DUST Search - Tanks - A real balance thread (Long Posting)

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Tanks - A real balance thread (Long Posting)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 507	Posted - 2014.01.30 13:29:00 - [1] - Quote Tanks are all the rage man. They are ultra powerful powerhouses, that will stand and deliver against anything that isn't a tank! Not to say this is a good thing. I've driven tanks since the "Official release" and from what I was to understand, Tanks were supposed to be mostly hit and run tanks post 1.7. The Gunnlogi was to be your standard hit and run tank. Strike out quick, do your damage, and back out. Your standard Madrudger was to be your longer lasting powerhouse. Able to take a larger beating, for a longer while than the gunnlogi, but the tradeoff was slower healing and recharging. Though from my experience, this is more of how it works with this current build. The Gunnlogi is a powerhouse that stands toe to toe with other tanks, outlasting tanks and infantry through resistance alone. 2 hardeners aren't hard to fit, and will make you nearly invincible to infantry, by cycling the 2 mods. 60% is enough to negate most forms of non proto AV. Oh and they are very agile, able to run circles around a maddie. Against tanks, the duration of 2 hardeners is typically long enough to drop a tank, while negating all damage from blasters or missiles. Rails are a different story, though you can eat most all shots from anything that isn't damage modded, or non proto. The Maddie, is a powerhouse much like the gunnlogi, but with less overall resistance and a constant heal, they don't stand up to High Alpha Damage. Not to mention CPU limits for fitting. Much harder to fit a damage mod up as opposed to the gunnlogi, that could have 3 if they wanted. I have trouble myself (not skilled heavily into armor) fitting even 2 hardeners. Given the way their heals work, they seem more like the hit and run. Yes they are powerhouses all the same, but they can recover HP incredibly fast. So backing out for just a few seconds will get you back into the fight. Oh and the maddie's turn like bricks, not very agile. Still the 2 tanks are both very similar when stacked against infantry, but tank on tank, I think the Gunnlogi holds the advantage, which is much better with taking high alpha damage, or any damage for that matter. Anyways, let's move on to the meat of this post, WHAT'S WRONG WITH TANKS! What's wrong with Infantry vs Tank and Tank vs Tank. Both areas would do well with some improvements and I think the changes I propose go hand in hand with the 2 matchups. Movement Speed Tanks are much faster than ever. It is very easy to move in and out of battle, avoid swarms, nades, or forgers. The high movement speed also makes tracking more difficult. To me, if you want to move fast, you need to sacrifice something for the sake of balance. Tanks are fast, and damn near invincible with hardeners, all I see are positives. There is no equal trade off. If we want tanks to maintain the durability, then we need to trade that off with less speed. Slower to move around, but you can soak up the damage, or Fast and agile, weak on the defenses. With a durability fit, the goal is to max out your staying power. The way I see it, weaker firepower, slower speed, but a high HP and long lasting defenses achieves these goals. You can't have a high Defense and a high Speed, you must sacrifice one or the other. In a hit and run fit, speed and agility are your key methods of survival. Lower HP, shorter duration defenses, but a fast Speed and heavy Firepower achieves these goals. They would be less focused on taking damage and more on outright avoiding it. Defenses are used as needed to escape, or mitigate the initial damage to allow you to get into position. Overall, the imbalance with speed, needs to be fixed keeping these thoughts in mind. A speed nerf across the board isn't going to fix the problem, which isn't as easy as saying reducing speed fixes tanks. Actually reducing speed for maddies and increasing it for gunnlogis is a start, but a few other things need to be addressed. Hardeners The way active hardeners work now, is they dramatically increase resistances, for either a short time (gunnlogi) or a longer time(maddie), with twice as much cooldown time as uptime. Hardeners are it, they are the most important thing you can fit to your tank. In most every cases, using 2 means either unlimited uptime VS infantry via cycling, or a counter to heavy damage modded tanks, and death to any tank running anything else. A few problems with hardeners, they last far too long for what they put out, and cooldown far too fast. If we want high resistance from our hardeners, we need to trade something off. In the case of gunnlogis, they provide the highest amount of resistance for the shortest amount of time. At 24 seconds uptime and 60 seconds downtime (not including skills) That means with 2 hardeners, cycled properly, Uptime is 48 seconds down time is 12 seconds, until the first is cooled down. With skills maxed, a single hardener has an uptime of 30 seconds downtime of 45 seconds. So stacking 2 you reach a max of Uptime of 60 seconds Downtime of 0 seconds until the first cooled down Nuff Said
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 507	Posted - 2014.01.30 13:30:00 - [2] - Quote 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 game Longest range So 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. Nuff Said
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 507	Posted - 2014.01.30 13:30:00 - [3] - Quote Missiles You know, missiles really hold a very special place in my heart. They were always the underdog, a bit dazed and confused on what their primary purpose was. With the new build, they were given a purpose, yet that purpose is far too limited. First off, using these things without at least one damage mod are painful. Reload is SLOW, slow enough that the enemy has plenty of time to reposition and heal at times. Against a shield hardened gunnlogi, it's better to just move along. The only real purpose I see to them is killing maddies. Number crunching time: All examples are of prototype level and assume a matchup where both tanks square off on equal ground. Direct damage - 539.50 Fire interval - .15s Clip size - 12 Reload speed of 10 seconds I believe 539.50 * 12 = 6474 which is the total damage of all missiles 12.15 = 3 seconds to unleash a whole clip These things LOOK beastly on paper, but lets start factoring in resistances Single hardener(gunnlogi) Shields are naturally resistant to explosives by 20% 539.50 .20 = 107.9 539.50 * .60 = 323.7 323.7 + 107.9 = 431.6 539.50 - 431.6 = 107.9 So if you will notice, missiles only do 20% damage to shields. Assuming my math is right 107.9 * 12 =1294.8 total damage. 140.27 * 12 = 1683.24 with a damage mod active Gunnlogi shields sit at 2650, one volley leaves them with 1355.2 or 966.76 . 4 seconds later recharge kicks in 168/s mitigating another 400 HP before they have a chance to line up another volley. So assuming they have one hardener, breaking through will be difficult, but hardly impossible. The thing you must understand though is TIME. It is an absolute positive you won't break through in a single volley, which means before you even engage, not only are the odds stacked resistance wise against you, time is against you as well. In these 13 to 9 seconds(added in time to unleash a full volley 3 seconds), it's safe to assume that you are likely taking damage yourself. If it is a rail tank, your alpha can't match his alpha damage, he won't need to reload to drop you. If it is a blaster, no doubt you are running resistance yourself, so the encounter is more about whose hardeners drop first. Given a blaster isn't really designed well for killing tanks compared to the other 2 types, a missile tends to win here but it can easily go both ways. So trying to tackle a gunnlogi with missiles, generally ends in a bad time. Against a maddie though, things really tend to go a lot smoother. Here is where the damage mod really shines. Maddie total health - 4000 armor 1200 shields Extra missile damage - 20% 539.50 * .20 = 539.50 + 107.9 = 647.4 armor damage 647.4 * .40 = 647.4 - 258.96 = 388.44 after resistances (single hardener) Here's where it gets tricky, armor tanks have this nice little shield buffer, that while isn't much, will soak up a lot of missile damage. 539.5 - 107.9 = 431.6 / 1200 = 2.7 rounding up to 3. So it takes 3 missiles to drop the shields, factoring this in 388.4 * 9 = 3495.6 out of 4000 armor, barely hangin on! So in a mere 3 seconds, this maddie would have died to a damage mod. This is of course only if every missile connects. Things get a little crazy with full auto, so I always fire in bursts to ensure max damage. It's not unusual for a single missile to miss, which if you will notice, makes a HUGE difference. But let's see what happens when we factor out the shield buffer, as this next volley won't see it. 388.44 * 12 = 4661.28 Check that out, the shield buffer negates 1165.68 of a total 4661.28 that it would do to armor. The shields alone ate nearly a quarter of the damage. The shields are something else to factor in when you think about balance. For a gunnlogi, it is almost certain death losing your shields, as you really have nothing to fall back on. For an armor tank the shields act as basically a free buffer, naturally resistant to their weakness, explosives. They provide free HP, that will recharge all on it's own. (sorry off topic a bit but I needed to get that out) So 2 volleys will drop one no problem, even with armor regen. What happens though when we drop a damage mod into the equation. 647.4 * .30 = 194.22 + 647.4 = 841.62 * .40 = 841.62 - 336.65 = 504.97(armor) 539.5 * .30 = 161.85 + 539.5 = 701.35 * .20 = 701.35 - 140.27 = 561.08 (shields) In this case 2 missiles are negated by shields 504.97 * 10 = 5049.7 So a single volley is enough to OHK a maddie, with plenty of time left over to teabag. So for a maddie to survive a single volley from damage modded missiles, you HAVE to use 2 hardeners or a plate. Even then, more than likely you will lose. So missiles are ultra effective against against armor, while weak against shields. Why? They are the only turret type with such a noted distinction, they are geared for killing only a specific type of tank. Neither of the other turret types have such a noted distinction, why do missiles NEED one? That is what I wonder. Then to top it all off, missiles require the largest SP investment. Why are they on such a high pedestal? When you hide it behind such high requirements, you expect it to be worth the investment. They seem more of a novelty to the elite, being so situational. So let's stack it up with the railgun right fast. Missiles I would say are equally as effective as a railgun at killing infantry, maybe more so but only slightly. Missiles are most effective against armor, nominal against shields. Railguns on the other hand are simply that, tank busters, all kinds. So what niche exactly are missiles fulfilling atm? Are they supposed to be anti tank? The rails do it better Are they supposed to be anti infantry? The blasters do it better. What is it we want from missiles? Nuff Said
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 507	Posted - 2014.01.30 13:31:00 - [4] - Quote 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! Nuff Said
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 507	Posted - 2014.01.30 13:32:00 - [5] - Quote The Infantry vs Tank Debate (Pre 1.7) So I want to take a moment and really focus on the Infantry vs Vehicle matchup. It's a rather touchy and hot topic. Here's what happened from the previous build to the new build. Pre 1.7 tanks were squishy compared to the strength of AV. On top of this, tanks were EXPENSIVE. A single tank, fully fitted with proto, cost upwards of a 1 mil, more if you used an enforcer tank. But a single inexpensive swarm launcher, who by the way wouldn't render to us outside of 150M sometimes not even that, was able to easily solo a tank. Back then, the best counter to a tank, was something as common as a swarm launcher. Hell, when I first started tanking, NO ONE HAD SWARMS. Guess what happened, TRIPLE SP WEEK! After that, it seemed that swarms were everywhere, like people finally caught on that swarms make short work of tanks, coupled with AV nades. Back then, running anything less than the best, meant death. No milita tank ever did anything of use. Think about this here, currently, AV is in the same position tanks were in before the patch. The problem I think, is that the infantry are still clinging to their old idea's (and some serious balance issues that will be addressed) that they NEED to kill a tank. *(Post 1.7)* And now infantry are like wtf, even milita tanks won't die to swarms! I think we all know this build well enough. Tanks are a presence on the battlefield, that can easily turn the tide of battle. More than once, I've gone into a losing game only to turn it completely around and end up winning it. But let's actually identify the problem. "Tanks, TANKS that's the problem. They are too OP" says the footsoldier. "Ok, so there is a problem with tanks, can you be a little more specific" I calmly respond. " To FAST, I can't catch them to kill them. And hardeners, they are too strong, my weapons are useless." he replies in agitated tones. "Well, what is it that he did to you, isn't there an objective to hack, infantry to kill?" I say. "Yeah, but tank" says the footsoldier. Facepalm "Sir, is this tank a threat to you" I ask. "Umm, hello, Tank" says the footsoldier mockingly. Facepalm The only turret type, that has any ability to disrupt infantry consistently, is the BLASTER TURRET. I think this is the biggest problem area for infantry. If the blaster was more vehicle focused and as effective as the other turret at killing infantry, a lot of grief would stop. As it stand now, tanks require more than one infantry to just push back, and even with 2, it can be a struggle. The same idea needs to be applied to tanks, if they want to disrupt infantry, they need gunners to do so. (make gunners vulnerable btw) All in all, I think a lot of people are going about this the wrong way. Pre 1.7, I didn't think the problems were that serious, a few tweaks here and there would have brought them more inline with AV. And I think the same of this current build. A lot of the issues people bring up, aren't even the REAL issues. There's a big picture here but I'll put it as simply as I can. Tanks kill Tanks Infantry kill Infantry Infantry supports tanks (Av) Tank supports infantry (rider turrets) Nuff Said
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 507	Posted - 2014.01.30 13:33:00 - [6] - Quote Reserved Nuff Said
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 507	Posted - 2014.01.30 13:34:00 - [7] - Quote Reserved Nuff Said
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 507	Posted - 2014.01.30 13:38:00 - [8] - Quote Reserved Nuff Said
Harpyja Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 1149	Posted - 2014.01.30 14:24:00 - [9] - Quote I think railguns need to stay long ranged, not decrease their range, while making them ineffective at CQC. The problem I have with rails at CQC is that it takes only some decency from the rail tank to prevent you from out maneuvering them: either drive in a straight line which prevents you from driving in circles around them or dance with you, which also prevents you from dancing around them. The key to beating a rail tank at CQC is to outmaneuver them, but knowing just the simple trick of driving in a straight line while firing the railgun will prevent the rail tank from getting outmaneuvered and beaten due to low tracking speed. It's able to apply its full DPS without getting outmaneuvered. I think that railguns, while charging up or are holding a charge (firing automatically), they should become immobilized. If you're using it at range, this shouldn't be a problem. Try to use it at CQC though, and you'll end up driving without being able to shoot back or trying to shoot while being circled and unable to track. Their range is not an issue I have. It's map design that needs work, because we have too many bowl maps where you can shoot from redzone to redzone. It's not fun when both teams have several rail tanks darting in and out of cover in their redline taking pot shots at each other. But this is just map design that's a problem. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 507	Posted - 2014.01.30 14:45:00 - [10] - Quote Harpyja wrote: I think railguns need to stay long ranged, not decrease their range, while making them ineffective at CQC. The problem I have with rails at CQC is that it takes only some decency from the rail tank to prevent you from out maneuvering them: either drive in a straight line which prevents you from driving in circles around them or dance with you, which also prevents you from dancing around them. The key to beating a rail tank at CQC is to outmaneuver them, but knowing just the simple trick of driving in a straight line while firing the railgun will prevent the rail tank from getting outmaneuvered and beaten due to low tracking speed. It's able to apply its full DPS without getting outmaneuvered. I think that railguns, while charging up or are holding a charge (firing automatically), they should become immobilized. If you're using it at range, this shouldn't be a problem. Try to use it at CQC though, and you'll end up driving without being able to shoot back or trying to shoot while being circled and unable to track. Their range is not an issue I have. It's map design that needs work, because we have too many bowl maps where you can shoot from redzone to redzone. It's not fun when both teams have several rail tanks darting in and out of cover in their redline taking pot shots at each other. But this is just map design that's a problem. My proposal is to have both, a long range rail, and a short range CQC rail. Variety in turrets. Let's say the long range rail, trades firepower for range. Vice versa for the CQC. We only have ONE turret type per class. You shouldn't have a LONG RANGE rail, that can 2 to 3 shot anything on the map with a damage mod. Damage mods in turn need to provide some sort of negative. While active, defenses are reduced, or speed is reduced. Balance means you can't have the best of everything, you must sacrifice in order to gain. I do like the immobilization idea though, I'll be sure to include that at some point with how I think it can be utilized on a rail type. Nuff Said

Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 388	Posted - 2014.01.31 07:15:00 - [11] - Quote I really appreciate seeing well thought out means of "balancing" gameplay through ideas that affect the mechanics of game play and not simply buffing and nerfing numbers. I have an idea that I believe would compliment the infantry "dedicated" turrets HERE Having a single player switch between movement, and combat seats (like in the LAV) could reduce the amount of solo deployment, or perhaps give infantry a greater window of opportunity to turn the tide. Mihi gravato Deus - "Let God lay the burden on me!"


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.