| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
2501
   |
Posted - 2014.02.17 18:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
I have not seen this particular suggestion posted (it is possible that I missed it). It seems like it would provide more dynamic and interesting play for Tankers while solving the perma hardening issue, so I thought I would post it here to see what the CPM and CPM candidates thought of the idea.
Problem:
When a HAV is fitted with 3 Hardeners and they are run in sequence, the first Hardener is nearly off of cooldown by the time the third hardener runs out, resulting in the ability to have hardeners running almost continuously, allowing no wave of opportunity for AV.
Proposed Solution:
Part 1: Have a new type of stacking penalty which reduces the duration (up time) of all Hardeners for every Hardener that is added to a fit. Leave the cooldown duration the same.
- With 1 Hardener the HAV would have a long wave of protection, followed by a vulnerable period while the Hardener is on cooldown, just as you would if you only equipped 1 hardener currently.
- With 2 Hardeners the HAV would have two medium length waves of protection. Since the Duration is reduced, but the cooldown is not, even if they are run in sequence, there will be a cooldown time (wave of opportunity for AV) after.
- With 3 Hardeners the HAV would have three short length (20 second) waves of protection. This would allow a good tanker to counter individual attacks. With proper cooldown management, and effective use of those 20 second windows to either kill the AV or get to cover, a tanker with good cooldown management could stay in the field for a long time.
Part 2: When multiple Hardeners are activated at the same time their resistance, duration and cooldowns all stack. So with three 20 second Hardeners activated at the same time you would get the combined resistance of all 3 Hardeners (minus the standard stacking penalty) for 1 minute (20 seconds x 3), followed by 3 times the normal Hardener cooldown duration.
Dependency:
For this to work properly a module on cooldown would have to prevent the vehicle from being recalled until the cooldown timer runs out.
Discussion:
- Fitting a single Hardener would give a longer up time with less cooldown than stacking multiple Hardeners. When the single Hardener is active this would give enough resistance to protect against a couple of AV, but would be vulnerable to other HAVGÇÖs and large groups of AV. It would free up slots for other modules though.
- Fitting 3 Hardeners would allow the use of the Hardeners individually as an active countermeasure, which if used effectively would allow the HAV to remain in the field for a much longer period of time. (Using those 20 second waves to kill AV or get away from them.)
- Fitting 3 Hardeners would also allow for very high resistance for an extended length of time (but not as long was with only 1 Hardener fitted) when fighting another HAV or dealing with a coordinated group of AV, but at the cost of a much longer cooldown.
- Fitting 2 Hardeners is sort of a compromise between fitting 1 and fitting 3. Also assuming that normal stacking penalties apply to the stacked resistance when activating multiple hardeners, fitting 2 Hardeners gets more resistance per module than fitting 3.
Fox Gaden: DUST Wall of Fame, 2014
|
Kevall Longstride
DUST University
Ivy League
1003
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 21:50:00 -
[2] - Quote
These are sound proposals and would work if, and its a big if, the unreal engine could cope with it. It's struggling as it is right now.
However I would present this as a counter proposal, which I think is easier to achieve. Simply shorten the duration of the hardeners and increase the cooldown. Is would make them the hit and fade option that CCP talked about pre 1.7.
In terms of the stacking penalty, I think a more elegant solution, that would reward those that highly specialise into HAV roles and vehicle upgrades is to place a stacking penalty on the CPU and PG needs of the modules themselves. This would mean that order to have a higher hardened EHP, you'd have to sacrifice either speed, armour HP, or offensive capability because you need to counteract the stacking penalty with PG and CPU modules.
So the choice is either have a massively hardened HAV but only have enough CPU and PG to run standard and if you've put enough SP into the core vehicle skills an Advanded turrent. That's one extreme. The other is the opposite way round.
I think that then the HAV users will then tend to go for a middle ground while giving them the option of having the more extreme fits when the battle situations allow.
Oh, and I'd make the recall time on a tank at least as long as hacking an objective but have it effected by the hacking skill so you make it shorter.
Mercenary Clone of Dennie Fleetfoot
CEO of DUST University
CPM1 candidate
|
Killar-12
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2345
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 21:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
There's an old phrase that comes to mind here
Keep
It
Simple
S*****
I see issues but it's way too complex, I'd rather CCP not have to make an complex equation and just do something simple.
Listen
I'll change the song every week
|
Killar-12
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2346
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 22:16:00 -
[4] - Quote
Kevall Longstride wrote:These are sound proposals and would work if, and its a big if, the unreal engine could cope with it. It's struggling as it is right now.
However I would present this as a counter proposal, which I think is easier to achieve. Simply shorten the duration of the hardeners and increase the cooldown. Is would make them the hit and fade option that CCP talked about pre 1.7.
In terms of the stacking penalty, I think a more elegant solution, that would reward those that highly specialise into HAV roles and vehicle upgrades is to place a stacking penalty on the CPU and PG needs of the modules themselves. This would mean that order to have a higher hardened EHP, you'd have to sacrifice either speed, armour HP, or offensive capability because you need to counteract the stacking penalty with PG and CPU modules.
So the choice is either have a massively hardened HAV but only have enough CPU and PG to run standard and if you've put enough SP into the core vehicle skills an Advanded turrent. That's one extreme. The other is the opposite way round.
I think that then the HAV users will then tend to go for a middle ground while giving them the option of having the more extreme fits when the battle situations allow.
Oh, and I'd make the recall time on a tank at least as long as hacking an objective but have it effected by the hacking skill so you make it shorter.
This is what I mean, on a side note I'd like the Enginerring, Electronics, Armor and Shield Skills to give bonuses to base stats.
Listen
I'll change the song every week
|
Bendtner92
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1732
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 08:15:00 -
[5] - Quote
Limit vehicles to a single hardener.
Winner of the EU Squad Cup & the closed beta Tester's Tournament.
Go Go Power Rangers!
R.I.P MAG.
|
RedBleach LeSanglant
Hellstorm Inc
League of Infamy
558
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 06:32:00 -
[6] - Quote
Limiting the amounts just to limit something is not in the mechanics of the game. Making them too expensive through CPU or PG costs is. However, That is not the issue.
I could see this being an OK thing for an intense battle in the future. Why I don't think it should happen now is that there is no AV counter for it yet. All a tanker would need to do is expend their hardeners, run, and have an invisible RDV wisk it away to safety so that the player could call it back in as soon as it's gone. The current flaw in mechanics make beating long cooldowns easy.
If there were Proper AV measures like Webifiers to keep the vehicle there or a real RDV that could be destroyed before the tank was taken keeping it vulnerable I believe that this would be an acceptable overpowered move as after a minute of being king they would also be vulnerable.
Then again some method to break hardeners with E-warfare would be welcome too.
The Logi Code. The Path of the Logibro
|
Bendtner92
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1748
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 08:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
RedBleach LeSanglant wrote:as after a minute of being king they would also be vulnerable.
Except that they aren't.
Three Shield Hardeners will keep a Gunnlogi hardened at all times. Even just two would only give a 15 second window after 60 seconds.
Two Armor Hardeners will keep a Madrugar hardened at all times.
Vehicles are designed with windows of opportunity in mind and fitting more than one hardener breaks that completely, so I don't see the problem in limiting vehicles to a single hardener.
There's a reason they also only allow a single Cloak fitted, because otherwise you could see Scouts be cloaked at all times, which they aren't supposed to be.
Winner of the EU Squad Cup & the closed beta Tester's Tournament.
Go Go Power Rangers!
R.I.P MAG.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
2535
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 11:28:00 -
[8] - Quote
RedBleach LeSanglant wrote:Limiting the amounts just to limit something is not in the mechanics of the game. Making them too expensive through CPU or PG costs is. However, That is not the issue.
I could see this being an OK thing for an intense battle in the future. Why I don't think it should happen now is that there is no AV counter for it yet. All a tanker would need to do is expend their hardeners, run, and have an invisible RDV wisk it away to safety so that the player could call it back in as soon as it's gone. The current flaw in mechanics make beating long cooldowns easy.
If there were Proper AV measures like Webifiers to keep the vehicle there or a real RDV that could be destroyed before the tank was taken keeping it vulnerable I believe that this would be an acceptable overpowered move as after a minute of being king they would also be vulnerable.
Then again some method to break hardeners with E-warfare would be welcome too.
Fox Gaden wrote:Dependency:
For this to work properly a module on cooldown would have to prevent the vehicle from being recalled until the cooldown timer runs out.
Fox Gaden: DUST Wall of Fame, 2014
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
631
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 22:01:00 -
[9] - Quote
Yes, I've made this suggestion in some of my really long postings.
That is, adding a new stacking penalty to hardeners.
My thought was to apply it to your downtime, so that the more you have stacked, the longer your cooldown timer is per module.
Example: 1 hardener = 60 seconds
2 hardeners = 80 seconds per mod
3 hardeners = 120 seconds per mod (currently 60 seconds)
Your uptime is ever static, but multiplying hardeners multiplies down time.
(Really think that's a scrub set up myself (triple hardeners), though I can understand it being very effective against AV. PRO mods are required to get the constantly Hardened effect, so anything less and it's not PERMA HARDENED.
Additionally, know that you only target one tank type in particular with changes like this, the gunnlogi. I've found, though I'm not confident as I've not driven my madrudger enough yet, that a double rep set up with a single hardener is the way to go with them. NOT STACKING HARDENERS. Anyways, this is just a little side note of mine, ignore it if ya know it! )
Kinda of neat if you could be hardened for a full minute, but I'm not so sure on combing runtime totals. Active modules work from the time you turn them on to 24 seconds. Don't like the idea of stacking the timers to achieve invulnerability for a minute, as it is easy to cycle the downtime by recalling or moving to the redline. Even keeping up with a retreating tank is impossible for infantry, so waiting out the cooldown isn't much of an issue.
Here is something else to consider "The main source of tanker hate, isn't the fact that they can't kill them. It's the blaster tank that makes such an impact on said infantry, that is the source of hate. Cost is also an issue, as "Tank SPAM" is very easy to do when tanks cost as much as suits."
IF tanks affected infantry directly less than they do now, or hardly at all, would hardeners even be a concern for infantry? Tack on a WP for tank damage, and how would infantry feel about tanks? And removing "tank spam" by dramatically increasing tank costs across the board.
A few things to note about your idea here.
- A gunnlogi is truly the only tank type affected heavily.
- Tanks as a whole, lack a lot of variety in fitting. Plates and Extenders PALE in comparison to hardeners, in the madrudgers case, reppers.
- Madrudgers already typically use only ONE hardener. CPU restraints can be very restricting on a maddie.
- Madrudger's gun depression makes them BEAST at killing infantry in CQC, so are gunnlogi's and their hardeners the issue?
- Much lower HP totals on the gunnlogi, so resistances are key to survival. Also, it's VERY important that a gunnlogi activate hardeners BEFORE it perceives a threat. Unlike the madrudger, it has no shield buffer to pad incoming damage, not to mention losing any shields means a HUGE lose, as that portion was unhardened. A forge gun or rail gun can EASILY 2 shot one.
Just a couple things off the top of my head. And remember, tanks are EXTREMELY limited when it comes to fitting. Not many options or variety.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |