|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
507
   |
Posted - 2014.01.30 14:46:00 -
[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 an 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. (personal note: relate this turret type to fitting. Less focused on tanking damage, more on speed, mobility? Close range turrets, focus more on taking damage or avoiding it)
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
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
509
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 22:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:To be honest, I'm slightly against having different base turret variations. Any variation should come from ammo types, like in EVE.
Hybrid Ammo (railguns and blasters): deals about equal kinetic and thermal damage
Standard ammo gets no bonus to damage, tracking, and range
Close range ammo gets damage bonus and tracking but suffers on range
Long range ammo gets bonus to range but loses damage and tracking
Missiles: each type of missile gets four variants to cover damage types (EM, thermal, kinetic, and explosive missiles)
Standard missiles get no bonus to damage, range, or precision
Close range missiles get bonus damage but sacrifice range and precision
Long range missiles gain range and precision but sacrifice damage.
Each turret has capacity for a limited amount of rounds. It's up to the operator to pick how much of each ammo type he wishes to carry for a particular fit. Changing from one ammo type to another will require a reload to be performed.
That isn't a bad idea, but I think it follows the exact same idea that I have here. Rather than create a variety in the turrets, you do so with ammo.
Ammo variety = Turret variety
Same thing, just a different way of going about implementing them.
"Long range missiles gain range and precision but sacrifice damage"
"Close range missiles gain power but sacrifice precision and range"
Exact same thing I said with the turret types! But I do agree, ammo might be a good way to go about it. But it does make me wonder about balancing around a static turret damage number. Rather than assigning turrets a static number which ammo effects, make ammo determine the strength of the turret fully.
Some other things I addressed in my other thread, was the Tank and AV matchup. I feel that a big part of the problem right now is that tankers think they NEED to kill infantry and Infantry think they NEED to kill tanks. I feel that the numbers between infantry and tanks will never be balanced in a way that suits everyone.
And with this current build, tanks are the bane of all infantry. But what if tanks played tanks and infantry played infantry. Tanks help support and suppress infantry, but not outright kill. Same with infantry. And if a tank wanted to play the AI game with a large turret, they have to bump themselves down defensively so that AV can effectively deal with them.
Nuff Said
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
511
|
Posted - 2014.01.31 02:28:00 -
[3] - Quote
Vulpes Dolosus wrote:Your missile suggestions are bad.
Range and missiles don't mix. Their travel time is horrendous, and on top of that you're giving them a -25% damage nerf. You cannot slowly whittle away tanks currently because repairs are far to powerful, even in a rail tank, if you don't kill your opponent, they'll repair a majority of their health before you reengage.
I do agree missiles need a bit of a range and accuracy buff, out to 300m with little deviation, no dropoff just blowing up.
Missiles work fine against armor as a close- mid range ambush platform. However, they're completely walled by shields. I proposed a missile type that was strong to shields (EM; +20% to shield, -20% to armor) to mirror current missiles. This would make missiles excellent AV against their strong suit yet forceing missiles to cover their weakness with help from another tank/ AV.
It was just an EXAMPLE. Yes missiles need something different done to them agreed. I was just demonstrating the mantra, to gain in an area, you must lose.
And Harpyja mentioned above, using ammo types to determine the tank role. I really like your idea with a missile type that does extra EM damage and less armor damage. Right now missile are very situational in that they roll armor and are walled by shields. In this way they are still very situational, but they can go for either situation. I like.
And Harpyja's ammo idea is a perfect way to implement it!
Nuff Said
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
513
|
Posted - 2014.01.31 23:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
Xak Arji wrote:Hey Tebu, I really appreciate your analytical approach to this first off. I'm like you in that I really want to see dust balanced, and that I have quite a few months of vehicle experience. I like now how they finally changed the vehicles to being formidable, AKA a one man AV rambo tackling my Gunnlogi in 20 seconds flat was infuriating, BUT like you said it is still seriously lacking in balance.
My input is that I do not like the new over simplified modules. It provides next to no customization options. I.E. Next to all Rail Gunnlogies are going to be fit the same. I liked the old turret build with the option of things like the regulated Rail turret, which gave you a higher rotation speed to make sniping infantry easier. I also think that the "active" damage mods are stupid OP, and it also feeds into the over simplified module complaint. The old module echoed of EVE's own damage mods that were fit into low slots
Secondly, I am first and foremost an Assault Drop Ship Pilot, and it has drove me insane trying to enjoy what would be an awesome idea that would work in this game so well. Incredibly under balanced as usual. Before 1.7 a forge gun could 2 shot me before I even had the chance to react. Now it's gotten even worse, now that rail turrets have an active damage mod adding 30% damage, and the Python's HP cap somewhere around 2500 (my more balanced approach supporting a gunner around 2000) I go down in 1 shot more often then not. No warning at all.
Air to Air. There is next to no way to dog fight an equally well fitted/skilled ADS without any ramming involved (if you want to count that as a win). Dog fights often involve taking a few shots, then taking turns retreating into the red line. There isn't a way to trade my dumb fire missiles (or gunner positions) for an AA weapons involving a lock on feature. My personal opinion is that maybe we could get a module that trades all passenger and gunner slots for an AA gun or rocket launcher of some sort...
Any who I'm done ranting, I enjoyed your post! I would appreciate any and all feedback.
Dropships man, they are the reason I'm vehicle. Back after dust "Officially released" in May, I was trying to figure out what to do with my 3.5 mil of beta passive. I tried lots of things, and really liked the idea of dropships. I REALLY wanted to fly them, but at the time, cost and WP (mainly WP), kept me out of it. Plus back then, good dropship pilots were unheard of. I played with aur versions, but there was absolutely NO way to gain WP. Aside from gunners.
So being unable to get any SP with them I choose tanks. But I love dropships. They are STILL my favorite, and if I could manage to stay isk positive with them, I would roll them all the time. I could never fly the basic ones, always far too slow and sluggish, it just doesn't feel like a dropship. But once I got my hands on the ADS, I instantly fell in love. And suddenly, my flying skills made a huge leap.
Now, I can perform some crazy maneuvers and keep it alive most matches. Still nothing like some of the pros I've seen, but I can hold my own with them.
So **** tanks for a minute, let's talk dropships.
Like, what is the point to the standard dropships? And why such a slot limitation on the ADS over the standard?
Why don't we have actual dropship battles? You are right, it's best to ram them. No fun in that. But I wonder, why do the dropship and tank share modules? Why would you want to even try to balance tanks and dropships together???
With dropships, I would suggest separating the modules, so that you can focus on JUST BALANCING THE DROPSHIPS. Tanks and Dropships operate in two totally different ways. Everything is different between the two; the way they move, the way they fire rounds, the tactics involved, and most importantly, their roles on the battlefield. So why in the world are they not separated from tanks.
Everything is grouped up into one lump category, which actually works well for LAV's with respect to tanks due to the small HP they have. But a dropship is an aerial vehicle, it operates on different principles, and what a dropship needs may not be what a tank needs and vice versa.
What do you think of dropships having a separate choice of fits than the tanks. I think balance would be a lot easier to achieve, as you can focus on just tweaking the dropships in relation to tanks, rather than attempting both at the same time.
Nuff Said
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
548
|
Posted - 2014.02.07 23:32:00 -
[5] - Quote
Xak Arji wrote:Well... first off CCP clearly regards them as nothing short of air taxis.... (totally crap). And I'm amazed at the potential, BUT these space aged shielded versions of helicopters couldn't stand up against a modern age Apache. lol We have no warning systems, weapons systems that are very limited, HP like I said is way to low given the new damage mods.... I just hope to see them take a real role in Dust's battlefields.
Lack of fitting options, little to absolutely no defense depending on the map (the old ones clearly never had the ADS in mind) After going bankrupt (pre 1.7 my Python build cost 1 million a pop) and then relying on the charity of my corporation... I've lost hope in one of the few aspects of the game that I thought most enjoyable.
I think adjusting the power of that railgun would help make dropships more balanced. Like some of the stuff I suggested in the OP. If, for that range, a railgun was to sacrifice damage, a dropship would stand a much better chance. Right now, I think the problem is the reaction time for a dropship. Hell, a triple damage modded gunnlogi will nearly 1 shot dropships from the sky, and do so from the safety of the redline.
It gives you NO time to react. If you had time to activate hardeners, or a booster, or just give the armor repairs time to actually do SOMETHING, flying a dropship would become a much more enjoyable experience.
At the same time, it would improve the tank game. Reducing damage, makes using it in CQC less attractive while making it use of it's range appealing. It's a type of weapon that will still pack a punch, but no more 3 shot killing. The TTK of tanks would go WAY up I think. Making tank battles far more epic.
Nuff Said
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
608
|
Posted - 2014.02.24 21:36:00 -
[6] - Quote
Shameful I know
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
949
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 22:55:00 -
[7] - Quote
Resurrecting this from the graveyard.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
|
|
| |
|