|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Alpha 443-6732
General Tso's Alliance
350
   |
Posted - 2014.03.12 18:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
Beren Hurin wrote:Alright, I've wondered why vehicles have an insanely large profile. And I think this could be used as a way to balance swarm launchers as infantry AV vs. vehicles.
Step 1) Make Swarm Launcher lock range a function of vehicle profile.
Step 2) Make vehicle profiles start at 150 like they do now.
Step 3) Make Swarm Launcher lock range 1m for each dB of vehicle profile. Base of 150m.
Step 4) Make SL skill bonus (or variants or tier) impact lock range by 5% per level. (188m base at max skills)
Step 5) Make STD vehicles have an increased dB by 10-20% depending on if shield/armor.
Step 6) Make hardeners have a stacked drawback of increased profile of 10% per module. (Even if not activated). Make afterburners/overdrives give a +50% dB when activated.
This would mean that a gunlogi, stacking 2 hardeners and activating an overdrive would be lockable by a lvl 5 SL user from:
150 (base range)*1.25 (level 5)*1.2 (STD gunlogi added profile)*1.1 (hardener drawback)*1.1 (hardener drawback)*1.5= 408m during his overdrive, and 272m before using it.
Interesting idea. This could branch into a whole bunch of mechanics like countermeasures being heavy profile dampeners.
You could also revert the nerf on swarms if this change happened, because we would have means to counteract that kind of power. |
Alpha 443-6732
General Tso's Alliance
350
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 18:09:00 -
[2] - Quote
Beren Hurin wrote:Alright, I've wondered why vehicles have an insanely large profile. And I think this could be used as a way to balance swarm launchers as infantry AV vs. vehicles.
Step 1) Make Swarm Launcher lock range a function of vehicle profile.
Step 2) Make vehicle profiles start at 150 like they do now.
Step 3) Make Swarm Launcher lock range 1m for each dB of vehicle profile. Base of 150m.
Step 4) Make SL skill bonus (or variants or tier) impact lock range by 5% per level. (188m base at max skills)
Step 5) Make STD vehicles have an increased dB by 10-20% depending on if shield/armor.
Step 6) Make hardeners have a stacked drawback of increased profile of 10% per module. (Even if not activated). Make afterburners/overdrives give a +50% dB when activated.
This would mean that a gunlogi, stacking 2 hardeners and activating an overdrive would be lockable by a lvl 5 SL user from:
150 (base range)*1.25 (level 5)*1.2 (STD gunlogi added profile)*1.1 (hardener drawback)*1.1 (hardener drawback)*1.5= 408m during his overdrive, and 272m before using it.
also, black ops tanks would have a more defined role |
Alpha 443-6732
General Tso's Alliance
350
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 18:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
Id much rather see this happen than a default to the easiest option (more base damage and range).
Seriously, this is a gem of an idea that opens up a huge amount of possibilities in the infantry AV vs Tank field.
|
Alpha 443-6732
General Tso's Alliance
350
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 18:18:00 -
[4] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:I like some of your ideas but I loved when you request swarms getting back the ability to lock at 4th lol that's half the map if it's a large map and most of the map I if it's a smaller map. Also tieing swarms lock on to the db rating do sent make much sense as, .......well locking on to a tank through sound at 400m is a bit silly.
dB isnt just for sound, its a type of log function for comparing power or intensity |
Alpha 443-6732
General Tso's Alliance
350
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 18:27:00 -
[5] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Beren Hurin wrote:
I WANT TO FIRE MY SL FROM THE TOP OF A TOWER WITH NO RISK.
Fixed
But this time you have the opportunity to render them useless while up there. You can decide whether or not they fire at you. So really, this idea just punishes the mouthbreather tankers.
Also, make the active hardener increase your profile by half the resistance given (while active), and introduce passive hardeners that increase profile by only 1/8 of the resistance given (but reduce the resistance given by the passive hardener by about half or a two thirds of the active)
eg:
active shield hardener: 60% resist, 30% more profile (per hardener)
passive shield hardener: 20% resist, 2.5% or 5% more profile (per hardener) |
Alpha 443-6732
General Tso's Alliance
350
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 18:30:00 -
[6] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Atiim wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Beren Hurin wrote:
I WANT TO FIRE MY SL FROM THE TOP OF A TOWER WITH NO RISK.
Fixed *Sigh* There would also be no reward, as you could prevent locking from that range by fitting your vehicles accordingly. This however, would also put risk into vehicles with hardners cycled, who effectively remove any threat that's not a Breach FG, or a Railgun. How could i do that? Profile dampners? no they dont exist for vehicles No nitro? great so i have no extra speed if i wanted so less fits if i dont want to be targeted by every SL user in the next 5 districts Limit hardeners? no thats doesnt work because hardeners do not increase sig profile but extenders do if i remember Yea you just want to be sat on a tower again tbh
Honestly I think you just want to shoot down any idea that buffs your "enemy"
this change could pave the way for dampeners and signature punishments to add to the risk vs. reward of fitting a vehicle |
Alpha 443-6732
General Tso's Alliance
350
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 18:33:00 -
[7] - Quote
Im saying in addition to your suggestion of a passive +10% dB increase, make them have half their active resistance as an increase in profile (only when active).
Also I was suggesting a way to implement a balanced passive hardener. |
Alpha 443-6732
General Tso's Alliance
350
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 18:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
Change does **** all becauses do not have them mods yet and that idea with passive resistance mods they are also removed and have been taken from us
;^)
|
Alpha 443-6732
General Tso's Alliance
354
|
Posted - 2014.03.13 19:32:00 -
[9] - Quote
Hagintora wrote:I'm going to have to side with the vehicle users on this one. While the idea does have merit, other changes would have to be implented first for it to be balanced properly. Vehicles vs AV would have to be balanced, Vehiculer E-War would have to be introduced, and probably other things I haven't thought of.
Otherwise you run the risk of tilting the balance too much the other way.
As others on this thread have stated: If you want to have an edge, you must be willing to sacrifice something.
The same principle is also applied on the Macro Scale: For every advantage, there must be a hard counter.
re read the thread please. |
Alpha 443-6732
General Tso's Alliance
354
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 01:26:00 -
[10] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Beren Hurin wrote:Hagintora wrote:There should be a way for vehicle users to counter this effect as well, either through the Skill Tree, or with Mods. First, not stacking hardeners would be the main way to 'counter' it. Basically, the more hardeners you'd fit, the more SL-AV you expose yourself to. 2x or 3x hardeners would then make your getaway much less likely. Generally, people don't fit mods that counteract the drawback of other mods. Second, the pilot suit bonuses could further affect the profile of vehicles. Thirdly, I was thinking of a variant of this idea where we could take the lock range for swarms back to 400m, but instead, make dB affect lock time rather than range. That would get really frustrating with LOS issues though. So you want me to mix the types of tank that I want to use? No, I refuse. I'll leave this here, and swarms should get a base 225m range, without this.
Nah, with all the flak that 1.7 got, all turrets except for the large blaster and rail received an overall positive improvement. I think its too late to revert everything, so lets work with what we've got.
Though honestly I don't know whats worse, the blaster spam of old or the current railgun spam (though I have to say, tanking was a lot more enjoyable than what we have here) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|