DUST Search - JLAV's needs to go

Godin Thekiller wrote:

Vrain Matari wrote:

@ Godin. Yeah the WOO model is a dynamic balance model and trying to balance all such models is like being thrown into a pit of pythons and having to wrestle your way out. Shion Typhon nailed this in a great post a while ago and made explicit the how's and whys of it.

But with enough experimentation, trial-and-error, etc., such systems can be balanced - close enough for good gameplay, anyway.

If the two types of tanks are fundamentally different, let's find a way to adapt the hardeners to that difference.

You know how long it would take to do such a thing? I'd rather go back to how it was before. Also, you're forgetting the fact that people who might not want to active tank is left in the dust, because active is just overall better. Many fits are not as good really on this system (where as the old system it was; for instance, passive tanking was actually a thing in repl.-1.6. Now, you're silly using passive tank, especially if it's on a HAV).

It's just too much to do and too much time it would take, as well as extreme modifications and things added to make it work half way decently. It would be better to go down this route than keeping on forward. Sometimes things don't work, and you have to take a step back, as sometimes those things work out better.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 1816	Posted - 2014.03.17 14:30:00 - [1] - Quote Godin. I'm willing to support you on getting rid of the JLAVs, although i really hate to see them go: it's the kind of sandboxy solution i love in New Eden. But this game is so fubared right now that CCP has got me into a state where i'm willing to give up my New Eden ideals just to get some good gameplay outta this piece of.....well, i'm sure you get the point. Here's what i want in return: Your support on my Tank balancing platform: 1) Web grenades. 2) Hardener stacking penalty to duty cycle. 3) LAV mounted swarms. Deal? I support SP rollover.
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 1819	Posted - 2014.03.17 16:38:00 - [2] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Also, I'm pretty sure that I have already replied in this topic, but JLAVs are fine. Situational awareness and good audio levels is what prevents JLAVs from wreaking your day. If you have people who never shut up on mic, tell them that they have to pay for your tanks because their chattiness is preventing you from surviving. +1. This is almost a different game with headphones on. I support SP rollover.
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 1821	Posted - 2014.03.17 20:22:00 - [3] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Vrain Matari wrote: +1. This is almost a different game with headphones on. The only downside is that after every patch, the sound locations need to be double and triple checked to make sure they haven't made new deaf spots. Really getting pissed at the stripping out of game sounds in order to improve performance when we still have the useless drone of nanohives. Very true. That nanohive drone interferes with interesting cat-and-mouse gameplay and is overwhelmingly louder than most other sounds. Tho i suppose it works in favor of the damped assassin scouts. Stupid reason to put down a nanohive tho. Also, come to think of it, i want to ability to destroy my own nanohives. I support SP rollover.
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 1821	Posted - 2014.03.17 21:18:00 - [4] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Vrain Matari wrote: Godin. I'm willing to support you on getting rid of the JLAVs, although i really hate to see them go: it's the kind of sandboxy solution i love in New Eden. But this game is so fubared right now that CCP has got me into a state where i'm willing to give up my New Eden ideals just to get some good gameplay outta this piece of.....well, i'm sure you get the point. Here's what i want in return: Your support on my Tank balancing platform: 1) Web grenades. 2) Hardener stacking penalty to duty cycle. 3) LAV mounted swarms. Deal? FIrst one I completely gree with. The second one I assume you mean a stacking penalty on the time, in which I absolutely not agree with. Why? Because that heavily nerfs active tankers (like myself) who uses only uses hardeners. However, hardeners is still broken and needs to be looked at (as well as balanced with passive tanking, which is what I mostly covered here. As for your last request, I think missiles should work like that, and rockets be introduced. Well, two outta three ain't bad. But the hardeners - this 'waves of opportunity'(hereafter known as WOOtanking) tanking model CCP's going for really only has two variables, mobility(turn rate, acceleration & velocity) and hardener duty cycle(time on/(time on + cooldown)). In the woo model these variables are intimately connected. In my list points 1 & 3 address the velocity/accn gap between vehicles and infantry. Point 2 modifies duty cycle down for super-hardened tanks. Nothing stops a tanker from cycling single hardeners until things get too hot at which point one could hit both and GTFO. The duty cycle of a single hardener could be made stronger than it is now, but with a significant stacking penalty on the duty cycle for running multiple hardeners simultaneously. This would keep WOO but not leave tankers defenseless unless they were coming off of an all-systems-active destroy/survive scenario. P.S. I did read your other post, and you make some good points. The reason i'm proposing this particular change to hardener stacking is that it fits into CCP's current woo model without having to change vehicles again. I support SP rollover.
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 1821	Posted - 2014.03.17 21:51:00 - [5] - Quote @ Godin. Yeah the WOO model is a dynamic balance model and trying to balance all such models is like being thrown into a pit of pythons and having to wrestle your way out. Shion Typhon nailed this in a great post a while ago and made explicit the how's and whys of it. But with enough experimentation, trial-and-error, etc., such systems can be balanced - close enough for good gameplay, anyway. If the two types of tanks are fundamentally different, let's find a way to adapt the hardeners to that difference. I support SP rollover.
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 1824	Posted - 2014.03.17 22:13:00 - [6] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Vrain Matari wrote: @ Godin. Yeah the WOO model is a dynamic balance model and trying to balance all such models is like being thrown into a pit of pythons and having to wrestle your way out. Shion Typhon nailed this in a great post a while ago and made explicit the how's and whys of it. But with enough experimentation, trial-and-error, etc., such systems can be balanced - close enough for good gameplay, anyway. If the two types of tanks are fundamentally different, let's find a way to adapt the hardeners to that difference. You know how long it would take to do such a thing? I'd rather go back to how it was before. Also, you're forgetting the fact that people who might not want to active tank is left in the dust, because active is just overall better. Many fits are not as good really on this system (where as the old system it was; for instance, passive tanking was actually a thing in repl.-1.6. Now, you're silly using passive tank, especially if it's on a HAV). It's just too much to do and too much time it would take, as well as extreme modifications and things added to make it work half way decently. It would be better to go down this route than keeping on forward. Sometimes things don't work, and you have to take a step back, as sometimes those things work out better. Agree. This is the heart of the argument. Where a person stands on it depends on how they assess the possibility of achieving balance in a dynamic model. It gets done successfully IRL engineering situations everyday. Solutions always depend on correctly identifying the driving dynamic variables and balancing solely on those. Imo the driving dynamic variables in woo are mobility and hardener duty cycle, end of story. If anybody can point out what variables i'm excluding, it would be appreciated. I support SP rollover.