Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
479
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 19:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
I've started a thread here Tanks - A Real Balance Thread (LONG) that will eventually, cover the various issues with tanks. I'm learning though, it may be a bit too comprehensive for all the readers. So I'm going to break it down into smaller posts to simply discuss specifics.
A little intro, I'm Tebu Gan. I live and breathe tanks. I've used tanks since the official release of the game, and let me tell you, it has been a bumpy road. Partly due to my choice to use the underdog at the time, gunnlogi, and part due to the continuous balance issues. I love Dust 514, and I genuinely want it to succeed. I've had my ups and downs with the game, but I keep coming back. I can see and feel the potential this game has, even if it has yet to be realized.
If balance is the goal, To gain something, you need to lose something.
So let's start with turrets.
What are the goals we want to achieve with specific turret types?
Rails, Missiles, and Blasters, those are our types. But rather than assigning them specific goals, we need different variations within our current types.
What I mean is that a type like missiles, can be broke down into different missile types, that while applying damage in similar ways, are geared to doing so in unique ways. I think and example is in order.
We have missiles now, but there is nothing unique between them aside from being tiered. So let's assume missiles apply 500 damage per missile, 12 missile to a clip, 3 seconds to unleash a full clip.
What I propose, is creating different types of turrets that apply similar damage, but do it in a different way.
Missile 1
Damage - 250 per missile Clip size - 18 Keep the fire rate the same Increase range to 500 M
While it loses some DPS, it gains range to compensate, as well as a larger clip. Damage is still applied, but it's how you go about applying this damage. This example of missiles, would be less effective at destroying the enemy outright. But if you use range to your advantage, you can slowly whittle your opponent down enough that you can feel comfortable moving in to engage, so that you can apply max damage.
At the same time though, I keep the idea of balance in mind. You can't gain something without losing something somewhere. It's easy to say I want to be stronger, because we all want to be stronger than the person next to you. The part I noticed a lot of people neglect to mention, is what weakness will you take in exchange for said power.
For the sake of balance, you can't have it all. That's why we are in this never ending balance loop.
Ok so let's look at a blaster example that focuses on Infantry, then another that focuses on vehicles.
Damage - 45 RoF - similar to what it is now Range - 100M to 150M
Whoa, 45 damage, that's it. Yeah man, it's a specialized turret, meant to kill infantry. But not just KILL, suppress. It's the same concept that pushing a tank back, is just as good as killing it. Pushing an infantryman back, is just as good as killing him.
Our vehicle blaster looks more like this
Damage - 150 ROF - Slow Range - 250M Add in some serious kick, and horrible hit detection against infantry.
These are not meant to kill infantry, though while they still can, actually applying that damage to infantry should be damn near impossible. And some good kick, would make it hard to keep any infantry lined up, but when it came to vehicles, they are large enough that it shouldn't matter.
The way I see it, there is just sooo much good that can be done with this kind of thinking. Now here is the other part, Small turrets.
Small turrets, should be your go to turrets for dealing with infantry. This mantra going around, Tanks shouldn't be soloed by a single guy running a dropsuit. Back to balance, you can't gain without losing. If you really expect it to take more than one infantry to deal with single player in a tank, then a single tank should require more than one person to deal with infantry.
The best way to go about this, is force tankers into more of an AV role using large turrets. And if they want to deal with infantry, they can take a hit to AV capabilities, or equip small turrets and use riders to gun infantry for you.
The same idea applied to large turrets above, can additionally be applied to small turrets. A rail gun, more effective at killing infantry, the converse being one effective against vehicles. You can even break this down further, some good against shields, some good against armor.
So many possibilities here fellas. Sorry, got a bit long winded again there.
Nuff Said
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Learning Coalition College
3797
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 20:02:00 -
[2] - Quote
Full support. I love your threads now.
Just a simple idea for the 2 types of rails: the AI one has lower range, a larger clip, higher splash damage/larger radius, and lower direct damage. The AV one would have longer range, higher direct damage, a smaller clip, and a smaller, weaker splash.
I am your scan error.
|
Alena Ventrallis
The Neutral Zone
532
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 20:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'm for this. |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
480
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 20:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Full support. I love your threads now.
Just a simple idea for the 2 types of rails: the AI one has lower range, a larger clip, higher splash damage/larger radius, and lower direct damage. The AV one would have longer range, higher direct damage, a smaller clip, and a smaller, weaker splash.
I like the thinking going on! Now we are talking balance.
I imagine tanks, having the same variety as the infantry does with their own weapons. The same variety in our fits as well. Your "fittings" make the roles. They determine exactly how and what you do in battle.
Nuff Said
|
Sole Fenychs
Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation
118
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 21:31:00 -
[5] - Quote
I don't quite understand what your approach is. Are you proposing to have variants for all turrets, with different roles or are you proposing to remove AI capability from all large turrets, while changing small turrets into AV?
At the beginning it sounded like the former, but later parts of your post sound more like the latter. |
Darken-Soul
BIG BAD W0LVES
191
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 21:36:00 -
[6] - Quote
Didn't we have variants pre1.7? I liked my missles cycled and my blasters scattered. If I had to use a rail I liked compressed.
I am the real Darken
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
481
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 21:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
Sole Fenychs wrote:I don't quite understand what your approach is. Are you proposing to have variants for all turrets, with different roles or are you proposing to remove AI capability from all large turrets, while changing small turrets into AV?
At the beginning it sounded like the former, but later parts of your post sound more like the latter.
I think the answer is both. I'm not finished yet, there is still a lot of subject matter to cover.
But yes, both, all turrets need variants that help define the given role. Among those variants, you will have some good for AV others good for infantry. Each will have it's own positives and negatives.
Large turrets for the most part, will focus solely on being AV and Infantry support. I think of it this way, if infantry AV are to expose themselves, being somewhat defenseless to normal infantry, then a tank that would want to do the same, needs to limit his capabilities against tanks in favor of better infantry support. Balance
Small turrets should be the opposite, focused on AI but with variants that are more suited to AV.
Sorry man, I know there is a LOT of information in there, I'll clear these things up once I reach my conclusion.
Nuff Said
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
481
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 21:47:00 -
[8] - Quote
Darken-Soul wrote:Didn't we have variants pre1.7? I liked my missles cycled and my blasters scattered. If I had to use a rail I liked compressed.
We did! That's something forgotten when people go to discussing tanks. Often times, you forget the bigger picture or even the why of this all in the first place. People say speed, turrets, range, terrain, but they often forget that these are tanks stripped to nothing but the "Bare necessities".
What is missing are all the extra mods and turrets. As far as turrets are concerned these are more like placeholders for the moment.
This overhaul of tanks, is far from finished. It's no wonder they are so imbalanced!
Nuff Said
|
Sole Fenychs
Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation
119
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 22:04:00 -
[9] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote: I think the answer is both. I'm not finished yet, there is still a lot of subject matter to cover.
But yes, both, all turrets need variants that help define the given role. Among those variants, you will have some good for AV others good for infantry. Each will have it's own positives and negatives.
Large turrets for the most part, will focus solely on being AV and Infantry support. I think of it this way, if infantry AV are to expose themselves, being somewhat defenseless to normal infantry, then a tank that would want to do the same, needs to limit his capabilities against tanks in favor of better infantry support. Balance
Small turrets should be the opposite, focused on AI but with variants that are more suited to AV.
Sorry man, I know there is a LOT of information in there, I'll clear these things up once I reach my conclusion.
So, to make an example, would you be in favor of a large blaster with AI specialization that is bad against infantry? And the small railgun generally being AV? And then you add a large blaster that is intended for CQC against other tanks, while a small railgun variant will have more splash to kill infantry?
Because that's the idea that I'm in favor of. As you said, AV infantry sacrifices strength against other infantry, so an AI tank should absolutely exist but require support to kill other tanks.
In another thread, I proposed that secondary turrets could transform a tank into an allrounder. The idea here is that your main turret can be run solo and is only intended for one role, while your gunner positions can fill the other role. Manning turrets means occupying two additional team members, though, which weakens your team - Just like non-specialized infantry should need a team to take down a tank (e.g. flaylocks or AV grenades).
Personally, I especially like the idea of tank-killing LAVs that simply move so fast that the main turret can't track them. |
The legend345
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
4382
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 22:04:00 -
[10] - Quote
this is stupid lol
GôÉGô¥GôÿGô£Gôö > GôÉGô¢Gô¢
Gÿà¿When will dust get better?Gÿà
Uprising God of Tanking Oculus Rift
|
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
481
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 22:39:00 -
[11] - Quote
The legend345 wrote:this is stupid lol
No, yr stupid.
lol
Nuff Said
|
Roger Cordill
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY
303
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 23:01:00 -
[12] - Quote
The blaster turrets idea is horrible. I never understood the "blaster turrets are OP against infantry, make them useless" thing. All they need is a 20-30%% tracking speed reduction(maybe more if needed, and a 25% ROF reduction, but a damage boost to put the DPS back to what it is now. Therefore, it'll still be viable to hit vehicles (especially if skilled into the prof.), but harder to hit infantry (especially the smart ones who know how to actually dodge them). Now, re-release the tech 2 blasters we had before balanced around that (as well as actually make all of them useful, like making the scattered the infantry killer instead of the everything killer).
Your concept idea of sacrifice for gains is good, just your execution is poor. |
Ld Collins
Titans of Phoenix Legacy Rising
103
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 23:14:00 -
[13] - Quote
I don't think there is a problem with turrets atm they seem fine I'm sure the other variants will be back when they are ready. I think it will be proto lvl tanks that take advantage of the other variants of turrets because they will cost more CPU and PG. Currently even with max skill you cant fit all proto turrets and mods on a tank. For example you cant fit Proto small railguns and Proto heavy shield extender hardener and booster. I think that we will see proto tanks with a bit more CPU/PG which will allow they to fit alternative turrets to compensate for modules and turrets you cant fit and obviously if a mlt tank tried to fit one of these turrets they will be at a significant disadvantage. |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
481
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 23:20:00 -
[14] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:The blaster turrets idea is horrible. I never understood the "blaster turrets are OP against infantry, make them useless" thing. All they need is a 20-30%% tracking speed reduction(maybe more if needed, and a 25% ROF reduction, but a damage boost to put the DPS back to what it is now. Therefore, it'll still be viable to hit vehicles (especially if skilled into the prof.), but harder to hit infantry (especially the smart ones who know how to actually dodge them). Now, re-release the tech 2 blasters we had before balanced around that (as well as actually make all of them useful, like making the scattered the infantry killer instead of the everything killer).
Your concept idea of sacrifice for gains is good, just your execution is poor.
That is not a polished idea, and certainly not something I was suggesting for the game. Those are examples of what I meant with my concept idea of sacrifice for gains is good.
And my idea with the variants, coincides with your idea perfectly, why the hate?
You are seeing the small picture, Tanks were stripped of all variants, aside from the standard tier of STD, ADV, PRO basics. They are bringing variants back, and I'm making suggestions on how you could go about doing that.
The example above that you provided is effective against infantry, but no doubt tricky to kill with nonetheless. It shifts the emphasis to being less about outright killing the enemy and more about suppressing. At the same time, you give it a better chance against vehicles.
So it's not great against vehicles, but not bad, and it's not great against infantry, but not bad either. See, a good example of exactly what I said! My execution was perfect, as your points are exactly on par with my thinking, "You can't be great at everything!".
Now what about a variant that is great at AV, but VERY poor against infantry?
Nuff Said
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
481
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 23:26:00 -
[15] - Quote
Ld Collins wrote:I don't think there is a problem with turrets atm they seem fine I'm sure the other variants will be back when they are ready. I think it will be proto lvl tanks that take advantage of the other variants of turrets because they will cost more CPU and PG. Currently even with max skill you cant fit all proto turrets and mods on a tank. For example you cant fit Proto small railguns and Proto heavy shield extender hardener and booster. I think that we will see proto tanks with a bit more CPU/PG which will allow they to fit alternative turrets to compensate for modules and turrets you cant fit and obviously if a mlt tank tried to fit one of these turrets they will be at a significant disadvantage.
Atm, I think there IS a problem with turrets, namely blaster. Coupled with the sheer resilience in this new build, tanks are slaughtering infantry by the thousands! Currently, the only true counter to a tank is another tank.
If infantry are to be relegated to a support role against tanks, then tanks should be relegated to a support role against infantry. That's the idea and it starts with turrets. Specifically how turrets will define the roles tanks will play.
Nuff Said
|
Roger Cordill
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY
303
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 23:36:00 -
[16] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Roger Cordill wrote:The blaster turrets idea is horrible. I never understood the "blaster turrets are OP against infantry, make them useless" thing. All they need is a 20-30%% tracking speed reduction(maybe more if needed, and a 25% ROF reduction, but a damage boost to put the DPS back to what it is now. Therefore, it'll still be viable to hit vehicles (especially if skilled into the prof.), but harder to hit infantry (especially the smart ones who know how to actually dodge them). Now, re-release the tech 2 blasters we had before balanced around that (as well as actually make all of them useful, like making the scattered the infantry killer instead of the everything killer).
Your concept idea of sacrifice for gains is good, just your execution is poor. That is not a polished idea, and certainly not something I was suggesting for the game. Those are examples of what I meant with my concept idea of sacrifice for gains is good. And my idea with the variants, coincides with your idea perfectly, why the hate? You are seeing the small picture, Tanks were stripped of all variants, aside from the standard tier of STD, ADV, PRO basics. They are bringing variants back, and I'm making suggestions on how you could go about doing that. The example above that you provided is effective against infantry, but no doubt tricky to kill with nonetheless. It shifts the emphasis to being less about outright killing the enemy and more about suppressing. At the same time, you give it a better chance against vehicles. So it's not great against vehicles, but not bad, and it's not great against infantry, but not bad either. See, a good example of exactly what I said! My execution was perfect, as your points are exactly on par with my thinking, "You can't be great at everything!". Now what about a variant that is great at AV, but VERY poor against infantry?
message from Godin: The idea you had would either be weaker than a Plasma rifle with a longer range, or a severely nerfed version of the one we had now. Also, how you said it, the tech 1 turret would be removed, leaving us with 2 useless turrets. neither would be used. So no, it's not the same thing. NOw, since you asked nicely, I'll tell you what I think of al the t2 turrets should be:
Stabilized- slightly higher damage, slightly lower ROF (or vice versa), moderately longer optimal/effective range
scattered: moderately lower damage,moderately higher ROF, slightly-moderately lower optimal/effective range
compressed: moderately higher damage, moderately lower ROF, same range as tech 1 |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
481
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 23:54:00 -
[17] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Roger Cordill wrote:The blaster turrets idea is horrible. I never understood the "blaster turrets are OP against infantry, make them useless" thing. All they need is a 20-30%% tracking speed reduction(maybe more if needed, and a 25% ROF reduction, but a damage boost to put the DPS back to what it is now. Therefore, it'll still be viable to hit vehicles (especially if skilled into the prof.), but harder to hit infantry (especially the smart ones who know how to actually dodge them). Now, re-release the tech 2 blasters we had before balanced around that (as well as actually make all of them useful, like making the scattered the infantry killer instead of the everything killer).
Your concept idea of sacrifice for gains is good, just your execution is poor. That is not a polished idea, and certainly not something I was suggesting for the game. Those are examples of what I meant with my concept idea of sacrifice for gains is good. And my idea with the variants, coincides with your idea perfectly, why the hate? You are seeing the small picture, Tanks were stripped of all variants, aside from the standard tier of STD, ADV, PRO basics. They are bringing variants back, and I'm making suggestions on how you could go about doing that. The example above that you provided is effective against infantry, but no doubt tricky to kill with nonetheless. It shifts the emphasis to being less about outright killing the enemy and more about suppressing. At the same time, you give it a better chance against vehicles. So it's not great against vehicles, but not bad, and it's not great against infantry, but not bad either. See, a good example of exactly what I said! My execution was perfect, as your points are exactly on par with my thinking, "You can't be great at everything!". Now what about a variant that is great at AV, but VERY poor against infantry? message from Godin: The idea you had would either be weaker than a Plasma rifle with a longer range, or a severely nerfed version of the one we had now. Also, how you said it, the tech 1 turret would be removed, leaving us with 2 useless turrets. neither would be used. So no, it's not the same thing. NOw, since you asked nicely, I'll tell you what I think of al the t2 turrets should be: Stabilized- slightly higher damage, slightly lower ROF (or vice versa), moderately longer optimal/effective range scattered: moderately lower damage,moderately higher ROF, slightly-moderately lower optimal/effective range compressed: moderately higher damage, moderately lower ROF, same range as tech 1
Man, did you really miss the point! On one hand you have a blaster good at killing infantry but poor against tanks, on the other you have one good at killing tanks but poor against infantry, that was all I was saying.
Those numbers I put down, I pulled them out of my ass just to "demonstrate" further my point. In no way are those solid numbers that I would stand by to be put in the game. Those numbers are way out of skew, simply to demonstrate how a system of gain for loss works. You skew the numbers to make the goal apparent.
In your examples, how does lowering the ROF affect the rest of the system. Same with damage and range. What about things like heat cost, and clip size. How do they affect the overall balance? Changing one number, could mean all other number need to change to maintain balance.
And to me those turrets are stale, they do nothing to define what role you play on the battlefield. One of those is going to be the best at killing infantry and tanks, so the others will be forgotten. No I remember those turrets clearly fella, and it was always the same, Scattered. Those turrets were not balanced with the overall goal tanks are shooting for.
Tanks need roles like dropsuits have roles. These roles are defined by what you drive, and how you fit it. One of the biggest factors being turrets, but my idea is to eliminate the idea that a turret class performs only a specific way among variants.
What I propose is that variants define actual battlefield roles. You can still have your all around blaster, but we add in a blaster geared for AV and one geared for AI.
The idea that less emphasis is placed on what you drive or what turret you use and more on how you are fit. The idea that railguns are ONLY for AV and Blasters are ONLY for infantry is what makes this game so stale, and engagements sooo predictable.
Nuff Said
|
Darken-Soul
BIG BAD W0LVES
193
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 23:55:00 -
[18] - Quote
@^ blasters smoke tanks.
I am the real Darken
|
Roger Cordill
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY
303
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 00:09:00 -
[19] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Roger Cordill wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Roger Cordill wrote:The blaster turrets idea is horrible. I never understood the "blaster turrets are OP against infantry, make them useless" thing. All they need is a 20-30%% tracking speed reduction(maybe more if needed, and a 25% ROF reduction, but a damage boost to put the DPS back to what it is now. Therefore, it'll still be viable to hit vehicles (especially if skilled into the prof.), but harder to hit infantry (especially the smart ones who know how to actually dodge them). Now, re-release the tech 2 blasters we had before balanced around that (as well as actually make all of them useful, like making the scattered the infantry killer instead of the everything killer).
Your concept idea of sacrifice for gains is good, just your execution is poor. That is not a polished idea, and certainly not something I was suggesting for the game. Those are examples of what I meant with my concept idea of sacrifice for gains is good. And my idea with the variants, coincides with your idea perfectly, why the hate? You are seeing the small picture, Tanks were stripped of all variants, aside from the standard tier of STD, ADV, PRO basics. They are bringing variants back, and I'm making suggestions on how you could go about doing that. The example above that you provided is effective against infantry, but no doubt tricky to kill with nonetheless. It shifts the emphasis to being less about outright killing the enemy and more about suppressing. At the same time, you give it a better chance against vehicles. So it's not great against vehicles, but not bad, and it's not great against infantry, but not bad either. See, a good example of exactly what I said! My execution was perfect, as your points are exactly on par with my thinking, "You can't be great at everything!". Now what about a variant that is great at AV, but VERY poor against infantry? message from Godin: The idea you had would either be weaker than a Plasma rifle with a longer range, or a severely nerfed version of the one we had now. Also, how you said it, the tech 1 turret would be removed, leaving us with 2 useless turrets. neither would be used. So no, it's not the same thing. NOw, since you asked nicely, I'll tell you what I think of al the t2 turrets should be: Stabilized- slightly higher damage, slightly lower ROF (or vice versa), moderately longer optimal/effective range scattered: moderately lower damage,moderately higher ROF, slightly-moderately lower optimal/effective range compressed: moderately higher damage, moderately lower ROF, same range as tech 1 In your examples, how does lowering the ROF affect the rest of the system. Same with damage and range. What about things like heat cost, and clip size. How do they affect the overall balance? Changing one number, could mean all other number need to change to maintain balance. And to me those turrets are stale, they do nothing to define what role you play on the battlefield. One of those is going to be the best at killing infantry and tanks, so the others will be forgotten. No I remember those turrets clearly fella, and it was always the same, Scattered. Those turrets were not balanced with the overall goal tanks are shooting for. Tanks need roles like dropsuits have roles. These roles are defined by what you drive, and how you fit it. One of the biggest factors being turrets, but my idea is to eliminate the idea that a turret class performs only a specific way among variants. What I propose is that variants define actual battlefield roles. You can still have your all around blaster, but we add in a blaster geared for AV and one geared for AI. The idea that less emphasis is placed on what you drive or what turret you use and more on how you are fit. The idea that railguns are ONLY for AV and Blasters are ONLY for infantry is what makes this game so stale, and engagements sooo predictable.
message from Godin: You wouldn't know balance if it hit you square on the head, and the "example proves that. How it affects it you ask? simple: lower ROF makes it harder to continuously hit a target unles it's big, and therefore will be able to dodge them easily. higher damage means more alpha, s o therefore, will be able to hit larger targets such as HAV's or otherwise and scare them off or kill them easily. range for blasters on a moving target is horrible unless that person moves in a straight line (in which case that person is a idiot and should die). You won't kill a smart person at range with a blaster (proof is me, as I never do, even at CQ, I hardly ever die to blasters). You could even ad in things like heat costs and tracking speeds, I just wasn't thinking about those. So yes, all of these would have roles, opposed to before, as before, the scattered was the best, simply because it was better than all the rest apart from one thing (stabilized having a slightly longer range, which was barely noticeable due to scattered's ROF and damage, and compressed having more damage, but same thing). None of the turrets would top each other, all would have their purposes. If it's anywhere near your idea, then one would be as strong as a rifle (only way more inaccurate), and one would be outclassed by other turrets and AV. That's not the way at all. |
Roger Cordill
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY
303
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 00:09:00 -
[20] - Quote
Darken-Soul wrote:@^ blasters smoke tanks.
Unless the pilot is using a damage modded rail, or missile period, in which case, no they don't. |
|
True Adamance
Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire
6288
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 00:16:00 -
[21] - Quote
Anti Infantry Large Turrets need to go. Racial Parity between Empire Main Battle Cannon Style Turrets need to happen.
Give HAV a role. Make them the top end Anti Vehicle weapons. Put Anti Infantry and Infantry Support in the hands of smaller, more vulnerable vehicles.
E.G- An Apocalypse Class Battleship fires a Large Beam Laser at a frigate...... it does not hit. The frigates signature is to small and the tracking speed is also too slow.
This is what I consider the difference between HAV (Apoc) and Infantry. It should not be easy to hit infantry, and the large calibre weapons of the HAV, while still deadly on hit to infantry, should be primarily designed to hit larger targets like other HAV, MAV, LAV, or Dropships.
"My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity."
|
Roger Cordill
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY
303
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 00:23:00 -
[22] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Anti Infantry Large Turrets need to go. Racial Parity between Empire Main Battle Cannon Style Turrets need to happen.
Give HAV a role. Make them the top end Anti Vehicle weapons. Put Anti Infantry and Infantry Support in the hands of smaller, more vulnerable vehicles.
E.G- An Apocalypse Class Battleship fires a Large Beam Laser at a frigate...... it does not hit. The frigates signature is to small and the tracking speed is also too slow.
This is what I consider the difference between HAV (Apoc) and Infantry. It should not be easy to hit infantry, and the large calibre weapons of the HAV, while still deadly on hit to infantry, should be primarily designed to hit larger targets like other HAV, MAV, LAV, or Dropships.
Considering that it's much easier to aim a turret at someone, and the fact that most kills against infantry from blasters are tanked heavily and/or not even moving, the comparison is not really there. |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
481
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 00:26:00 -
[23] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Roger Cordill wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Roger Cordill wrote:The blaster turrets idea is horrible. I never understood the "blaster turrets are OP against infantry, make them useless" thing. All they need is a 20-30%% tracking speed reduction(maybe more if needed, and a 25% ROF reduction, but a damage boost to put the DPS back to what it is now. Therefore, it'll still be viable to hit vehicles (especially if skilled into the prof.), but harder to hit infantry (especially the smart ones who know how to actually dodge them). Now, re-release the tech 2 blasters we had before balanced around that (as well as actually make all of them useful, like making the scattered the infantry killer instead of the everything killer).
Your concept idea of sacrifice for gains is good, just your execution is poor. That is not a polished idea, and certainly not something I was suggesting for the game. Those are examples of what I meant with my concept idea of sacrifice for gains is good. And my idea with the variants, coincides with your idea perfectly, why the hate? You are seeing the small picture, Tanks were stripped of all variants, aside from the standard tier of STD, ADV, PRO basics. They are bringing variants back, and I'm making suggestions on how you could go about doing that. The example above that you provided is effective against infantry, but no doubt tricky to kill with nonetheless. It shifts the emphasis to being less about outright killing the enemy and more about suppressing. At the same time, you give it a better chance against vehicles. So it's not great against vehicles, but not bad, and it's not great against infantry, but not bad either. See, a good example of exactly what I said! My execution was perfect, as your points are exactly on par with my thinking, "You can't be great at everything!". Now what about a variant that is great at AV, but VERY poor against infantry? message from Godin: The idea you had would either be weaker than a Plasma rifle with a longer range, or a severely nerfed version of the one we had now. Also, how you said it, the tech 1 turret would be removed, leaving us with 2 useless turrets. neither would be used. So no, it's not the same thing. NOw, since you asked nicely, I'll tell you what I think of al the t2 turrets should be: Stabilized- slightly higher damage, slightly lower ROF (or vice versa), moderately longer optimal/effective range scattered: moderately lower damage,moderately higher ROF, slightly-moderately lower optimal/effective range compressed: moderately higher damage, moderately lower ROF, same range as tech 1 In your examples, how does lowering the ROF affect the rest of the system. Same with damage and range. What about things like heat cost, and clip size. How do they affect the overall balance? Changing one number, could mean all other number need to change to maintain balance. And to me those turrets are stale, they do nothing to define what role you play on the battlefield. One of those is going to be the best at killing infantry and tanks, so the others will be forgotten. No I remember those turrets clearly fella, and it was always the same, Scattered. Those turrets were not balanced with the overall goal tanks are shooting for. Tanks need roles like dropsuits have roles. These roles are defined by what you drive, and how you fit it. One of the biggest factors being turrets, but my idea is to eliminate the idea that a turret class performs only a specific way among variants. What I propose is that variants define actual battlefield roles. You can still have your all around blaster, but we add in a blaster geared for AV and one geared for AI. The idea that less emphasis is placed on what you drive or what turret you use and more on how you are fit. The idea that railguns are ONLY for AV and Blasters are ONLY for infantry is what makes this game so stale, and engagements sooo predictable. message from Godin: You wouldn't know balance if it hit you square on the head, and the "example proves that. How it affects it you ask? simple: lower ROF makes it harder to continuously hit a target unles it's big, and therefore will be able to dodge them easily. higher damage means more alpha, s o therefore, will be able to hit larger targets such as HAV's or otherwise and scare them off or kill them easily. range for blasters on a moving target is horrible unless that person moves in a straight line (in which case that person is a idiot and should die). You won't kill a smart person at range with a blaster (proof is me, as I never do, even at CQ, I hardly ever die to blasters). You could even ad in things like heat costs and tracking speeds, I just wasn't thinking about those. So yes, all of these would have roles, opposed to before, as before, the scattered was the best, simply because it was better than all the rest apart from one thing (stabilized having a slightly longer range, which was barely noticeable due to scattered's ROF and damage, and compressed having more damage, but same thing). None of the turrets would top each other, all would have their purposes. If it's anywhere near your idea, then one would be as strong as a rifle (only way more inaccurate), and one would be outclassed by other turrets and AV. That's not the way at all.
I think we can agree that our ideas are pretty much the same. It's how we go about getting there that differs. I simply do not think the changes you proposed are extreme enough one way or another. Let's say we have 5 variables to consider. Increasing 2 slightly means 2 others need to be decreased slightly. What I'm saying, rather than trying to keep all the variants close, we dramatically increase 2 variables, and dramatically decreases 2 others to match.
I just don't see your changes being enough to truly make a noticeable impact on defining roles.
Nuff Said
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
482
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 00:29:00 -
[24] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:True Adamance wrote:Anti Infantry Large Turrets need to go. Racial Parity between Empire Main Battle Cannon Style Turrets need to happen.
Give HAV a role. Make them the top end Anti Vehicle weapons. Put Anti Infantry and Infantry Support in the hands of smaller, more vulnerable vehicles.
E.G- An Apocalypse Class Battleship fires a Large Beam Laser at a frigate...... it does not hit. The frigates signature is to small and the tracking speed is also too slow.
This is what I consider the difference between HAV (Apoc) and Infantry. It should not be easy to hit infantry, and the large calibre weapons of the HAV, while still deadly on hit to infantry, should be primarily designed to hit larger targets like other HAV, MAV, LAV, or Dropships. Considering that it's much easier to aim a turret at someone, and the fact that most kills against infantry from blasters are tanked heavily and/or not even moving, the comparison is not really there.
"tanked heavily", see that is the problem, I think if you want to go the AI route, maybe you need to sacrifice that durability to achieve it. Currently, you are immune to infantry (nearly) with the best counter being a tank to yourself. There is no harmony between tanks and infantry.
Nuff Said
|
True Adamance
Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire
6291
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 00:35:00 -
[25] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Roger Cordill wrote:True Adamance wrote:Anti Infantry Large Turrets need to go. Racial Parity between Empire Main Battle Cannon Style Turrets need to happen.
Give HAV a role. Make them the top end Anti Vehicle weapons. Put Anti Infantry and Infantry Support in the hands of smaller, more vulnerable vehicles.
E.G- An Apocalypse Class Battleship fires a Large Beam Laser at a frigate...... it does not hit. The frigates signature is to small and the tracking speed is also too slow.
This is what I consider the difference between HAV (Apoc) and Infantry. It should not be easy to hit infantry, and the large calibre weapons of the HAV, while still deadly on hit to infantry, should be primarily designed to hit larger targets like other HAV, MAV, LAV, or Dropships. Considering that it's much easier to aim a turret at someone, and the fact that most kills against infantry from blasters are tanked heavily and/or not even moving, the comparison is not really there. "tanked heavily", see that is the problem, I think if you want to go the AI route, maybe you need to sacrifice that durability to achieve it. Currently, you are immune to infantry (nearly) with the best counter being a tank to yourself. There is no harmony between tanks and infantry.
AV needs to hit tanks hard. Enough to scare me when I am rolling around.....
HAV need to have a clearly defined role. Since most HAV constantly say how they are only interested in fighting other HAV there should be no issue changing focus to Anti Vehicle Roles which imo would expand the capacity for other vehicle types to operate on the map....while making the tanks impact on the battle potent but managable to infantry.
"My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity."
|
Roger Cordill
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY
303
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 00:36:00 -
[26] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:[ I think we can agree that our ideas are pretty much the same. It's how we go about getting there that differs. I simply do not think the changes you proposed are extreme enough one way or another. Let's say we have 5 variables to consider. Increasing 2 slightly means 2 others need to be decreased slightly. What I'm saying, rather than trying to keep all the variants close, we dramatically increase 2 variables, and dramatically decreases 2 others to match.
I just don't see your changes being enough to truly make a noticeable impact on defining roles.
message from Godin: Well, If it's anywhere near your ideas, either rifles will outclass it, or the other turrets will. And it won't be a close race, it will be sad. It doesn't need to be extreme to be different; look at the suits (if you think they aren't different, they are; it's just that everybody fits them exactly the same due to a low amount of modules to use and imbalance of some things). That's what I was trying to say, and what you don't get.
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
483
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 00:48:00 -
[27] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Roger Cordill wrote:True Adamance wrote:Anti Infantry Large Turrets need to go. Racial Parity between Empire Main Battle Cannon Style Turrets need to happen.
Give HAV a role. Make them the top end Anti Vehicle weapons. Put Anti Infantry and Infantry Support in the hands of smaller, more vulnerable vehicles.
E.G- An Apocalypse Class Battleship fires a Large Beam Laser at a frigate...... it does not hit. The frigates signature is to small and the tracking speed is also too slow.
This is what I consider the difference between HAV (Apoc) and Infantry. It should not be easy to hit infantry, and the large calibre weapons of the HAV, while still deadly on hit to infantry, should be primarily designed to hit larger targets like other HAV, MAV, LAV, or Dropships. Considering that it's much easier to aim a turret at someone, and the fact that most kills against infantry from blasters are tanked heavily and/or not even moving, the comparison is not really there. "tanked heavily", see that is the problem, I think if you want to go the AI route, maybe you need to sacrifice that durability to achieve it. Currently, you are immune to infantry (nearly) with the best counter being a tank to yourself. There is no harmony between tanks and infantry. AV needs to hit tanks hard. Enough to scare me when I am rolling around..... HAV need to have a clearly defined role. Since most HAV constantly say how they are only interested in fighting other HAV there should be no issue changing focus to Anti Vehicle Roles which imo would expand the capacity for other vehicle types to operate on the map....while making the tanks impact on the battle potent but managable to infantry.
Exactly
"AV needs to hit tanks hard. Enough to scare me when I am rolling around....." If tanks had a lesser impact on infantry, infantry would care less about needing to hit hard.
Still, if you have 4 swarms knockin you at one time, you SHOULD be taking enough damage to NEED to move. Currently, that isn't always the case with hardeners, shield hardeners in particular.
Nuff Said
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
483
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 00:51:00 -
[28] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:[ I think we can agree that our ideas are pretty much the same. It's how we go about getting there that differs. I simply do not think the changes you proposed are extreme enough one way or another. Let's say we have 5 variables to consider. Increasing 2 slightly means 2 others need to be decreased slightly. What I'm saying, rather than trying to keep all the variants close, we dramatically increase 2 variables, and dramatically decreases 2 others to match.
I just don't see your changes being enough to truly make a noticeable impact on defining roles. message from Godin: Well, If it's anywhere near your ideas, either rifles will outclass it, or the other turrets will. And it won't be a close race, it will be sad. It doesn't need to be extreme to be different; look at the suits (if you think they aren't different, they are; it's just that everybody fits them exactly the same due to a low amount of modules to use and imbalance of some things). That's what I was trying to say, and what you don't get.
Let's stop with the blasters and look at the rails shall we.
What do you think on variants for them.
My thoughts, a high alpha, with a short range, small clip, low ROF, high heat cost. Another with a MUCH lower damage, but 600M range, High ROF, Large clip, Lower heat cost per shot.
How would you go about it?
Nuff Said
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
483
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 00:54:00 -
[29] - Quote
Sole Fenychs wrote:Tebu Gan wrote: I think the answer is both. I'm not finished yet, there is still a lot of subject matter to cover.
But yes, both, all turrets need variants that help define the given role. Among those variants, you will have some good for AV others good for infantry. Each will have it's own positives and negatives.
Large turrets for the most part, will focus solely on being AV and Infantry support. I think of it this way, if infantry AV are to expose themselves, being somewhat defenseless to normal infantry, then a tank that would want to do the same, needs to limit his capabilities against tanks in favor of better infantry support. Balance
Small turrets should be the opposite, focused on AI but with variants that are more suited to AV.
Sorry man, I know there is a LOT of information in there, I'll clear these things up once I reach my conclusion.
So, to make an example, would you be in favor of a large blaster with AI specialization that is bad against infantry? And the small railgun generally being AV? And then you add a large blaster that is intended for CQC against other tanks, while a small railgun variant will have more splash to kill infantry? Because that's the idea that I'm in favor of. As you said, AV infantry sacrifices strength against other infantry, so an AI tank should absolutely exist but require support to kill other tanks. In another thread, I proposed that secondary turrets could transform a tank into an allrounder. The idea here is that your main turret can be run solo and is only intended for one role, while your gunner positions can fill the other role. Manning turrets means occupying two additional team members, though, which weakens your team - Just like non-specialized infantry should need a team to take down a tank (e.g. flaylocks or AV grenades). Personally, I especially like the idea of tank-killing LAVs that simply move so fast that the main turret can't track them.
Yeah man, exactly what I was saying. Weapons geared for doing a specific jobs on the battlefield. Both small and large turrets. The same for modules.
Nuff Said
|
Roger Cordill
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY
304
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 01:01:00 -
[30] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Roger Cordill wrote:True Adamance wrote:Anti Infantry Large Turrets need to go. Racial Parity between Empire Main Battle Cannon Style Turrets need to happen.
Give HAV a role. Make them the top end Anti Vehicle weapons. Put Anti Infantry and Infantry Support in the hands of smaller, more vulnerable vehicles.
E.G- An Apocalypse Class Battleship fires a Large Beam Laser at a frigate...... it does not hit. The frigates signature is to small and the tracking speed is also too slow.
This is what I consider the difference between HAV (Apoc) and Infantry. It should not be easy to hit infantry, and the large calibre weapons of the HAV, while still deadly on hit to infantry, should be primarily designed to hit larger targets like other HAV, MAV, LAV, or Dropships. Considering that it's much easier to aim a turret at someone, and the fact that most kills against infantry from blasters are tanked heavily and/or not even moving, the comparison is not really there. "tanked heavily", see that is the problem, I think if you want to go the AI route, maybe you need to sacrifice that durability to achieve it. Currently, you are immune to infantry (nearly) with the best counter being a tank to yourself. There is no harmony between tanks and infantry.
I assume you misread my statement. They, the infantry are tanked heavily. Frigates at the most for PVP (the good ones anyways) have at most only a DCU. The rest is fitted to be really fast. Otherwise, bigger hulls will eat them up easily. Also, they are always moving, so the bigger hulls can't hit them (or they just use EWAR and not let them even get the chance to fire). That's why it's hard to hit a frigate with a battleship. If it was still, you could easily do it. And I have, and on several occasions. So, how to make it like EVE? Well first, if infantry wants to move in a vehicle rich enviroment, like the frigates, they need to be able to dodge and weave, and we have that now. But what if you can't do that? EWAR. We need EWAR, and then at that p[oint, my idea to balance blasters (imo, it shouldn't even happen; rails and missiles needs more looking at than blasters atm due to being ridiculously OP in vehicle fights while being able to smash infantry at range) and this, as well as other things such as hardener strength adjustments, and we'll be heading towards balance. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |