was back in 1.5 or so. If anyone can find it, please link. They stated their views of how the tanks should work. The gallente were to be the stand and deliver, an in your face tank, that focused more on taking damage. Able to engage the enemy for an extended time. Caldari are to be the Hit and Run type, get in fast, do damage, and get back out. Engagements are to be limited. That was CCP's official statement on the matter, once they started working on fixing tanks. As far as rails go, agreed, they can't be the best at everything. Some would disagree, but if we want balance this kind of thinking needs to stop. Want to do high alpha, then you have to give something up. A lot of people like to compare a rail tank to a sniper. While there are similarities, the infantry sniper is at a disadvantage when not at range. That's the point people miss, said sniper doesn't generally kill in CQC or mid range combat. They MUST use the range, because they are far to vulnerable when close. See, that is the trade off, You may gain range and high alpha, but you lose out in defenses(trade off for damage) and range is limited by the scope(long range, not effective in mid or cqc). A rail tank is nothing like that. They can kill at range, maintain a damage mod for dps, effective in CQC and mid range combat, can still fit for heavy tanking, immune to anything but other tanks and AV. Where are the downsides to using a rail?? Rails are the go to weapon for busting tanks, because they excel in all areas, and have virtually no weakness. Broken. Milita tanks are another story, and I'm getting to them in my OP. Snipers can be used at close range though. Its HARDER to hit close up, prehaps you could remove the 3rd Person view markings or something. And don't bother arguing with Takihiro he thinks Rail tanks are the reason infantry AV is balanced.
Agreed
Nuff Said
|
Eberk Baldek
Tech Guard RISE of LEGION
17
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 19:37:00 -
[37] - Quote
Excellent work! Though I'm not so sure that's the right solution . . . perhaps . . .
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
480
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 20:08:00 -
[38] - Quote
Eberk Baldek wrote:Excellent work! Though I'm not so sure that's the right solution . . . perhaps . . .
Suggestions are greatly appreciated, I certainly won't say that I can see everything from every angle, because I KNOW I CAN'T! Some things I think I'm missing maybe are the PG/CPU limitations, but I think that is less of an issue when we talk balance among modules. That is there, the way I see it, to limit people from simply stacking multiples of the same item in the sake of balance.
I think mods first, need to be balanced among each other, each with a drawback and a gain. Then you take and limit your fitting abilities around those mods.
Suggestions, people! Lay em on me.
Nuff Said
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star. EoN.
1702
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 11:32:00 -
[39] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Way too long with alot of gibberish
Speed is fine - Get a LAV instead
Hardeners are fine, you miss out on fitting other things
Rails are supposed to be high alpha long range
Missiles are fine, they are also high alpha and do well against vehicles
Blasters are fine, mostly AI anyways because the other 2 turrets are crap
Infantry are idiots, they expect to stand at the same point and kill tank after tank, if you want to kill a tank chase it ffs, if it moves use a damn lav, if its shield dont use swarms when its shiny etc etc etc
All your examples are bias, tanks battles do not consist of both tanks meeting somwhere and then both activating everything at the same time so you only do 50% dmg to them
The battles are tactics, you hit them when there hardeners are down, or bait them into your optimal, what happens if you miss a shot, what happens if its double tanked, what happens if you need to reload etc etc etc Taka man, you are completely missing the point. From a balance perspective: Why is speed fine? How are hardeners fine, and what is it that I miss out on. Hardeners are arguably the most important thing you can fit, you don't miss out on anything, hardeners are where it's at. I have yet to get to the modules yet, later today I will. The point though is that a extender and a hardener should benfit you somewhat equally. Extenders are useless for gunnlogis and for a maddie, I think they are better off with a hardener and healz. And I demonstrated, how a Sp invested tanker can mitigate nearly all of their down time cycling hardeners. WHY are rails supposed to have high alpha and high range. How do these compare in relation to other turrets, ups and downs. Missiles are fine, how? How are they "fine". They are very situational, where a rail works at all ranges. Blasters are fine? How so. How is it fine, that a tank immune to most AV and small arms fire, uses a turret that is designed for killing infantry. Enjoy your I win button while you can, it WILL be going away. Way to generalize all of AV into one category, idiots. I can clearly see, that you do not AV. And I can tell you didn't read my post fully. The point I made is that if tanks want infantry interaction limited towards them, then tanks need limited interaction with infantry. Infantry provide "SUPPORT" against tanks, same as tanks provide "SUPPORT" to infantry. And no, support does not mean outright killing, but driving back. I chose of course to use a situation, in which both tanks stood on equal ground tactically speaking. In equal engagements, neither tank should hold an outright advantage over another. That is why I choose that, tactics are another thing altogether, where you try to steal the advantage from the other. Because the train of thought should be, a head on engagement can go both ways, so what tactic can I use to skew things in my favor. You make statements, but you have no logical reasoning behind it. You simply "Expect" things to be this way because now things are working in your favor. There are real issues, and simply brushing them aside, blaming it on infantry, is well, STUPID. So it's not fine because you only have 3mil total into tanks? Doesn't make much sense.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star. EoN.
2319
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 12:31:00 -
[40] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Taka I can't begin to describe to you how uneducated your responses are. I know your stance, I've seen a lot of posts you have made, and they are ALWAYS the same. Use some damn sense man. For example.
I ask, why is speed fine? You respond because it has an engine. REALLY! I did not know that, so all engines make things go fast. I feel SOOO enlightened. I can forget about generators, or tug boat engines, or any other engine that is meant for anything other than propulsion. Jesus, really???
Hardeners, your response : They are fine, i cant fit boosters/extenders/speed mods/dmg mods, its means i cant speed away as fast, it means if 2 FG work together to **** me i cant boost back shield etc etc etc. DO YOU TANK. Hardeners are the ONLY thing you want to use on your tank, with a damage mod OR a booster. Extenders are broken and useless in comparison to hardeners. The reason hardeners are used over the other types, because they are currently part of what makes tanks OP.
I asked about rails and you respond: Its long range high dmg like a sniper and generally useless in cqc and short range. Again I ask, do you even tank. Any good tanker knows, that rails work well at long range AND cqc to mid range. Add in a gunnlogi to the mix, and you can speed up turret tracking, turning your tank in the same direction you turn your turret. It works so well with a gunnlogi, because they are AGILE.
About missile turrets, you respond, all turrets are situational. Yeah, good job you are right. None though are as situational as missile turrets. Lol.
Tanks are not on equal ground in any situation, thus it's flawed before you can begin, you say. I ask AGAIN do you tank? I can't begin to count the number of times I have squared off on equal ground. You can't pretend that it doesn't happen. Those situations I described, those events actually happened. I don't make **** up fella, I speak from experience.
Speed is fine tho, i dont have a problem with it when im tanking or using AV, how is it a problem? i can see it being a problem for those AV players who stay in 1 spot all game and expect to get the tank on the 1st shot, if anything chances are webs maybe added in some form to counter the speed - long term things not just speed is OP gibberish like you spout out
Hardeners are fine, i can use 3 if i want to but i dont have a booster to rep back shield, i dont get extra shield because no extender, i cant get a speed boost because no speed mod. Hardeners are not OP, stop shooting at a shiny tank unless you have a rail or a FG
Rails are fine, so what if the pilot uses a gunlogi to solve the slow turring problem thats smart thing to do but for more agility you give up gun depression
Missiles are fine
If you square off on equal ground with an enemy tanker then you must be pretty ******* bad, rule 1 engage on your terms
Tbh i dont even think you tank since your that ******* bad
Intelligence is OP
|
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
494
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 13:05:00 -
[41] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Taka I can't begin to describe to you how uneducated your responses are. I know your stance, I've seen a lot of posts you have made, and they are ALWAYS the same. Use some damn sense man. For example.
I ask, why is speed fine? You respond because it has an engine. REALLY! I did not know that, so all engines make things go fast. I feel SOOO enlightened. I can forget about generators, or tug boat engines, or any other engine that is meant for anything other than propulsion. Jesus, really???
Hardeners, your response : They are fine, i cant fit boosters/extenders/speed mods/dmg mods, its means i cant speed away as fast, it means if 2 FG work together to **** me i cant boost back shield etc etc etc. DO YOU TANK. Hardeners are the ONLY thing you want to use on your tank, with a damage mod OR a booster. Extenders are broken and useless in comparison to hardeners. The reason hardeners are used over the other types, because they are currently part of what makes tanks OP.
I asked about rails and you respond: Its long range high dmg like a sniper and generally useless in cqc and short range. Again I ask, do you even tank. Any good tanker knows, that rails work well at long range AND cqc to mid range. Add in a gunnlogi to the mix, and you can speed up turret tracking, turning your tank in the same direction you turn your turret. It works so well with a gunnlogi, because they are AGILE.
About missile turrets, you respond, all turrets are situational. Yeah, good job you are right. None though are as situational as missile turrets. Lol.
Tanks are not on equal ground in any situation, thus it's flawed before you can begin, you say. I ask AGAIN do you tank? I can't begin to count the number of times I have squared off on equal ground. You can't pretend that it doesn't happen. Those situations I described, those events actually happened. I don't make **** up fella, I speak from experience. Speed is fine tho, i dont have a problem with it when im tanking or using AV, how is it a problem? i can see it being a problem for those AV players who stay in 1 spot all game and expect to get the tank on the 1st shot, if anything chances are webs maybe added in some form to counter the speed - long term things not just speed is OP gibberish like you spout out Hardeners are fine, i can use 3 if i want to but i dont have a booster to rep back shield, i dont get extra shield because no extender, i cant get a speed boost because no speed mod. Hardeners are not OP, stop shooting at a shiny tank unless you have a rail or a FG Rails are fine, so what if the pilot uses a gunlogi to solve the slow turring problem thats smart thing to do but for more agility you give up gun depression Missiles are fine If you square off on equal ground with an enemy tanker then you must be pretty ******* bad, rule 1 engage on your terms Tbh i dont even think you tank since your that ******* bad
Umm, I know I shouldn't but...
Do you tank? It is IMPOSSIBLE to ALWAYS engage on your terms. But that wasn't the point, the point is, a tanker should know that a direct engagement can go either way, so tactics are something they use to gain an advantage over the opponent. But if the 2 should be face to face, and they start firing at the same time, balance demands they would drop at the same time.
That is balance
Tanks are OP, and they will be dramatically changing them Taka. All the good tankers have accepted that fact already, and understand that changes to their tanks are needed to keep this game going as a whole.
Enjoy you OP tank (which to you is just fine, imagine that) while it lasts.
Nuff Said
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star. EoN.
2322
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 13:21:00 -
[42] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Taka I can't begin to describe to you how uneducated your responses are. I know your stance, I've seen a lot of posts you have made, and they are ALWAYS the same. Use some damn sense man. For example.
I ask, why is speed fine? You respond because it has an engine. REALLY! I did not know that, so all engines make things go fast. I feel SOOO enlightened. I can forget about generators, or tug boat engines, or any other engine that is meant for anything other than propulsion. Jesus, really???
Hardeners, your response : They are fine, i cant fit boosters/extenders/speed mods/dmg mods, its means i cant speed away as fast, it means if 2 FG work together to **** me i cant boost back shield etc etc etc. DO YOU TANK. Hardeners are the ONLY thing you want to use on your tank, with a damage mod OR a booster. Extenders are broken and useless in comparison to hardeners. The reason hardeners are used over the other types, because they are currently part of what makes tanks OP.
I asked about rails and you respond: Its long range high dmg like a sniper and generally useless in cqc and short range. Again I ask, do you even tank. Any good tanker knows, that rails work well at long range AND cqc to mid range. Add in a gunnlogi to the mix, and you can speed up turret tracking, turning your tank in the same direction you turn your turret. It works so well with a gunnlogi, because they are AGILE.
About missile turrets, you respond, all turrets are situational. Yeah, good job you are right. None though are as situational as missile turrets. Lol.
Tanks are not on equal ground in any situation, thus it's flawed before you can begin, you say. I ask AGAIN do you tank? I can't begin to count the number of times I have squared off on equal ground. You can't pretend that it doesn't happen. Those situations I described, those events actually happened. I don't make **** up fella, I speak from experience. Speed is fine tho, i dont have a problem with it when im tanking or using AV, how is it a problem? i can see it being a problem for those AV players who stay in 1 spot all game and expect to get the tank on the 1st shot, if anything chances are webs maybe added in some form to counter the speed - long term things not just speed is OP gibberish like you spout out Hardeners are fine, i can use 3 if i want to but i dont have a booster to rep back shield, i dont get extra shield because no extender, i cant get a speed boost because no speed mod. Hardeners are not OP, stop shooting at a shiny tank unless you have a rail or a FG Rails are fine, so what if the pilot uses a gunlogi to solve the slow turring problem thats smart thing to do but for more agility you give up gun depression Missiles are fine If you square off on equal ground with an enemy tanker then you must be pretty ******* bad, rule 1 engage on your terms Tbh i dont even think you tank since your that ******* bad Umm, I know I shouldn't but... Do you tank? It is IMPOSSIBLE to ALWAYS engage on your terms. But that wasn't the point, the point is, a tanker should know that a direct engagement can go either way, so tactics are something they use to gain an advantage over the opponent. But if the 2 should be face to face, and they start firing at the same time, balance demands they would drop at the same time. That is balance Tanks are OP, and they will be dramatically changing them Taka. All the good tankers have accepted that fact already, and understand that changes to their tanks are needed to keep this game going as a whole. Enjoy you OP tank (which to you is just fine, imagine that) while it lasts.
Impossible for you because you are a bad pilot
lolface to face, what is this pistols at dawn 50m away from each other? lolno
Dramatically changing them i doubt it, they already did a massive overhaul
OP for bad players, i dont have problems with tanks as infantry
Intelligence is OP
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star. EoN.
1704
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 13:42:00 -
[43] - Quote
They've already dramatically changed tanks. Why would they do it again because infantry didn't like it the first time?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Sextus Hardcock
0uter.Heaven Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
239
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 13:44:00 -
[44] - Quote
"The infantry is the Queen of battle, armour is a chastity belt so she doesn't get raped"
Yes tanks should have to use gunners on small turrets to effectively engage infantry. That would eliminate 90% of infantry players realistic gripes. Not talking about (waah I have a swarm launcher I should be able to kill all tanks) just the silliness of an invicible man-eating metal monster strolling across the battlefield melting all in its path.
I am the sixth son
Chrome Vet
|
Sextus Hardcock
0uter.Heaven Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
239
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 13:46:00 -
[45] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:They've already dramatically changed tanks. Why would they do it again because infantry didn't like it the first time?
lol I am curious to know if anyone at all takes you seriously or has any interest in your opinions. You're simply 100% biased for tanks, with no interest in balance, playability etc etc...
Please point on the doll where the bad infantryman touched you.
I am the sixth son
Chrome Vet
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
496
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 13:48:00 -
[46] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:They've already dramatically changed tanks. Why would they do it again because infantry didn't like it the first time?
They did dramatically change tanks, but they are FAR from finished. As CCP stated themselves, they stripped tanks to nothing but the "bare essentials" to remove the "noise" so they could focus on the balance issues.
These are suggestions on how they can go about adding in new turret types. We had turret types before, and multiple modules that performed different functions.
These are very BASE tanks, and very far from the finished product. I think people really forget what it was CCP stated they intended to do with tanks.
Nuff Said
|
Foundation Seldon
Molon Labe. Public Disorder.
401
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 19:51:00 -
[47] - Quote
Fantastic post, and one I'm very much a supporter of. The idea of making Large Turrets in particular focused around anti-vehicle/installation while making Small Turrets the infantry-killers in order to encourage teamwork within a tank is a particularly compelling one and something that may actually catch some fire given that you're still allowing control of the Large Turret to the vehicle operator.
Rail Tanks are most certainly a problem, I liken them to a shotgun with 600m range, far too powerful given the ability to stay safe in the redline and make use of multiple 30% damage mods and their effectiveness is in no way decreased at shorter ranges. It's sort of a multifaceted problem in that way, I almost feel like the damage mods as a whole should tier something like how infantry damage mods work in a 15%->25%->30% sort of progression but that's something that would only really effect the lower tier tanks and not the people that would actually spec into them. But it's partly the fault of the redline mechanics as well.
It was an absolute pleasure to read through this post, ignore the illiterates that ask you to tl;dr it. This is a post worth reading in its entirety.
Make sure to post it in Feedback/Requests as well!
Saga v. Methana Balance
|
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation
5543
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 20:03:00 -
[48] - Quote
Wanna "fix" tanks?
One module group allowed per fitting. No triple hardened Gunnlogi's, no triple rep Madrugars. It would still keep tanks powerful, but also bring them closer to the "waves of opportunity" model CCP wanted, rather than perma-bricks.
Of course, this would have to be coupled with the introduction of new modules, because right now we have a very limited selection and everyone would be running the same fits with very little variance.
Never forget
May 14, 2013: Beta 2.0
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
505
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 20:22:00 -
[49] - Quote
Foundation Seldon wrote:Fantastic post, and one I'm very much a supporter of. The idea of making Large Turrets in particular focused around anti-vehicle/installation while making Small Turrets the infantry-killers in order to encourage teamwork within a tank is a particularly compelling one and something that may actually catch some fire given that you're still allowing control of the Large Turret to the vehicle operator.
Rail Tanks are most certainly a problem, I liken them to a shotgun with 600m range, far too powerful given the ability to stay safe in the redline and make use of multiple 30% damage mods and their effectiveness is in no way decreased at shorter ranges. It's sort of a multifaceted problem in that way, I almost feel like the damage mods as a whole should tier something like how infantry damage mods work in a 15%->25%->30% sort of progression but that's something that would only really effect the lower tier tanks and not the people that would actually spec into them. But it's partly the fault of the redline mechanics as well.
It was an absolute pleasure to read through this post, ignore the illiterates that ask you to tl;dr it. This is a post worth reading in its entirety.
Make sure to post it in Feedback/Requests as well!
Thanks much, I've spent a lot of time writing out what I've got, and there is still more to come, like balancing modules.
What if the damage mod, gave a negative as well as a positive. 30% more damage, 30% less resistance.
Nuff Said
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
505
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 23:01:00 -
[50] - Quote
TheAmazing FlyingPig wrote:Wanna "fix" tanks?
One module group allowed per fitting. No triple hardened Gunnlogi's, no triple rep Madrugars. It would still keep tanks powerful, but also bring them closer to the "waves of opportunity" model CCP wanted, rather than perma-bricks.
Of course, this would have to be coupled with the introduction of new modules, because right now we have a very limited selection and everyone would be running the same fits with very little variance.
I think, hardeners are not the BIGGEST problem. Right now you are absolutely right, selection is limited, and there is no variance in the fits.
That is because, CCP isn't finished with tanks. They stripped that variety with intent to add things back in later. It's not that a gunnlogi shouldn't use triple hardeners, it's the fact you can run them non stop.
I'm wondering, how could you go about allowing a ultra high resistance, for an extended time. What negatives are associated with that.
Maybe they could add in a penalty for stacking hardeners, that every mod after the first increases your cooldown time on all modules. So stacking 3 hardeners means you won't be cycling them nonstop.
Whata ya think of that?
Nuff Said
|
|
Skihids
Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising
2775
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 23:39:00 -
[51] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:gbh08 wrote:I've not read the whole thread yet, i will, im just going to point out
"So basically, with max skills you can activate the second hardeners 15 seconds into the duration of the first, and maintain hardeners non stop. So a maxed tanker can essentially negate any amount of downtime needed. "
That that ^ isnt true, unless you run 3 hardners, im not saying hardeners are acceptable as they are, there not, but with max skills theres a 5-6 second window with no hardeners, and again, im not saying thats cool, its far too short, but yeah, your wrong My math, Proto hardeners have a cooldown of 24 seconds. The skills at max gives you 25% to cooldown and uptime. So .25 * 24seconds = 6 + 24 = 30 seconds Downtime is 60 seconds, so 60 * .25 = 15, 60 - 15 = 45 seconds So I admit, I no doubt made a false statement. Total up time is 30 seconds per one mod and 45 seconds down Assuming we use them one at a time, there is an overlap. Individually no, grouped yes. So 15 seconds into the second mod, assuming you are using 2 hardeners, you can activate the the first mod again. So, with max skills, you can maintain at least one hardener most all of the time. The point though, is that hardeners last WAY TOO LONG. That's a full minute of uptime with 2 hardeners cycled, and before the second wears off, the first is cooldown, but after this inital cycle there will be a few seconds of down time. But not until after a full minute and a half though cycling hardeners. The point with 3 hardeners, is to maintain 2 when needed, at least one all the time. With skills this would be much easier, but I would think of a less SP invested tanker going this route, rather than one with the skills.
You are making the mistake of assuming your first hardener starts cooling down as soon as it is activated.
15 seconds into the second mod your first still has 30 seconds to go on cool down.
30 seconds in your second mod goes into cool down and your first still has 15 seconds to go before it's ready to be activated again. There is no overlap until you add a third and your first has two active periods for its cool down. At that point you can probably do it with advanced mods rather than proto. |
The legend345
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
4385
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 23:51:00 -
[52] - Quote
You can't be a strong heavy hitter without trading something off for it.
Da fack are you talking about. Strong hitting against what? Shooting gunlogis is like throwing peas at a wall in a maddy. The only thing it can hit hard is infantry.
GôÉGô¥GôÿGô£Gôö > GôÉGô¢Gô¢
Gÿà¿When will dust get better?Gÿà
Uprising God of Tanking Oculus Rift
|
The legend345
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
4385
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 23:53:00 -
[53] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:So basically, with max skills you can activate the second hardeners after first, and maintain hardeners nearly non stop. So a maxed tanker can essentially negate any amount of downtime needed. While still a bit of downtime, this isn't until after at least a minute and a half. In the gunnlogis case, downtime should be a huge issue as a trade off for such high resistances. What I think is needed though, is lower the resistance slightly, reduce duration to account for skills. And add in a speed bump, to compensate for the lower resistances. Place more emphasis on actually using hit and run tactics, while placing less emphasis on the absolute need for hardeners. It seems forgotten, that damage mitigation means so much more than simply taking damage. Maddies on the other hand, are more focused on receiving damage, but rather than having high resistances, they have lower resist that last longer, but a constant rep to their armor. The reps helps to mitigate the loss of a higher overall resistance. Man are these things tough too. In all honesty, I don't have too experience to go too far into details on armor tanks.
What I can say though, is with 2 hardeners up and active, these things are beastly. Still, I would still rather go up against a maddie than a gunnlogi. At least these things are killable with hardeners active. I feel that armor hardeners are in a pretty solid place coupled with armor repairers. They do the job they were designed to do, Stand and Deliver. But I think to complete that idea, speed is going to need to take a hit. You can't be a strong heavy hitter without trading something off for it. If damage mitigation is focused on taking damage, reduce speed to compensate. I always imagined the maddie being the slow lumbering giant, and gunnlogi the small and nimble fox. While the Giant can easily crush the Fox, he's got to actually hit the thing first. And the Fox has to work down his opponent, little pieces at a time. Turrets and Damage Mods Namely rail turrets. When you think about killing another tank, Rails are always the first thought. It is the BEST weapon for the job. Using just one damage mod and a proto rail, you can drop anything in just a few shots. Often times before they can drop hardeners on. But some would argue, "well that's what they are intended for". I say for the sake of balance, that train of thought is wrong. Rails I mentioned earlier that in order to gain an advantage, you must lose an advantage somewhere for the sake of balance. You can't have it all. A railgun currently has it all. Highest Alpha damage in the gameLongest rangeSo of all the turrets, not only can it pump out more Alpha dps, it can do so from 600M away. You could say that because of the slower turning turret it doesn't do well in CQC, because it can't track as quickly. While this is true, it only holds true if the other tank maintains a tight position on the rail turret, but at this point it is fighting it's own tracking as well. Outside of this extremely close range though, a rail turret struggles far less with tracking. I use rails in all engagements, whether it be in your face or at a distance, the reason I always use them is because they work at range and up close. Much unlike blasters and missiles that require you to always maintain a close distance. With a rail, I can easily outdistance my opponents or simply stay out of effective range and pummel my enemy to death. Rails need a trade off, and tracking isn't it. If you want High Alpha, you have less effective range. Or you can have lower Alpha damage, and more effective range. All and all, a rail tank should not be the one turret that murders all other types. That is not balance. Each turret should be nearly effective as the next turret, the differences being in how they are used in comparison to the others.Let's take for example a rail, with High Alpha but say a range of 300 meters max. It forces a rail tank to engage the other turret types very close to their max effective ranges. No more bombarding from a high area half way across the map. It would push them into an area, in which they can easily be engaged, but they still have a high alpha to counter the loss of range. Not to mention the fact that a long range, and a high elevation, severely limits the places a tank can take cover from rails. Forcing them closer, forces them to interact more with the terrain around them, IE blocked shots and limiting avenues of attack. Railguns SHOULD NOT BE THE END ALL to tanks, they should be balanced accordingly with Blaster and Missiles. I'll quote this just because i needs to be noticed. So i will make you all scroll over it lol
GôÉGô¥GôÿGô£Gôö > GôÉGô¢Gô¢
Gÿà¿When will dust get better?Gÿà
Uprising God of Tanking Oculus Rift
|
The legend345
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
4385
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 23:55:00 -
[54] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Im going to go ahead and state this now, missiles should have variations, same as the other turret types, that define the role they will fulfill. First, let me restate my mantra, You can't gain in an area without losing in another, if your goal is balance. So for example the railgun, I think a lot of people have forgotten that at one time we had different turret types. I know I have. But back then, they did not have clear defined roles. You knew compressed meant heavy damage, so that is what you wanted. Or scattered was the blasters. The other types really did nothing but serve as filler. Lets take an example of what I'm saying here. Let's take a few railguns. One does 2000 dmg a shot, but the range is limited to 250m
The other has a range of 600M but the damage is reduced to 1000
Another does 2500 dmg a shot, but the heat cost is high, and spool up time long. Small ammo clip
Another has a lower heat cost, shot spool, and a large clip, but damage is severely reduced 650 a shot
See how that works, if you gain in one area, you must lose in another. This not only holds true for turrets but for modules as well. It's no wonder it's hard to balance, they are trying to do it with CPU/PG. Time for some out of the box thinking. Let's take the damage mod for example, the only thing it provides is a bonus. 30% straight up for a set duration with a set cooldown. Well the way it is now, balance is attempted with cooldowns and uptimes, as well as CPU/PG. I think it can be easier than that. If you want 30% extra dmg, you lose 15% resistance. Or if you want 30% resistance, you lose 15% to dps. Ok, now let's talk blasters for a moment, the bane of all infantry. Blasters Are awesome at killing infantry. They are essentially, an AR, just on a much larger scale. And the "suit" they are attached to seems nearly invincible. To small arms fire it is at least. I've seen a lot of grief against tanks, blasters maybe one of the biggest issues. See everyone would be fine with tank durability if tanks weren't controlling the battles. I know tankers argue that it SHOULD require more than one infantry to take their big bad scary tank out, but I don't see this as true. But I also don't see the converse of that statement as true. I think, infantry and tanks need to interact with one another far less, at least directly. Or I could say, large turrets are vehicle focused while small turrets are infantry focused. Get where I'm going with this? So you want it to take more than one person to drop your tank, cool I got a solution for that. To drop infantry, a tanker must have the support of a gunner, whose role is to kill infantry. So if a tank wants to drop some infantry, it's going to require more than one person. Blasters are maybe the only turret that something needs to be done to, to move in this direction. They are very infantry focused, when they should be tank focused. I've seen a lot of good idea's out there, increasing dispersion and reducing rate of fire are a few I've seen that are great ideas. I really hope, CCP chooses to go this route, rather than attempting to balance a tank with infantry. Either the tank will be too squishy, or too OP. We have already seen both kinds, Op in the current build, and squishy in past builds. This isn't to say that there can't be a variation of the large blaster that is more effective for killing infantry. But in this type, damage would be severely hampered, rendering you dead against another tank. I mean the possibilities here are ENDLESS! No
GôÉGô¥GôÿGô£Gôö > GôÉGô¢Gô¢
Gÿà¿When will dust get better?Gÿà
Uprising God of Tanking Oculus Rift
|
Knight Soiaire
Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention
4812
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 23:56:00 -
[55] - Quote
Rail turrets can kill in 3-4, and sometimes even two shots, so it should overheat in 3-4 Shots, and it needs a nerf to magazine capacity.
Fatal Absolution Operation - LVL 5
Fatal Absolution Pro. - LVL 5
FOTM Abuser, outta mah way Nyain San!
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
507
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 00:11:00 -
[56] - Quote
Skihids wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:gbh08 wrote:I've not read the whole thread yet, i will, im just going to point out
"So basically, with max skills you can activate the second hardeners 15 seconds into the duration of the first, and maintain hardeners non stop. So a maxed tanker can essentially negate any amount of downtime needed. "
That that ^ isnt true, unless you run 3 hardners, im not saying hardeners are acceptable as they are, there not, but with max skills theres a 5-6 second window with no hardeners, and again, im not saying thats cool, its far too short, but yeah, your wrong My math, Proto hardeners have a cooldown of 24 seconds. The skills at max gives you 25% to cooldown and uptime. So .25 * 24seconds = 6 + 24 = 30 seconds Downtime is 60 seconds, so 60 * .25 = 15, 60 - 15 = 45 seconds So I admit, I no doubt made a false statement. Total up time is 30 seconds per one mod and 45 seconds down Assuming we use them one at a time, there is an overlap. Individually no, grouped yes. So 15 seconds into the second mod, assuming you are using 2 hardeners, you can activate the the first mod again. So, with max skills, you can maintain at least one hardener most all of the time. The point though, is that hardeners last WAY TOO LONG. That's a full minute of uptime with 2 hardeners cycled, and before the second wears off, the first is cooldown, but after this inital cycle there will be a few seconds of down time. But not until after a full minute and a half though cycling hardeners. The point with 3 hardeners, is to maintain 2 when needed, at least one all the time. With skills this would be much easier, but I would think of a less SP invested tanker going this route, rather than one with the skills. You are making the mistake of assuming your first hardener starts cooling down as soon as it is activated. 15 seconds into the second mod your first still has 30 seconds to go on cool down. 30 seconds in your second mod goes into cool down and your first still has 15 seconds to go before it's ready to be activated again. There is no overlap until you add a third and your first has two active periods for its cool down. At that point you can probably do it with advanced mods rather than proto.
Yes, I was thinking about this today, and intend to fix it.
What I should say, is you get a full minute of uptime cycling 2 hardeners, and only 15 seconds of down time. That is what I should have said. With 3 there is no downtime cycling. And even popping 2, which will resist most everything, you always have one to fall back on, and 15 seconds later, you got your 2 back online.
Nuff Said
|
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
143
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 13:45:00 -
[57] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:So a maxed tanker can essentially negate any amount of downtime needed. While still a bit of downtime, this isn't until after at least a minute and a half. While with 2 hardeners there will be about 15 seconds of downtime, this is after a full minute of uptime. In the gunnlogis case, downtime should be a huge issue as a trade off for such high resistances. What I think is needed though, is lower the resistance slightly, reduce duration to account for skills. And add in a speed bump, to compensate for the lower resistances. Place more emphasis on actually using hit and run tactics, while placing less emphasis on the absolute need for hardeners. It seems forgotten, that damage mitigation means so much more than simply taking damage. What I would suggest for hardeners though, is to add a stacking penalty in. Where any mod after the first, increases cooldown time. So stacking 3 will not mean you can cycle them non stop. Maddies on the other hand, are more focused on receiving damage, but rather than having high resistances, they have lower resist that last longer, but a constant rep to their armor. The reps helps to mitigate the loss of a higher overall resistance. Man are these things tough too. In all honesty, I don't have too experience to go too far into details on armor tanks.
What I can say though, is with 2 hardeners up and active, these things are beastly. Still, I would still rather go up against a maddie than a gunnlogi. At least these things are killable with hardeners active. I feel that armor hardeners are in a pretty solid place coupled with armor repairers. They do the job they were designed to do, Stand and Deliver. But I think to complete that idea, speed is going to need to take a hit. You can't be a strong heavy hitter without trading something off for it. If damage mitigation is focused on taking damage, reduce speed to compensate. I always imagined the maddie being the slow lumbering giant, and gunnlogi the small and nimble fox. While the Giant can easily crush the Fox, he's got to actually hit the thing first. And the Fox has to work down his opponent, little pieces at a time. Turrets and Damage Mods Namely rail turrets. When you think about killing another tank, Rails are always the first thought. It is the BEST weapon for the job. Using just one damage mod and a proto rail, you can drop anything in just a few shots. Often times before they can drop hardeners on. But some would argue, "well that's what they are intended for". I say for the sake of balance, that train of thought is wrong. Rails I mentioned earlier that in order to gain an advantage, you must lose an advantage somewhere for the sake of balance. You can't have it all. A railgun currently has it all. Highest Alpha damage in the gameLongest rangeSo of all the turrets, not only can it pump out more Alpha dps, it can do so from 600M away. You could say that because of the slower turning turret it doesn't do well in CQC, because it can't track as quickly. While this is true, it only holds true if the other tank maintains a tight position on the rail turret, but at this point it is fighting it's own tracking as well. Outside of this extremely close range though, a rail turret struggles far less with tracking. I use rails in all engagements, whether it be in your face or at a distance, the reason I always use them is because they work at range and up close. Much unlike blasters and missiles that require you to always maintain a close distance. With a rail, I can easily outdistance my opponents or simply stay out of effective range and pummel my enemy to death. Rails need a trade off, and tracking isn't it. If you want High Alpha, you have less effective range. Or you can have lower Alpha damage, and more effective range. All and all, a rail tank should not be the one turret that murders all other types. That is not balance. Each turret should be nearly effective as the next turret, the differences being in how they are used in comparison to the others.Let's take for example a rail, with High Alpha but say a range of 300 meters max. It forces a rail tank to engage the other turret types very close to their max effective ranges. No more bombarding from a high area half way across the map. It would push them into an area, in which they can easily be engaged, but they still have a high alpha to. ok I'm gonna start here I agree that maddie's should be slow but they are only fast when they pick up speed they have high top speed but slow accel while gunnlogi has high accel but low top speed and your right for the most part on the maddies fittings however I feel you don't need 2 hardners hell I have trouble fitting my tank when it's like that instead do this
1x complex hardner 1x complex heavy armor rep 1x cpu upgrade 1x enhanced scanner 1x fuel injector and your proto railgun
this is my current maddie which is built to take on vehicles while also able to get a quick accel which is basicly what the fuel injector does is incease accel speed and the scanner to help infantry find and kill nearby infantry now onto the rails yes they are powerful which is why I think they shouldn't have dmg mods but ya know thats how I feel and having differen't types does sound intresting I would also agree that range can be a bit much if you took out the damage mods for railguns it would make red line tanking with a railgun less desired and lowering the range to around 400m-450m would be more reasonable this would make it more balanced since as it stands the railgun isn't overpowering when it doesn't have a dmg mod I think the dmg mods normally over powers it and honestly I say just limit hardners to 1 per tank makes it a little more tactical for tanks and gives infantry alot more breathing room |
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
143
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 13:49:00 -
[58] - Quote
Knight Soiaire wrote:Rail turrets can kill in 3-4, and sometimes even two shots, so it should overheat in 3-4 Shots, and it needs a nerf to magazine capacity. only if it hits a tank that has no hardner if that tank was a madd with a hardner on and I mean only 1 hardner it would take around 5-7 shots with a proto railgun to kill him unless you had a damage mod or 2 on your tank |
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
143
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 13:57:00 -
[59] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:TheAmazing FlyingPig wrote:Wanna "fix" tanks?
One module group allowed per fitting. No triple hardened Gunnlogi's, no triple rep Madrugars. It would still keep tanks powerful, but also bring them closer to the "waves of opportunity" model CCP wanted, rather than perma-bricks.
Of course, this would have to be coupled with the introduction of new modules, because right now we have a very limited selection and everyone would be running the same fits with very little variance. I think, hardeners are not the BIGGEST problem. Right now you are absolutely right, selection is limited, and there is no variance in the fits. That is because, CCP isn't finished with tanks. They stripped that variety with intent to add things back in later. It's not that a gunnlogi shouldn't use triple hardeners, it's the fact you can run them non stop. I'm wondering, how could you go about allowing a ultra high resistance, for an extended time. What negatives are associated with that. Maybe they could add in a penalty for stacking hardeners, that every mod after the first increases your cooldown time on all modules. So stacking 3 hardeners means you won't be cycling them nonstop.Whata ya think of that? The hardners do have a stacking penalty but the issue is the penalty isn't high enough and if you think about it shield hardners are 60% resistance I really don't think they should be allowed 2 hardners on at the same time regaurdless of the penalty simply because thats high enough for them and same thing to the 40% that the maddie has since as a maddie you always have a passive rep going non stop |
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
143
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 14:07:00 -
[60] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Taka I can't begin to describe to you how uneducated your responses are. I know your stance, I've seen a lot of posts you have made, and they are ALWAYS the same. Use some damn sense man. For example.
I ask, why is speed fine? You respond because it has an engine. REALLY! I did not know that, so all engines make things go fast. I feel SOOO enlightened. I can forget about generators, or tug boat engines, or any other engine that is meant for anything other than propulsion. Jesus, really???
Hardeners, your response : They are fine, i cant fit boosters/extenders/speed mods/dmg mods, its means i cant speed away as fast, it means if 2 FG work together to **** me i cant boost back shield etc etc etc. DO YOU TANK. Hardeners are the ONLY thing you want to use on your tank, with a damage mod OR a booster. Extenders are broken and useless in comparison to hardeners. The reason hardeners are used over the other types, because they are currently part of what makes tanks OP.
I asked about rails and you respond: Its long range high dmg like a sniper and generally useless in cqc and short range. Again I ask, do you even tank. Any good tanker knows, that rails work well at long range AND cqc to mid range. Add in a gunnlogi to the mix, and you can speed up turret tracking, turning your tank in the same direction you turn your turret. It works so well with a gunnlogi, because they are AGILE.
About missile turrets, you respond, all turrets are situational. Yeah, good job you are right. None though are as situational as missile turrets. Lol.
Tanks are not on equal ground in any situation, thus it's flawed before you can begin, you say. I ask AGAIN do you tank? I can't begin to count the number of times I have squared off on equal ground. You can't pretend that it doesn't happen. Those situations I described, those events actually happened. I don't make **** up fella, I speak from experience. Speed is fine tho, i dont have a problem with it when im tanking or using AV, how is it a problem? i can see it being a problem for those AV players who stay in 1 spot all game and expect to get the tank on the 1st shot, if anything chances are webs maybe added in some form to counter the speed - long term things not just speed is OP gibberish like you spout out Hardeners are fine, i can use 3 if i want to but i dont have a booster to rep back shield, i dont get extra shield because no extender, i cant get a speed boost because no speed mod. Hardeners are not OP, stop shooting at a shiny tank unless you have a rail or a FG Rails are fine, so what if the pilot uses a gunlogi to solve the slow turring problem thats smart thing to do but for more agility you give up gun depression Missiles are fine If you square off on equal ground with an enemy tanker then you must be pretty ******* bad, rule 1 engage on your terms Tbh i dont even think you tank since your that ******* bad Umm, I know I shouldn't but... Do you tank? It is IMPOSSIBLE to ALWAYS engage on your terms. But that wasn't the point, the point is, a tanker should know that a direct engagement can go either way, so tactics are something they use to gain an advantage over the opponent. But if the 2 should be face to face, and they start firing at the same time, balance demands they would drop at the same time. That is balance Tanks are OP, and they will be dramatically changing them Taka. All the good tankers have accepted that fact already, and understand that changes to their tanks are needed to keep this game going as a whole. Enjoy you OP tank (which to you is just fine, imagine that) while it lasts. Impossible for you because you are a bad pilot lolface to face, what is this pistols at dawn 50m away from each other? lolno Dramatically changing them i doubt it, they already did a massive overhaul OP for bad players, i dont have problems with tanks as infantry you seem to be forgetting that these are the basic form of tanks right now and we are trying to help CCP find the path thats best |
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
507
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 14:38:00 -
[61] - Quote
Tailss Prower wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:TheAmazing FlyingPig wrote:Wanna "fix" tanks?
One module group allowed per fitting. No triple hardened Gunnlogi's, no triple rep Madrugars. It would still keep tanks powerful, but also bring them closer to the "waves of opportunity" model CCP wanted, rather than perma-bricks.
Of course, this would have to be coupled with the introduction of new modules, because right now we have a very limited selection and everyone would be running the same fits with very little variance. I think, hardeners are not the BIGGEST problem. Right now you are absolutely right, selection is limited, and there is no variance in the fits. That is because, CCP isn't finished with tanks. They stripped that variety with intent to add things back in later. It's not that a gunnlogi shouldn't use triple hardeners, it's the fact you can run them non stop. I'm wondering, how could you go about allowing a ultra high resistance, for an extended time. What negatives are associated with that. Maybe they could add in a penalty for stacking hardeners, that every mod after the first increases your cooldown time on all modules. So stacking 3 hardeners means you won't be cycling them nonstop.Whata ya think of that? The hardners do have a stacking penalty but the issue is the penalty isn't high enough and if you think about it shield hardners are 60% resistance I really don't think they should be allowed 2 hardners on at the same time regaurdless of the penalty simply because thats high enough for them and same thing to the 40% that the maddie has since as a maddie you always have a passive rep going non stop
Well, if you think about it, with 2 hardeners on at the same time, they only have 30 seconds before they go into CD(gunnlogi). With a stacking penalty that increases CD time, they trade the extra defense for extra downtime.
Nuff Said
|
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
143
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 14:57:00 -
[62] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Tailss Prower wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:TheAmazing FlyingPig wrote:Wanna "fix" tanks?
One module group allowed per fitting. No triple hardened Gunnlogi's, no triple rep Madrugars. It would still keep tanks powerful, but also bring them closer to the "waves of opportunity" model CCP wanted, rather than perma-bricks.
Of course, this would have to be coupled with the introduction of new modules, because right now we have a very limited selection and everyone would be running the same fits with very little variance. I think, hardeners are not the BIGGEST problem. Right now you are absolutely right, selection is limited, and there is no variance in the fits. That is because, CCP isn't finished with tanks. They stripped that variety with intent to add things back in later. It's not that a gunnlogi shouldn't use triple hardeners, it's the fact you can run them non stop. I'm wondering, how could you go about allowing a ultra high resistance, for an extended time. What negatives are associated with that. Maybe they could add in a penalty for stacking hardeners, that every mod after the first increases your cooldown time on all modules. So stacking 3 hardeners means you won't be cycling them nonstop.Whata ya think of that? The hardners do have a stacking penalty but the issue is the penalty isn't high enough and if you think about it shield hardners are 60% resistance I really don't think they should be allowed 2 hardners on at the same time regaurdless of the penalty simply because thats high enough for them and same thing to the 40% that the maddie has since as a maddie you always have a passive rep going non stop Well, if you think about it, with 2 hardeners on at the same time, they only have 30 seconds before they go into CD(gunnlogi). With a stacking penalty that increases CD time, they trade the extra defense for extra downtime. yeah but I was jsut pointing it out and sometimes that extra defence is all they need |
trollface dot jpg
The Bacon Corporation
147
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 15:36:00 -
[63] - Quote
The 4 steps to tank balance:
Step 1. Stop hardner stacking. Simple enough, and a popular choice around here.
Step 2. Make hardners have drawback effects. Armor hardners, when activated, should slow your movement speed by 80%. Shield hardners should cancel all shield regeneration until the hardner goes off.
Step 3. Increase the strength AND duration of STD hardners by 3%, ADV hardners by 5% & PRO hardners by 10%
Step 4. Slight damage buff to light AV and 'nades (around 10% for light AV, around 5% for AV grenades) to compensate for repair stacking fits (to ensure AV weapons are capable of keeping up with the rep cycle)
Results: Tanks actually have waves of opportunity, militia hardners are trash compared to good hardners, hardners used intelligently are great but used poorly are worthless, and there are finally huge differences between shield and armor tanking besides just the fittings. Armor becomes "stand and deliver", shields become "hit and run" just like they were always meant to be.
RIP MAG, you will be missed.
MAG Vet ~ Raven
|
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
143
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 16:32:00 -
[64] - Quote
trollface dot jpg wrote:The 4 steps to tank balance:
Step 1. Stop hardner stacking. Simple enough, and a popular choice around here.
Step 2. Make hardners have drawback effects. Armor hardners, when activated, should slow your movement speed by 80%. Shield hardners should cancel all shield regeneration until the hardner goes off.
Step 3. Increase the strength AND duration of STD hardners by 3%, ADV hardners by 5% & PRO hardners by 10%
Step 4. Slight damage buff to light AV and 'nades (around 10% for light AV, around 5% for AV grenades) to compensate for repair stacking fits (to ensure AV weapons are capable of keeping up with the rep cycle)
Results: Tanks actually have waves of opportunity, militia hardners are trash compared to good hardners, hardners used intelligently are great but used poorly are worthless, and there are finally huge differences between shield and armor tanking besides just the fittings. Armor becomes "stand and deliver", shields become "hit and run" just like they were always meant to be. I would agree with all but teh movement speed simply because even now if I am hit when my hardner is off I might not survive and limiting my movement speed by 80% is both stupid and gamebreaking in it's own sense and buffing avv any with a 80% reduced speed is worse plus if I was moving 80% slower I wouldn't see AV I would see nothing but RE's because then it would be easy to stack those on a tank who can barely move but I mean av buff by only 10% without the hardner downside you mention would be fine same with everything else you said |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
507
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 16:37:00 -
[65] - Quote
Tailss Prower wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Tailss Prower wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:TheAmazing FlyingPig wrote:Wanna "fix" tanks?
One module group allowed per fitting. No triple hardened Gunnlogi's, no triple rep Madrugars. It would still keep tanks powerful, but also bring them closer to the "waves of opportunity" model CCP wanted, rather than perma-bricks.
Of course, this would have to be coupled with the introduction of new modules, because right now we have a very limited selection and everyone would be running the same fits with very little variance. I think, hardeners are not the BIGGEST problem. Right now you are absolutely right, selection is limited, and there is no variance in the fits. That is because, CCP isn't finished with tanks. They stripped that variety with intent to add things back in later. It's not that a gunnlogi shouldn't use triple hardeners, it's the fact you can run them non stop. I'm wondering, how could you go about allowing a ultra high resistance, for an extended time. What negatives are associated with that. Maybe they could add in a penalty for stacking hardeners, that every mod after the first increases your cooldown time on all modules. So stacking 3 hardeners means you won't be cycling them nonstop.Whata ya think of that? The hardners do have a stacking penalty but the issue is the penalty isn't high enough and if you think about it shield hardners are 60% resistance I really don't think they should be allowed 2 hardners on at the same time regaurdless of the penalty simply because thats high enough for them and same thing to the 40% that the maddie has since as a maddie you always have a passive rep going non stop Well, if you think about it, with 2 hardeners on at the same time, they only have 30 seconds before they go into CD(gunnlogi). With a stacking penalty that increases CD time, they trade the extra defense for extra downtime. yeah but I was jsut pointing it out and sometimes that extra defence is all they need
While this is true, I think they need that extra defense. What is wrong now, is that downtime is minimal when stacking past the first, and unlimited on the third.
It's not that they have TOO high of a defense, it's that they don't have enough downtime. A stacking penalty negates the benefits of stacking past a certain number.
You also need to keep in mind, Tanks are BARE right now. I really don't think balancing the current iteration of tanks is the way to go about it. I think adding in variety will be the biggest help to balance.
Nuff Said
|
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
146
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 21:25:00 -
[66] - Quote
I agree but there are people who use 2 shield hardners at one time or even 3 and I've seen my proto railgun do nothing to which alone would say to much resisitance if the strongest av gun in the game is doing so little to them it causes a problem since everything else can't even touch it
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
509
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 21:44:00 -
[67] - Quote
Tailss Prower wrote:I agree but there are people who use 2 shield hardners at one time or even 3 and I've seen my proto railgun do nothing to which alone would say to much resisitance if the strongest av gun in the game is doing so little to them it causes a problem since everything else can't even touch it
I can tell you for a fact, a proto railgun with a single damage mod, will very much hurt a double hardener setup. Without the hardener, I can 2 shot a gunnlogi, with 2 activated, it takes roughly 4 -7 shots to drop. It is NOT TOO much resistance.
I myself run this setup
Gunnlogi 2x Hardeners 1x Damage mod or Speed boost 1x Armor hardener or armor repair
Proto rails
Do you want to just 2 shot tanks with a rail? I want long, engaging combat. Not a system where everything dies in just a few seconds. I've had forge gunners, severely **** me up with a single hardener active. I know for a fact, from my experience, that a double hardener setup is NOT immune to a proto rail.
And did you read my post in its entirety? There are many things that can be done to hardeners, that suggestion was just my favorite.
My theme is balance, in order to gain in one area, you must lose in another
So to have 60% resistance we need to lose something in the process. Sure you can have that resistance, but let's say you lose overall damage in the process. So the mod would look something like this.
60% resistance at the cost of 15% overall damage. Want defense, then you trade offensive capabilities.
Nuff Said
|
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
146
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 22:13:00 -
[68] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Tailss Prower wrote:I agree but there are people who use 2 shield hardners at one time or even 3 and I've seen my proto railgun do nothing to which alone would say to much resisitance if the strongest av gun in the game is doing so little to them it causes a problem since everything else can't even touch it
I can tell you for a fact, a proto railgun with a single damage mod, will very much hurt a double hardener setup. Without the hardener, I can 2 shot a gunnlogi, with 2 activated, it takes roughly 4 -7 shots to drop. It is NOT TOO much resistance. I myself run this setup Gunnlogi2x Hardeners 1x Damage mod or Speed boost 1x Armor hardener or armor repair Proto rails Do you want to just 2 shot tanks with a rail? I want long, engaging combat. Not a system where everything dies in just a few seconds. I've had forge gunners, severely **** me up with a single hardener active. I know for a fact, from my experience, that a double hardener setup is NOT immune to a proto rail. And did you read my post in its entirety? There are many things that can be done to hardeners, that suggestion was just my favorite. My theme is balance, in order to gain in one area, you must lose in another So to have 60% resistance we need to lose something in the process. Sure you can have that resistance, but let's say you lose overall damage in the process. So the mod would look something like this. 60% resistance at the cost of 15% overall damage. Want defense, then you trade offensive capabilities. ok for one I was agreeing with you and two I was talking about without a dmg mod we all know the dmg mods make the railgun way mroe powerful I actually wish they would take them out for railguns I had said if he had 2-3 see 2-3 hardners on with out a damage mod doens't hurt him much I don't know how many times I've seen a gunnlogi I hit him 1 time and for whatever reason did no damage for a direct hit now this could be the hardners or maybe a glitch however way it is I'm speaking from experiance nothing more and I am in no way disagreeing with you
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
510
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 22:42:00 -
[69] - Quote
Tailss Prower wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Tailss Prower wrote:I agree but there are people who use 2 shield hardners at one time or even 3 and I've seen my proto railgun do nothing to which alone would say to much resisitance if the strongest av gun in the game is doing so little to them it causes a problem since everything else can't even touch it
I can tell you for a fact, a proto railgun with a single damage mod, will very much hurt a double hardener setup. Without the hardener, I can 2 shot a gunnlogi, with 2 activated, it takes roughly 4 -7 shots to drop. It is NOT TOO much resistance. I myself run this setup Gunnlogi2x Hardeners 1x Damage mod or Speed boost 1x Armor hardener or armor repair Proto rails Do you want to just 2 shot tanks with a rail? I want long, engaging combat. Not a system where everything dies in just a few seconds. I've had forge gunners, severely **** me up with a single hardener active. I know for a fact, from my experience, that a double hardener setup is NOT immune to a proto rail. And did you read my post in its entirety? There are many things that can be done to hardeners, that suggestion was just my favorite. My theme is balance, in order to gain in one area, you must lose in another So to have 60% resistance we need to lose something in the process. Sure you can have that resistance, but let's say you lose overall damage in the process. So the mod would look something like this. 60% resistance at the cost of 15% overall damage. Want defense, then you trade offensive capabilities. ok for one I was agreeing with you and two I was talking about without a dmg mod we all know the dmg mods make the railgun way mroe powerful I actually wish they would take them out for railguns I had said if he had 2-3 see 2-3 hardners on with out a damage mod doens't hurt him much I don't know how many times I've seen a gunnlogi I hit him 1 time and for whatever reason did no damage for a direct hit now this could be the hardners or maybe a glitch however way it is I'm speaking from experiance nothing more and I am in no way disagreeing with you
Ah, well yes, without a damage mod, you don't do too much damage to a double hardened gunnlogi. But I know I still apply a healthy amount of damage. But I do think that is a healthy thing. I think a bigger part of the problem is the fact that a double hardened gunnlogi does not have enough downtime.
And I did mention tweaking the numbers on hardeners a bit. 60 + 60 = 120%. But CCP has stacking penalties I would think apply to the hardeners, you are right, now I know what you were saying with penalties lol.
And now that I sit here trying to figure out the strength of the second hardeners, I'm a little dumbfounded. I know the second mod, is above 50% strength when you calculate. But in this case, anything above 55% strength equal 100%.
So, how do they calculate stacking penalties I wonder with hardeners. Even if the second is at 50% strength, that's still 90% resistance on the second.
I'm not against having this high a number for resistance(It does seem a little extreme), the duration and cd's need to be looked at more than anything. Right now, 30 seconds is plenty time to drop multiple tanks, and mitigate most all damage.
Like I said, I think hardeners are a problem, but I think some of these issues can be fixed with a longer CD period, and changes to turrets.
Tanks - Balancing turrets Check my other thread out. I hate focusing on just a single thing like hardeners and saying those are the problem. They are part of the problem, but there are a lot of issues with tanks. And I think when you consider one (ie hardeners) you need to consider the other factors involved.
Is it that hardeners are too strong, or are turrets not strong enough, or are damage mods too strong.
No offense meant earlier fella, I just think we need to work with the idea that hardeners provide some serious resistance, and balance things more or less around them.
Btw, What's your fit. Double hardeners and a booster, you can nearly outlast a whole railgun clip, or at least for an overheat.
Nuff Said
|
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
147
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 22:59:00 -
[70] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Tailss Prower wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Tailss Prower wrote:I agree but there are people who use 2 shield hardners at one time or even 3 and I've seen my proto railgun do nothing to which alone would say to much resisitance if the strongest av gun in the game is doing so little to them it causes a problem since everything else can't even touch it
I can tell you for a fact, a proto railgun with a single damage mod, will very much hurt a double hardener setup. Without the hardener, I can 2 shot a gunnlogi, with 2 activated, it takes roughly 4 -7 shots to drop. It is NOT TOO much resistance. I myself run this setup Gunnlogi2x Hardeners 1x Damage mod or Speed boost 1x Armor hardener or armor repair Proto rails Do you want to just 2 shot tanks with a rail? I want long, engaging combat. Not a system where everything dies in just a few seconds. I've had forge gunners, severely **** me up with a single hardener active. I know for a fact, from my experience, that a double hardener setup is NOT immune to a proto rail. And did you read my post in its entirety? There are many things that can be done to hardeners, that suggestion was just my favorite. My theme is balance, in order to gain in one area, you must lose in another So to have 60% resistance we need to lose something in the process. Sure you can have that resistance, but let's say you lose overall damage in the process. So the mod would look something like this. 60% resistance at the cost of 15% overall damage. Want defense, then you trade offensive capabilities. ok for one I was agreeing with you and two I was talking about without a dmg mod we all know the dmg mods make the railgun way mroe powerful I actually wish they would take them out for railguns I had said if he had 2-3 see 2-3 hardners on with out a damage mod doens't hurt him much I don't know how many times I've seen a gunnlogi I hit him 1 time and for whatever reason did no damage for a direct hit now this could be the hardners or maybe a glitch however way it is I'm speaking from experiance nothing more and I am in no way disagreeing with you Ah, well yes, without a damage mod, you don't do too much damage to a double hardened gunnlogi. But I know I still apply a healthy amount of damage. But I do think that is a healthy thing. I think a bigger part of the problem is the fact that a double hardened gunnlogi does not have enough downtime. And I did mention tweaking the numbers on hardeners a bit. 60 + 60 = 120%. But CCP has stacking penalties I would think apply to the hardeners, you are right, now I know what you were saying with penalties lol. And now that I sit here trying to figure out the strength of the second hardeners, I'm a little dumbfounded. I know the second mod, is above 50% strength when you calculate. But in this case, anything above 55% strength equal 100%. So, how do they calculate stacking penalties I wonder with hardeners. Even if the second is at 50% strength, that's still 90% resistance on the second. I'm not against having this high a number for resistance(It does seem a little extreme), the duration and cd's need to be looked at more than anything. Right now, 30 seconds is plenty time to drop multiple tanks, and mitigate most all damage. Like I said, I think hardeners are a problem, but I think some of these issues can be fixed with a longer CD period, and changes to turrets. Tanks - Balancing turrets Check my other thread out. I hate focusing on just a single thing like hardeners and saying those are the problem. They are part of the problem, but there are a lot of issues with tanks. And I think when you consider one (ie hardeners) you need to consider the other factors involved. Is it that hardeners are too strong, or are turrets not strong enough, or are damage mods too strong. No offense meant earlier fella, I just think we need to work with the idea that hardeners provide some serious resistance, and balance things more or less around them. Btw, What's your fit. Double hardeners and a booster, you can nearly outlast a whole railgun clip, or at least for an overheat. OH I know it isn't just hardners but what I was meaning was that hardners are the main reason AV players not including tank players have so much trouble when trying to kill tanks when it comes down to turrets the blaster sucks overall right now and is only good vs infantry the missle is right now only useful against an armor tank and the rail owns them all right now for the most part but I think taking dmg mods away from the railgun but not teh missle and blaster would work out just fine for tanks
Now about my fit thats easy and I think I always told someone on the forums about it I use
a maddy with 1x complex hardner 1x complex cpu upgrade 1x complex heavy armor rep 1x enhanced scanner 1x fuel injector and finally I have the AUR partical cannon
which all in all costs me 204k isk and 150 aur per tank if it was the isk partical cannon it would be around 450-500k isk which is why I use the AUR gun
I never needed 2 hardners to take on dmg mod tanks nor to do the job I have intended for this tank and I've learned how to deal with the duel hardner tanks but that doens't mean I agree with it
I mainly hunt vehicles since thats what the railgun is for and I have my fuel injector to give me a quick accel boost which is all it does it don't make you go any faster and I have scanner to help my team spot targets when I'm around a null cannon and on the games where there are little to no vehicles or a game where I scared them all half to death I will support infantry with my scanner and me killing infantry with my railgun since I can snipe pretty well I am able to target them with a railgun pretty well |
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
510
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 23:20:00 -
[71] - Quote
Ahh, a maddie, well those don't need to be double hardened either I think.
My suggestion with damage mods, is that they reduce your resistances in addition to giving you extra damage. In this way, even if they chose the double hardener route, using a damage mod helps negate the benefit of using 2.
Read that post I linked and check out my ideas for the turrets. Then scroll down and check out harpyj's suggestion about doing the same thing, just with ammo.
Basically, if a rail guns wants range, they lose out on damage.
If a rail gun wants damage, they lose out on range.
Nuff Said
|
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
148
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 23:47:00 -
[72] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Ahh, a maddie, well those don't need to be double hardened either I think.
My suggestion with damage mods, is that they reduce your resistances in addition to giving you extra damage. In this way, even if they chose the double hardener route, using a damage mod helps negate the benefit of using 2.
Read that post I linked and check out my ideas for the turrets. Then scroll down and check out harpyj's suggestion about doing the same thing, just with ammo.
Basically, if a rail guns wants range, they lose out on damage.
If a rail gun wants damage, they lose out on range.
I've posted on the forums yesterday about that and to be honest drop railgun range to around 400-450m and remove dmg mods for them and the railgun wouldn't be so big a threat like it is and maybe make it over heat faster possibly a reduction to clip size but this is how I feel it would balance it out with the dmg it has but the idear you said is good too |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
510
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 23:51:00 -
[73] - Quote
Tailss Prower wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Ahh, a maddie, well those don't need to be double hardened either I think.
My suggestion with damage mods, is that they reduce your resistances in addition to giving you extra damage. In this way, even if they chose the double hardener route, using a damage mod helps negate the benefit of using 2.
Read that post I linked and check out my ideas for the turrets. Then scroll down and check out harpyj's suggestion about doing the same thing, just with ammo.
Basically, if a rail guns wants range, they lose out on damage.
If a rail gun wants damage, they lose out on range.
I've posted on the forums yesterday about that and to be honest drop railgun range to around 400-450m and remove dmg mods for them and the railgun wouldn't be so big a threat like it is and maybe make it over heat faster possibly a reduction to clip size but this is how I feel it would balance it out with the dmg it has but the idear you said is good too
Remember that at one time, tanks had variety in turrets and their fit. We are stipped bare atm, and no doubt we won't always just have the ONE turret type.
Turret types, or some form of it will be incoming. The current railgun is more or less filling in for the moment so CCP can get some good data to balance around.
Nuff Said
|
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
158
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 23:52:00 -
[74] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Ahh, a maddie, well those don't need to be double hardened either I think.
My suggestion with damage mods, is that they reduce your resistances in addition to giving you extra damage. In this way, even if they chose the double hardener route, using a damage mod helps negate the benefit of using 2.
Read that post I linked and check out my ideas for the turrets. Then scroll down and check out harpyj's suggestion about doing the same thing, just with ammo.
Basically, if a rail guns wants range, they lose out on damage.
If a rail gun wants damage, they lose out on range.
Also if you were to look at it lore wise besides missles railguns had the 2nd best range if not the best range with high power so taking its range would change how the gun was designed for the world of eve and dust so like I said up top lower it's clip size and make it over heat faster and it would solve the issue with it's high power |
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
158
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 23:54:00 -
[75] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Tailss Prower wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Ahh, a maddie, well those don't need to be double hardened either I think.
My suggestion with damage mods, is that they reduce your resistances in addition to giving you extra damage. In this way, even if they chose the double hardener route, using a damage mod helps negate the benefit of using 2.
Read that post I linked and check out my ideas for the turrets. Then scroll down and check out harpyj's suggestion about doing the same thing, just with ammo.
Basically, if a rail guns wants range, they lose out on damage.
If a rail gun wants damage, they lose out on range.
I've posted on the forums yesterday about that and to be honest drop railgun range to around 400-450m and remove dmg mods for them and the railgun wouldn't be so big a threat like it is and maybe make it over heat faster possibly a reduction to clip size but this is how I feel it would balance it out with the dmg it has but the idear you said is good too Remember that at one time, tanks had variety in turrets and their fit. We are stipped bare atm, and no doubt we won't always just have the ONE turret type. Turret types, or some form of it will be incoming. The current railgun is more or less filling in for the moment so CCP can get some good data to balance around. oh I know it's coming just saying more rnage but less power and more power for low range is not the way I would go with it but thats me now say more power but very high over heat chance and weaker power but less over heat kinda like what we used to have would work out great |
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
158
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 23:55:00 -
[76] - Quote
also ammo size could be effective to those 2 types I posted |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
510
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 23:56:00 -
[77] - Quote
Tailss Prower wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Ahh, a maddie, well those don't need to be double hardened either I think.
My suggestion with damage mods, is that they reduce your resistances in addition to giving you extra damage. In this way, even if they chose the double hardener route, using a damage mod helps negate the benefit of using 2.
Read that post I linked and check out my ideas for the turrets. Then scroll down and check out harpyj's suggestion about doing the same thing, just with ammo.
Basically, if a rail guns wants range, they lose out on damage.
If a rail gun wants damage, they lose out on range.
Also if you were to look at it lore wise besides missles railguns had the 2nd best range if not the best range with high power so taking its range would change how the gun was designed for the world of eve and dust so like I said up top lower it's clip size and make it over heat faster and it would solve the issue with it's high power
UGh, lore. No, I'm not a fan of EVE lore when it comes to balancing. What works in space WILL NOT work on the ground. These are 2 completely different games with opposite goals and gameplay.
And beside, Dust 514 need's it's own lore. What works in the vacuum of space doesn't work on the ground. Planets are a whole different ballgame.
Nuff Said
|
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
158
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 23:57:00 -
[78] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Ahh, a maddie, well those don't need to be double hardened either I think.
My suggestion with damage mods, is that they reduce your resistances in addition to giving you extra damage. In this way, even if they chose the double hardener route, using a damage mod helps negate the benefit of using 2.
Read that post I linked and check out my ideas for the turrets. Then scroll down and check out harpyj's suggestion about doing the same thing, just with ammo.
Basically, if a rail guns wants range, they lose out on damage.
If a rail gun wants damage, they lose out on range.
by the way I don't think a gunnlogi should need to be double hardned I think they have 60% resistance because they have the chance of getting hit before turning hardner on and because they have nothing to help mitigrate dmg |
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
160
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 23:59:00 -
[79] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Tailss Prower wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Ahh, a maddie, well those don't need to be double hardened either I think.
My suggestion with damage mods, is that they reduce your resistances in addition to giving you extra damage. In this way, even if they chose the double hardener route, using a damage mod helps negate the benefit of using 2.
Read that post I linked and check out my ideas for the turrets. Then scroll down and check out harpyj's suggestion about doing the same thing, just with ammo.
Basically, if a rail guns wants range, they lose out on damage.
If a rail gun wants damage, they lose out on range.
Also if you were to look at it lore wise besides missles railguns had the 2nd best range if not the best range with high power so taking its range would change how the gun was designed for the world of eve and dust so like I said up top lower it's clip size and make it over heat faster and it would solve the issue with it's high power UGh, lore. No, I'm not a fan of EVE lore when it comes to balancing. What works in space WILL NOT work on the ground. These are 2 completely different games with opposite goals and gameplay. And beside, Dust 514 need's it's own lore. What works in the vacuum of space doesn't work on the ground. Planets are a whole different ballgame. but the guns have nothing to do with space for one and it isn't about lore it's about the gun itself it's like saying a blaster in eve has the lowest range out of all guns and then in dust it has the highest range which defiys the entire understanding and logic behind both games being in the same world thats what I mean't when I said lore |
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
160
|
Posted - 2014.01.31 00:01:00 -
[80] - Quote
I'm simply applying logic to every change someone suggests nothing more just logic based off experiance and how it could possibly effect the outcome |
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
510
|
Posted - 2014.01.31 00:02:00 -
[81] - Quote
Tailss Prower wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Ahh, a maddie, well those don't need to be double hardened either I think.
My suggestion with damage mods, is that they reduce your resistances in addition to giving you extra damage. In this way, even if they chose the double hardener route, using a damage mod helps negate the benefit of using 2.
Read that post I linked and check out my ideas for the turrets. Then scroll down and check out harpyj's suggestion about doing the same thing, just with ammo.
Basically, if a rail guns wants range, they lose out on damage.
If a rail gun wants damage, they lose out on range.
by the way I don't think a gunnlogi should need to be double hardned I think they have 60% resistance because they have the chance of getting hit before turning hardner on and because they have nothing to help mitigrate dmg
Ever get hit with a rail, without your hardeners up? For a shield tank, it means death. I almost HAVE to run 2 hardeners to ensure I don't get 2 shot everywhere I go. With armor tanks, you get a nice rep. On a shield tank, often times it seems like FOREVER waiting on shield recharge.
Add me in game and I'll let you drive my proto gunnlogis sometime to get a feel for them. Those armor reps make the use of a second hardener less attractive, not to mention the CPU limitations, I know. But if you think about this too, a gunnlogi has NOTHING useful to put in their low slots (free slots) where as a maddie can fit 2 types of equipment.
Nuff Said
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
510
|
Posted - 2014.01.31 00:05:00 -
[82] - Quote
Tailss Prower wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Tailss Prower wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Ahh, a maddie, well those don't need to be double hardened either I think.
My suggestion with damage mods, is that they reduce your resistances in addition to giving you extra damage. In this way, even if they chose the double hardener route, using a damage mod helps negate the benefit of using 2.
Read that post I linked and check out my ideas for the turrets. Then scroll down and check out harpyj's suggestion about doing the same thing, just with ammo.
Basically, if a rail guns wants range, they lose out on damage.
If a rail gun wants damage, they lose out on range.
Also if you were to look at it lore wise besides missles railguns had the 2nd best range if not the best range with high power so taking its range would change how the gun was designed for the world of eve and dust so like I said up top lower it's clip size and make it over heat faster and it would solve the issue with it's high power UGh, lore. No, I'm not a fan of EVE lore when it comes to balancing. What works in space WILL NOT work on the ground. These are 2 completely different games with opposite goals and gameplay. And beside, Dust 514 need's it's own lore. What works in the vacuum of space doesn't work on the ground. Planets are a whole different ballgame. but the guns have nothing to do with space for one and it isn't about lore it's about the gun itself it's like saying a blaster in eve has the lowest range out of all guns and then in dust it has the highest range which defiys the entire understanding and logic behind both games being in the same world thats what I mean't when I said lore
I'm pretty sure that in eve, that while rail turrets do have the LONGEST range, they have varietys of said turrets, with one being the shortest range, a mid range, and then the longest range turret. And in EVE tracking plays a HUGE part, where on dust, it is very minimal.
Nuff Said
|
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
160
|
Posted - 2014.01.31 00:06:00 -
[83] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Tailss Prower wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Ahh, a maddie, well those don't need to be double hardened either I think.
My suggestion with damage mods, is that they reduce your resistances in addition to giving you extra damage. In this way, even if they chose the double hardener route, using a damage mod helps negate the benefit of using 2.
Read that post I linked and check out my ideas for the turrets. Then scroll down and check out harpyj's suggestion about doing the same thing, just with ammo.
Basically, if a rail guns wants range, they lose out on damage.
If a rail gun wants damage, they lose out on range.
by the way I don't think a gunnlogi should need to be double hardned I think they have 60% resistance because they have the chance of getting hit before turning hardner on and because they have nothing to help mitigrate dmg Ever get hit with a rail, without your hardeners up? For a shield tank, it means death. I almost HAVE to run 2 hardeners to ensure I don't get 2 shot everywhere I go. With armor tanks, you get a nice rep. On a shield tank, often times it seems like FOREVER waiting on shield recharge. Add me in game and I'll let you drive my proto gunnlogis sometime to get a feel for them. Those armor reps make the use of a second hardener less attractive, not to mention the CPU limitations, I know. But if you think about this too, a gunnlogi has NOTHING useful to put in their low slots (free slots) where as a maddie can fit 2 types of equipment. thats because CCP was scared and worried about giving the shield tnaks to much shield HP because in teh passed that made them op as hell the issue is shields lack the shield hp and also it's style is mroe for players who are aware of their surroundings |
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
160
|
Posted - 2014.01.31 00:08:00 -
[84] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Tailss Prower wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Tailss Prower wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Ahh, a maddie, well those don't need to be double hardened either I think.
My suggestion with damage mods, is that they reduce your resistances in addition to giving you extra damage. In this way, even if they chose the double hardener route, using a damage mod helps negate the benefit of using 2.
Read that post I linked and check out my ideas for the turrets. Then scroll down and check out harpyj's suggestion about doing the same thing, just with ammo.
Basically, if a rail guns wants range, they lose out on damage.
If a rail gun wants damage, they lose out on range.
Also if you were to look at it lore wise besides missles railguns had the 2nd best range if not the best range with high power so taking its range would change how the gun was designed for the world of eve and dust so like I said up top lower it's clip size and make it over heat faster and it would solve the issue with it's high power UGh, lore. No, I'm not a fan of EVE lore when it comes to balancing. What works in space WILL NOT work on the ground. These are 2 completely different games with opposite goals and gameplay. And beside, Dust 514 need's it's own lore. What works in the vacuum of space doesn't work on the ground. Planets are a whole different ballgame. but the guns have nothing to do with space for one and it isn't about lore it's about the gun itself it's like saying a blaster in eve has the lowest range out of all guns and then in dust it has the highest range which defiys the entire understanding and logic behind both games being in the same world thats what I mean't when I said lore I'm pretty sure that in eve, that while rail turrets do have the LONGEST range, they have varietys of said turrets, with one being the shortest range, a mid range, and then the longest range turret. And in EVE tracking plays a HUGE part, where on dust, it is very minimal. in eve the only thing that touched range really was the teirs of each weapon the varietys of eve was ammo type which worked based off the type of enemy you fought and what resistances they had which is alot more complex than what we got right now on dust |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
510
|
Posted - 2014.01.31 00:59:00 -
[85] - Quote
Tailss Prower wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Tailss Prower wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Ahh, a maddie, well those don't need to be double hardened either I think.
My suggestion with damage mods, is that they reduce your resistances in addition to giving you extra damage. In this way, even if they chose the double hardener route, using a damage mod helps negate the benefit of using 2.
Read that post I linked and check out my ideas for the turrets. Then scroll down and check out harpyj's suggestion about doing the same thing, just with ammo.
Basically, if a rail guns wants range, they lose out on damage.
If a rail gun wants damage, they lose out on range.
by the way I don't think a gunnlogi should need to be double hardned I think they have 60% resistance because they have the chance of getting hit before turning hardner on and because they have nothing to help mitigrate dmg Ever get hit with a rail, without your hardeners up? For a shield tank, it means death. I almost HAVE to run 2 hardeners to ensure I don't get 2 shot everywhere I go. With armor tanks, you get a nice rep. On a shield tank, often times it seems like FOREVER waiting on shield recharge. Add me in game and I'll let you drive my proto gunnlogis sometime to get a feel for them. Those armor reps make the use of a second hardener less attractive, not to mention the CPU limitations, I know. But if you think about this too, a gunnlogi has NOTHING useful to put in their low slots (free slots) where as a maddie can fit 2 types of equipment. thats because CCP was scared and worried about giving the shield tnaks to much shield HP because in teh passed that made them op as hell the issue is shields lack the shield hp and also it's style is mroe for players who are aware of their surroundings
Don't get caught with your pants down, very true with shield tanks. Hard to get the jump on a good armor tank. That shield buffer makes a big difference as well.
Nuff Said
|
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
161
|
Posted - 2014.01.31 01:16:00 -
[86] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Tailss Prower wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Tailss Prower wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Ahh, a maddie, well those don't need to be double hardened either I think.
My suggestion with damage mods, is that they reduce your resistances in addition to giving you extra damage. In this way, even if they chose the double hardener route, using a damage mod helps negate the benefit of using 2.
Read that post I linked and check out my ideas for the turrets. Then scroll down and check out harpyj's suggestion about doing the same thing, just with ammo.
Basically, if a rail guns wants range, they lose out on damage.
If a rail gun wants damage, they lose out on range.
by the way I don't think a gunnlogi should need to be double hardned I think they have 60% resistance because they have the chance of getting hit before turning hardner on and because they have nothing to help mitigrate dmg Ever get hit with a rail, without your hardeners up? For a shield tank, it means death. I almost HAVE to run 2 hardeners to ensure I don't get 2 shot everywhere I go. With armor tanks, you get a nice rep. On a shield tank, often times it seems like FOREVER waiting on shield recharge. Add me in game and I'll let you drive my proto gunnlogis sometime to get a feel for them. Those armor reps make the use of a second hardener less attractive, not to mention the CPU limitations, I know. But if you think about this too, a gunnlogi has NOTHING useful to put in their low slots (free slots) where as a maddie can fit 2 types of equipment. thats because CCP was scared and worried about giving the shield tnaks to much shield HP because in teh passed that made them op as hell the issue is shields lack the shield hp and also it's style is mroe for players who are aware of their surroundings Don't get caught with your pants down, very true with shield tanks. Hard to get the jump on a good armor tank. That shield buffer makes a big difference as well. but I am right if shield had more hp and they were more aware they would be stronger |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |