|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8126
   |
Posted - 2014.03.12 02:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
Not going to lie.
Tanks are in a bad place right now. Too powerful.
But in other games you balance those AV weapons by class, unsure of titan fall, but these other games do not see you pitting your own assets against other players.
If every unit could carry an AV and primary weapon there would be no place for vehicle users on the map.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8128
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 02:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
BL4CKST4R wrote:True Adamance wrote:Not going to lie.
Tanks are in a bad place right now. Too powerful.
But in other games you balance those AV weapons by class, unsure of titan fall, but these other games do not see you pitting your own assets against other players.
If every unit could carry an AV and primary weapon there would be no place for vehicle users on the map. Give Logistic suits (after nerfing them) a special slot for AV only.
Perhaps but why tack that on the logistics class.
Could you not simply have a dedicated Anti Vehicle suit type?
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8128
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 02:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
Atiim wrote:I believe CCP is trying to implement a similar mechanic with the Commando suits.
I'm not saying no or anything, but I want to see how this plays out first.
Indeed.....I understand the HAV running rampant is not enjoyable gameplay for anyone....however neither would everyone and their mother popping AV at a moments notice it would essentially deny a vehicle game.
The last thing I think anyone wants to see is a massive disparity between AV and HAV that causes one to be relegated into uselessness.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8129
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 02:31:00 -
[4] - Quote
BL4CKST4R wrote:The dark cloud wrote:Atiim wrote:I believe CCP is trying to implement a similar mechanic with the Commando suits.
I'm not saying no or anything, but I want to see how this plays out first. Commandos are not really good for AV. Too slow, not much of fitting options etc. We need this so that every 1 ranging from the newest player to the oldest vet can contribute in fighting vehicles back. And if you dont believe me then you should see how ambush matches turn out with 7 tanks on one side. They would be good for AV if the damage bonus was for the racial weapons not the rifles.
They are for the racial weapons.
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=136370&find=unread
Nowhere does it expressly say damage bonuses only apply to rifles.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8130
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 02:41:00 -
[5] - Quote
The dark cloud wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:A forge gun as a sidearm... Please quote me where i sayd that forgeguns should be sidearms. Cause they are heavy weapons and if you cant read my post please stay out.
This is not a required feature.....only a desired one. Many other FPS and shooters prefer to use Anti Tank classes. These classes have access to heavy weapon but no primary weapons.
Such classes were far from impotent.
What do you suppose the situation of the game might look like if every player had access to a Light AV option with no restrictions placed on their class?
Even BF 3-4 restricts the fitting options of the Engineer Class.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8131
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 02:49:00 -
[6] - Quote
Kigurosaka Laaksonen wrote:Make an AV role bonused suit. No reason to restrict it to one size frame, either.
Fast, light AV suits can chase, plant bonused REs, Proxy's, and AV nades, get weapon bonuses to racial AV weapons and be inherently hard to detect by vehicle scanners.
Medium AV suits could get bonuses AV weapon damage, range, reload, RoF, etc.
Heavy AV suits could get bonuses to AV weapon damage and defensive bonuses for staying power. You shot my heavy with your rail turret square in my chest? That's fine, give me one or two more.
The all three get bonuses that suit their playstyle. Give me more time to put more effort into and I can really make it shine. (Hint: I don't care to.)
All ideas I came up with in about 2 seconds that are all better than making a plasma cannon or swarm launcher into a sidearm.
If anything, from a purely in game perspective (i.e. not worried about mechanices or balance, which sidearm AV weapons would wreck), Light AV weapons are shoulder mounted. Make them heavy. (This is a slightly less disagreeable idea to me than making AV weapons sidearms. Still don't know if I'd go for it because it would limit AV weapons to heavies and sentinels.)
I have seen a very interesting model for dropsuit development which rather than moving in an ascending order from Std-> Proto moves in an interesting direction moving from generalist role --> battlefield role specialist.
Could something like this fit your idea or is it as simple as creating a light AV suit which can couple AV weapons with light weapons.
How could that be balanced I wonder? Fitting constraints? Module constraints? ISK or skill constraints?
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8131
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 02:54:00 -
[7] - Quote
Kigurosaka Laaksonen wrote:True Adamance wrote:interesting questions It's late here and I'm going to bed. Like I mentioned, I thought of that literally in a few seconds and not much more after that. I can give it some more thought and post it up. I also see you're in PIE. Maybe we can meet up in your FW chat some time and shoot ideas back and forth. If I could get something coherent enough I could make it its own thread.
Rodger I look forwards to it.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8131
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 03:05:00 -
[8] - Quote
ZDub 303 wrote:I would support AV focused sidearms and a general buff to AV nades as well. But to have forge guns or even (buffed and fixed) swarm launchers as a sidearm that everyone carries would be far too powerful.
I do understand the frustration with switching between AI and AV though, esp considering how there are almost no supply depots on most maps.
In fact... I think a much better plan would be to make it so depots and turrets cannot be permanently destroyed, only disabled. That way vehicles cant roll around the map and destroy every single installation within the first 2 minutes or so.
Perhaps....maybe even if not permanently destroyed replaceable somehow.
I also agree with the AV grenade statement. Currently top tier AV nades are usable against HAV units......it could be that pack AV grenades recieve a bonus or some sort to damage but suffer in other ways like not detonating on impact or not homing.
Otherwise I feel the only AV grenade used would these buffed Pack AV grenades.....could you imagine in future how those could unbalance lighter frame ground vehicles.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8131
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 03:07:00 -
[9] - Quote
Atiim wrote:The dark cloud wrote:Atiim wrote:I believe CCP is trying to implement a similar mechanic with the Commando suits.
I'm not saying no or anything, but I want to see how this plays out first. Commandos are not really good for AV. Too slow, not much of fitting options etc. We need this so that every 1 ranging from the newest player to the oldest vet can contribute in fighting vehicles back. And if you don't believe me then you should see how ambush matches turn out with 7 tanks on one side. You mean 9? Because that's the team-quota in Ambush  Anyways, the Commando is basically a weaker Sentinel with 2 Light Weapon Slots, but the Magsec SMG will mean that using a Sentinel with a Forge Gun will be the best option in 1.8; and will outshine the Commando in terms of damage and power. The only advantages the Commando has is the ability to carry their own Nanohives, and the ability to carry two AV weapons. However, I don't think it would be balanced if 14-16 players instantly had PRO AV the second a pilot showed up. Could you imagine what it would be like to run a scout while everyone is spamming Assault MDs and Focused Scanners? That's what being a vehicle pilot would feel like if AV was made into a sidearm. I believe the best course of action would be an AV frame. Your suit gets bonuses that would greatly improve the AV weapon, and would also transform AV into a true role. Every other role in the game has a frame that compliments it, so why not give AV the same? I really hope the Magsec SMG is good though. It would finally solve one of the biggest problems that AV has.
Your lack of Faith is disturbing Atiim. Have faith in the laser. We Commando's will quash the sentinel spam with our righteous 10% damage extra laser rifles!
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8132
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 03:11:00 -
[10] - Quote
Atiim wrote:True Adamance wrote:ZDub 303 wrote:I would support AV focused sidearms and a general buff to AV nades as well. But to have forge guns or even (buffed and fixed) swarm launchers as a sidearm that everyone carries would be far too powerful.
I do understand the frustration with switching between AI and AV though, esp considering how there are almost no supply depots on most maps.
In fact... I think a much better plan would be to make it so depots and turrets cannot be permanently destroyed, only disabled. That way vehicles cant roll around the map and destroy every single installation within the first 2 minutes or so. Perhaps....maybe even if not permanently destroyed replaceable somehow. I also agree with the AV grenade statement. Currently top tier AV nades are usable against HAV units......it could be that pack AV grenades recieve a bonus or some sort to damage but suffer in other ways like not detonating on impact or not homing. Otherwise I feel the only AV grenade used would these buffed Pack AV grenades.....could you imagine in future how those could unbalance lighter frame ground vehicles. How about we make it to where we can purchase and deploy our own installations? You know, that option that's been sitting in the deployment window since 1.0?
That has been a much awaited feature....I didnt post it because well...ZDubs and .....mockery...and well....etc.
Agreed., in many respects I could really see the battlefield changing shape if turret/ installations could be called in.
Could these then consume vehicle slots? Additionally I would all like to think one day I could deploy in my tank in a similar manner at a squad leaders request....at say the cost of a 15-20 second period where I can neither move, use modules or shoot.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8133
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 03:19:00 -
[11] - Quote
knight of 6 wrote:I could support light weapon AV as a side arm option. the forge however should stay a primary.
obviously rebalencing light AV would need to happen to reflect it's new status.
And while that has its benefits it seems needlessly complicated does it not?
My question is and I hope someone can answer me.
Why are we as a community trying to balance AV against HAV as opposed to HAV against set AV values?
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8133
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 03:28:00 -
[12] - Quote
ZDub 303 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Atiim wrote:
How about we make it to where we can purchase and deploy our own installations?
You know, that option that's been sitting in the deployment window since 1.0?
That has been a much awaited feature....I didnt post it because well...ZDubs and .....mockery...and well....etc. Agreed., in many respects I could really see the battlefield changing shape if turret/ installations could be called in. Could these then consume vehicle slots? Additionally I would all like to think one day I could deploy in my tank in a similar manner at a squad leaders request....at say the cost of a 15-20 second period where I can neither move, use modules or shoot. Sure, calling in your own installations will be a fine feature down the road as well. Its just the permanence of destroyed installations in general imo. I don't know if I feel that calling your own installation, when it'll just get popped right away by a rail tank is the right way to do it either. Unless they are dirt cheap... like ~30-50k a pop or something. To add as well: swarms are useless against shield tanks because they were designed to be. We really need a shield focused AV weapon as well. Heavy lasers and EM missile swarms perhaps. Racial parity is really important when talking about HAV vs AV imo... moreso than people are thinking.
Indeed how can you balance what isn't there
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8136
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 03:44:00 -
[13] - Quote
The dark cloud wrote:You guys think that this would be unbalanced but how many actually specced ino proto swarms or plasma cannons? Allmost nobody does that anymore. And another few points why light AV weapons should be sidearms are:
-swarms cannot prevent a hardened shield tank from recharging its shields
-swarms deal only half of their damage against dropships and that is without a hardener running.
-plasma cannons are 1 shot weapons which have the lowest DPS out of all AV weapons
-Fitting proto Rifles and proto AV weapons on a dropsuit is allmost impossible without massive drawbacks
-you have to decide what damage mod you gonna use. Either enhance performance as Anti infantry or AV. Cause sidearms require other damage mods.
Even if 10 people would shot a hardened gunnlogi with swarms they couldnt stop the shield recharge which negates all incoming damage. Armor tanks could be destroyed but they have more HP and their hardeners run longer. And does any 1 tried to shot a dropship with swarms? Its a futile cause simply due to the fact that swarms deal roughly only 50% of their damage against them. Which means it would take 8 swarm launchers to take down 1 hardened python (if you are lucky).
Tanks take the pace out of the game cause once you switched to AV you are allmost a free kill for every 1 wielding a proper gun.
Another fair analysis. But under your model you would put AV in the hands of everyone with an Assault Rifle. There would essentially be no disadvantage in making use of Light AV at that point.
At which point how hard would it be for an entire team to run AV assault units with AV to deal with 1 or 2 tanks or dropships.
I appreciate that yeah 6 avers should easily waste any vehicle on the map if all firing.....but can the vehicle game hold up to that kind of pressure?
And do we want to further the current cheap and disposable, but potent in terms of ISK cost HAV.
Yes this could clear HAV from the field.....but could lighter frame vehicles deal with this change to gameplay?
Let me come back to you with some proper counter points so we can flesh this discussion out. I'm always interested in well thoughout vehicle vs Av discussion as long as we can keep the bias out.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8136
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 03:58:00 -
[14] - Quote
BL4CKST4R wrote:True Adamance wrote:BL4CKST4R wrote:True Adamance wrote:Not going to lie.
Tanks are in a bad place right now. Too powerful.
But in other games you balance those AV weapons by class, unsure of titan fall, but these other games do not see you pitting your own assets against other players.
If every unit could carry an AV and primary weapon there would be no place for vehicle users on the map. Give Logistic suits (after nerfing them) a special slot for AV only. Perhaps but why tack that on the logistics class. Could you not simply have a dedicated Anti Vehicle suit type? That would just be a commando, and people will be unwilling to spend SP on such a situational suit, that's why most people don't max don't Av because it's pretty situational (useless now)
The commandois perhaps the most adaptive suit available to dusties IMO..... we dont necessarily need to sacrifice what the commando is, a suit designed to roll heavy assault and suppression. But we could suggest the invention of a suit type that received specified bonuses, on a medium frame, to fitting, or AV weapon attributes.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
|
|
| |
|