|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Eskimorris
SVER True Blood
General Tso's Alliance
21
   |
Posted - 2014.02.18 07:30:00 -
[1] - Quote
Its so simple I can't believe its never been proposed.
Shooting your large cannon causes any active hardeners to go into immediate cool down.
tank v tank is still equal , neither tanker has the benefit of a hardener while dealing damage
tank vs infantry is still viable until AV (existing damage even) appears. A tank can still choose fight or flight at this point.
scenario 1
both tank and av are viable in this scenario
a tank is wrecking a group of infantry,
an AV infantry appears to answer to this tank
the tank can still easily gun down solo AV, but would fall prey to a team of coordinated AV (a real risk not like the current model)
if the tank chooses to run and use a hardener there is incentive to move to a safer location, as dithering between fight and flight would waste a hardener, AV still get to deter tanks without killing them constantly. a more balanced battlefield.
the tanker if successful at killing or detering the AV group or solo AV wielder would still be able to dominate the infantry battling on foot.
scenario 2
tank v tank is still viable and actually becomes a richer experience in this scenario
a tank meets another tank on the battlefield.
neither tank benefits from a hardener while dealing damage the playing field is still even.
this would open up more imaginative load outs of tank modules.
a clever tanker could activate their hardener and bait the the other tank until they must reload then turn the tide. This adds relevency to having a finite clip of ammo.
scenario 3
in this scenario passengers are an advantage again as intended
an enemy tank or team of av appear to fight your tank off
you activate your hardener and your passengers go on the assault with small turrets.
the AV crew would be in serious trouble. but you sacrifice a lot of dominance by fitting these turrets.
The enemy tank not having the benefit of a hardener whilst dealing large cannon damage could still be in big trouble with the right load of small turrets.
discuss.
|
Eskimorris
SVER True Blood
General Tso's Alliance
21
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 20:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
Tankers would still be lethal and full their role. It wouldn't allow for complete dominance as they have now though. This solution does not remove any defensive our offensive power. But you can't be both simultaneously |
Eskimorris
SVER True Blood
General Tso's Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 23:31:00 -
[3] - Quote
Correct light turrets could still be fired during a hardener. I invite tankers to post their thoughts as well. If they're is a constructive rebuttal id bee pleased to hear it as much as support.
Cheers |
Eskimorris
SVER True Blood
General Tso's Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 03:33:00 -
[4] - Quote
Thank you True Adamance, BIlly Lawson, and Dunce Masterson for your feedback.
@True Adamance i agree tanks and infantry should not be an even match by any means. Given tanks are a larger target it makes sense that they would be harder to destroy, they are in fact the hardest playable role in the game. I have two questions for you that will help me understand your concern / position a lot better if you would be so kind as to answer them thoroughly. Thank You :)
Considering the very large amount of eHP and that fastest shield or armor regeneration speed and health per pulse in the game.
1) Do you actually feel tanks would not be effective at their intended role with these changes?
Currently, as you are certainly aware, there are also infantry classes in this game as well. There is no best fit Infantry for all situations and most would agree this enriches our experience playing dust. Choose which of these questions seem more natural for you to answer.
2a) Do you feel tanking is enriched by having fewer choices of combat roles and fittings during a match?
2b) Do you feel it is necessary to fit your with multiple hardeners or a certain way because you may encounter opposition with the same equally powerful fit?
@Billy Lawson thank you for your support. Could you follow up to explain your typical role during gameplay, do you tank often or run AV?
@Dunce Masterson I have a belly button and sometimes theres lint in it. You have failed to articulate as to why this proposal is bad other than offer a different unrelated change. Please make a post about it or follow up with how this would negatively impact your role (i'm assuming) as a tanker. That being said i disagree with your proposal, tanks should be allowed multiple hardeners, the cost is high, but continuous armor hardeners without pause or very little pause appears to not be the intended effect of the recent changes to vehicles. We can all agree that tanking is a lot of fun in 1.7, it should stay this way. |
Eskimorris
SVER True Blood
General Tso's Alliance
30
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 18:34:00 -
[5] - Quote
Text Grant wrote:This is a very interesting base of an idea. I say yes. Start this for sicas and somas. But for maddies and gunnies lessen the penalty as they are made better. Perhaps shorten hardeners according to power used, 1000 damage expended shortens by 5-10 seconds
This its a great piece of feedback i agree. Replying via smart phone will give a much deserved counter to these posts tonight though. One closing thought before tonight. My average cost of an effective tank is about 80k. Average cost of an ineffective av is 90k minimum. I still agree the tank should have the advantage 1v1 |
Eskimorris
SVER True Blood
General Tso's Alliance
30
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 20:47:00 -
[6] - Quote
Psychotic Shooter wrote:. obvious troll is obvious
obvious troll is also obvious scrub. please articulate your concern. Are you saying tanks are fine and need no balancing? Please day something less idiotic k thx. |
Eskimorris
SVER True Blood
General Tso's Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 05:42:00 -
[7] - Quote
Thank you everyone for great feedback. It is great having so many points of view on the way tanking can be improved. I would like to emphasis if you have an alternative idea please link to your post about it or start your own thread, which is a great way to voice your opinion. This thread is about hardeners disabling once you fire your large blaster cannon and how it could improve tanking for all scenarios of tanking.
It would be fair to explain my experience with tanking and also my experience with AV at this point.
before this build i had 6 million skill points devoted to tanking, i consider myself an advanced tanker but not a dedicated tanker. I am comfortable in a tank but certainly not the best tanker, i feel i have a decent understanding of the mechanics and also when you are dominant and when you are also in danger.
I have also ran proficiency 5 swarm launchers since open beta. I am basing my feedback from both of these points of views. here are some points that should be clear about my feedback
I do not feel it would make AV over powered
I do not feel it would wound the Tanker class substantially aka make them underpowered
Both AV and tanking are damn near balanced except for when multiple hardeners come into play
I feel tanks being cheap are good, i feel AV fits being more expensive than usable tank fits is not fair unless these changes are implemented
common argument:
Tanks are not OP they are as intended. It should take a group of av to take down one tank as tanks are meant to dominate an engagement situationaly when they enter the engagement.
my unique opposing arguement:
It is really not uncommon to see 2-4 tanks (on average 3) in any battle. It would take 3-4 AV specific infantry suites to challenge/deter/destroy an enemy tank. That means on maps that there are, to be modest, 2 tanks, it would require 6 or 8 of the infantry to answer that. Lets really examine this integer for a moment.
1/8 of the enemy team has tanks
1/3 (or 1/2) of your team is dedicated to detering the tanker
the enemy team has 14 players at minimum to hack and defend objectives.
the friendly team has 12 to 8 players to take the objectives.
This is a modest number and in a lot of games there are more tanks and less AV. This is just the best case scenario balance (imagine if there were 4 tanks as sometimes there are right?)
points of view:
Speaking from a tanking perspective in 1.7 (0 SP spent into tanks)
i fear dedicated tankers
i understand how skilling into the vehicle tree would improve my performance
I do not in any way fear AV with 0 SP
speaking from an AV perspective in 1.7
with proficiency 5 swarms i can at best kill a miliia tank with my entire payload 2 reloads.
my suit cost more than the tank im attacking
what i assume:
assuming dedicated tankers position (with feedback from dedicated tankers)
I fear tanks when they are fit to destroy tanks only *multiple hardeners with damage mod)
I fear no AV with multiple hardeners
lol infantry is cool to kill i win
*****
my opinion for your consideration:
anyone who says tanking is not a blast is wrong, low risk high reward. an already deployed tanking squad though can squelch any anti tank tanks from being deployed. They fear no AV and they dominate an area.
The maps may be flawed but currently they are what we have.
swarms are not OP because they are slow and are exposed during lock which w/ proficiency 5 (being buggy) is still a long moment.
red line tankers are a problem but are likely already being dealt with. You would not fire upon a redline tanker with a blaster or a missile turret from over 150 meters so there is no arguement here, they are OP but that is not for this thread.
i ask everyone who posts after this message to really imagine what it would be like WITH armor repair modules on tanks. WITH shield boosters on tanks, BUT without multiple hardeners running around the clock during the match. There would be a MORE equal playing field but still not op. All of the opposing opinions have pointed out extra strengths tanks have but have.
Only one has voice concern that rail gun tankers in a battle proximity might have an advantage vs tanks. Duh they should, but if you use your hardener right they may be destroyed while reloading. if they dont they would be at a disadvantage during their first shot.
If you should post after this post please consider this addendum. I invite more critique and also more support. If this reply does not prove adequate please let me know so i can expand upon it more.
cheers. |
Eskimorris
SVER True Blood
General Tso's Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 05:47:00 -
[8] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Let me explain what you just said into words you can probably better understand, as I don't think you even got what you're asking for: once you start firing your rifle, any plate or extender you have equipped will be void. Let that sink in for a bit....... Now that you're back to reality, Thiswould do much better than that horrible idea. If you're still in lala land, then let me bring you out. That was completely stupid. You're seriously asking to completely nerf a entire class of tanking (active tanking, and yes, that's a thing), leaving exposed to enemy fire, and you will most likely just die. If you're still lost, read this, and have a nice day.
first link: read your own feedback. There are plenty of reservations. I tanked during these builds, still OP. 1.7 is still better until someone abuses stacked hardeners. then its worse.
second link: eat a d***. k thx. |
Eskimorris
SVER True Blood
General Tso's Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2014.02.21 16:13:00 -
[9] - Quote
I have tanked almost every build since open beta. Currently this would improve the battle disparity tha mobs of t tanks create on the battlefield for all other classes.could a non red line rail gun tanker please way in. How would this affect you and your game |
|
|
| |
|