|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8340
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 01:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
Tectonic Fusion wrote:I think they need a 15-20% damage buff. Why will they not be OP? Because of the LOLcharge time and no ADS and blaster will still out DPS us. EDIT: Damage nerf is GEYYYYYYYY!!!
Also buff swarm launchers.
THAT is exactly the opposite of what we need in terms of Vehicle/AV balance. Exactly the ******* opposite.
What we need is full content release. Then we need time. Time to establish static AV numbers, identify within the fully fleshed out Vehicle and AV sphere exactly what is what. Then balance vehicles around the static AV damage models.
We cannot keep nerfing AV and buffing it from build to build. Or nerfing HAV from build to build. We need all core content for AV and then to balance vehicles around those models.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8342
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:05:00 -
[2] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:True Adamance wrote:Tectonic Fusion wrote:I think they need a 15-20% damage buff. Why will they not be OP? Because of the LOLcharge time and no ADS and blaster will still out DPS us. EDIT: Damage nerf is GEYYYYYYYY!!!
Also buff swarm launchers. THAT is exactly the opposite of what we need in terms of Vehicle/AV balance. Exactly the ******* opposite. What we need is full content release. Then we need time. Time to establish static AV numbers, identify within the fully fleshed out Vehicle and AV sphere exactly what is what. Then balance vehicles around the static AV damage models. We cannot keep nerfing AV and buffing it from build to build. Or nerfing HAV from build to build. We need all core content for AV and then to balance vehicles around those models. I agree with this post entirely. However, in order to do that, I am afraid that they would need to remove all Vehicles and AV until all (basic; i.e. ADS, DS, HAV, LAV) Vehicles were in the game.
I dont feel something that drastic is necessary. Yes I agree HAV are too powerful for what they are, high SP investments arent rewarded as well through the vehicle tiers.
But in all honesty I feel AV is in a good place, however balance against HAV specifically is bad.
I cannot stress to CCP that racial equality across all suits and vehicles is crucial in successfully balancing this games content.
Once we can actually see how all aspects of Vehicles vs AV actually work then we can balance around that. Until then demanding ridiculous 10% or 20% buffs would only harm the game, causing more problems than solving.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8345
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tectonic Fusion wrote:True Adamance wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:True Adamance wrote:Tectonic Fusion wrote:I think they need a 15-20% damage buff. Why will they not be OP? Because of the LOLcharge time and no ADS and blaster will still out DPS us. EDIT: Damage nerf is GEYYYYYYYY!!!
Also buff swarm launchers. THAT is exactly the opposite of what we need in terms of Vehicle/AV balance. Exactly the ******* opposite. What we need is full content release. Then we need time. Time to establish static AV numbers, identify within the fully fleshed out Vehicle and AV sphere exactly what is what. Then balance vehicles around the static AV damage models. We cannot keep nerfing AV and buffing it from build to build. Or nerfing HAV from build to build. We need all core content for AV and then to balance vehicles around those models. I agree with this post entirely. However, in order to do that, I am afraid that they would need to remove all Vehicles and AV until all (basic; i.e. ADS, DS, HAV, LAV) Vehicles were in the game. I dont feel something that drastic is necessary. Yes I agree HAV are too powerful for what they are, high SP investments arent rewarded as well through the vehicle tiers. But in all honesty I feel AV is in a good place, however balance against HAV specifically is bad. I cannot stress to CCP that racial equality across all suits and vehicles is crucial in successfully balancing this games content. Once we can actually see how all aspects of Vehicles vs AV actually work then we can balance around that. Until then demanding ridiculous 10% or 20% buffs would only harm the game, causing more problems than solving. Not really. The only reason it's good is because of double damage mods which equals approx. 18%. 15-20 is pretty fair if they make the FG crap. 5-6 shots to kill an unhardened tank? LOL
As I said I agree balancing is required. But it is required on the part of the HAV not on AV. You are failing to consider the effects such buffs will have on lighter frame vehicles like LAV, Dropships, Assault Dropships and soon the MAV.
You cannot make arbitrary decision to buff specific vehicles resistances to certain forms of AV, this would break immersion and balance. As such we must work off of the solid foundation of AV values, for example the current ones, and balance Vehicles and vehicle tiers around anti vehicle content.
Additionally why do you AV solo? That's just plain counter intuitive. I dont make use of any forgeguns besides the basic Sturmborne and recently in squad I have seen exactly how flimsy most tanks really are.
I'm not about to sit here and blindly defend HAV, they ARE powerful, possibly too powerful.
Buffing AV is not going to fix that, only break the game from LAV, Dropshippers, and possibly make HAV soloable......that does not sound like an acceptable solution to me.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8345
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:True Adamance wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:True Adamance wrote:Tectonic Fusion wrote:I think they need a 15-20% damage buff. Why will they not be OP? Because of the LOLcharge time and no ADS and blaster will still out DPS us. EDIT: Damage nerf is GEYYYYYYYY!!!
Also buff swarm launchers. THAT is exactly the opposite of what we need in terms of Vehicle/AV balance. Exactly the ******* opposite. What we need is full content release. Then we need time. Time to establish static AV numbers, identify within the fully fleshed out Vehicle and AV sphere exactly what is what. Then balance vehicles around the static AV damage models. We cannot keep nerfing AV and buffing it from build to build. Or nerfing HAV from build to build. We need all core content for AV and then to balance vehicles around those models. I agree with this post entirely. However, in order to do that, I am afraid that they would need to remove all Vehicles and AV until all (basic; i.e. ADS, DS, HAV, LAV) Vehicles were in the game. I dont feel something that drastic is necessary. Yes I agree HAV are too powerful for what they are, high SP investments arent rewarded as well through the vehicle tiers. But in all honesty I feel AV is in a good place, however balance against HAV specifically is bad. I cannot stress to CCP that racial equality across all suits and vehicles is crucial in successfully balancing this games content. Once we can actually see how all aspects of Vehicles vs AV actually work then we can balance around that. Until then demanding ridiculous 10% or 20% buffs would only harm the game, causing more problems than solving. Swarms are a ******* joke now. They either need their damage rolled back or their lock range rolled back, both was one step too far. TBH, I'd rather they give the lock range back, I am fine with them being an area denial tool and opportunistic vehicle killer. I've gotten several HAV kills with swarms in 1.7 (no where near what I'd get in a week pre-1.7 though), however, each and every one of them was a kill stolen from a tanker.
That is because as I am led to understand the damage application is broken and swarms do not deal their full damage per salvo.
Against Armour HAV swarms are pretty effective....but again the balance issues are not a result of AV doing too little damage but instead hardeners being able to be perma run and resisting too much damage.
Pre 1.7 was a nightmare for tankers as we could never see the source of AV fire nor engage you.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8345
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:35:00 -
[5] - Quote
The Robot Devil wrote:Dheez wrote:Swarm Launchers should also be given back their previous lock on range. No, they need to add modules that improve AV and add a suit that is bonused towards AV. Similarly, vehicles need to be nerfed slightly and introduce a pilot suit to buff them back up. MORE everything is the answer not constant buff/nerf cycles.
Indeed I see your point. However the issue with AV is that AV cannot be something that is abused by players to kill HAVers by ensuring that they never have to enter the Tanks engagement range.
For example.
Pre 1.7 a tanks engagement range was determined my rendering which was poor and stopped at 50-60m.
Swarms had massive range over that threshold and were able to engage with high DPS auto locking, and home missiles which quickly would cripple any and all vehicles on the map, with no risk to the AVer.
I prefer swarm engagement ranges this build. It ensure that my enemy has to be engageable, not a tiny figure on top of a mountain strafing for days.
However I can appreciate that not all AVers like this. However I stand by and defend a need for overlapping zones of engagement.
As such I disagree with increasing swarm locks back to 1.6 levels...however a slight change could be tastefully implemented and tested.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8349
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 03:54:00 -
[6] - Quote
The Robot Devil wrote:True Adamance wrote:The Robot Devil wrote:Dheez wrote:Swarm Launchers should also be given back their previous lock on range. No, they need to add modules that improve AV and add a suit that is bonused towards AV. Similarly, vehicles need to be nerfed slightly and introduce a pilot suit to buff them back up. MORE everything is the answer not constant buff/nerf cycles. Indeed I see your point. However the issue with AV is that AV cannot be something that is abused by players to kill HAVers by ensuring that they never have to enter the Tanks engagement range. For example. Pre 1.7 a tanks engagement range was determined my rendering which was poor and stopped at 50-60m. Swarms had massive range over that threshold and were able to engage with high DPS auto locking, and home missiles which quickly would cripple any and all vehicles on the map, with no risk to the AVer. I prefer swarm engagement ranges this build. It ensure that my enemy has to be engageable, not a tiny figure on top of a mountain strafing for days. However I can appreciate that not all AVers like this. However I stand by and defend a need for overlapping zones of engagement. As such I disagree with increasing swarm locks back to 1.6 levels...however a slight change could be tastefully implemented and tested. The improvement to AV from modules don't need to be game breaking but they do need to reward the AV dedicated merc. To me the reward for specialization should be noticeable but not to the point where is discourages good pilots with well planned fits from calling in the vehicles. I don't pilot anything in DUST and I rarely enter vehicles because it is boring to me, I say that to say this, I like where vehicles are at right now. I don't want to be able to solo a vehicle easily, I can and have solo vehicles a good bit. Especially HAVs because the pilot is cocky and feels like they can run roughshod over infantry. When I soloed a HAV it is always because the pilot didn't make wise choices. I feel like it should take at least two mercs that are highly skilled in AV to be able to destroy a HAV before the pilot has a chance to escape. People act like the HAVs are too fast but show me a vehicle in a modern army that doesn't do at least 20-MPH over rough terrain. Scouts already run at almost 17 MPH so a vehicle should be faster. Vehicles are in a decent spot but I would recommend a 30% (just throwing out a number) nerf and add a pilot suit that buffs 25% at level five. I totally agree with you that if AV is too powerful then vehicles won't have a chance and we need to slowly tweak them to make work well for good pilots but be an ISK/SP sink to anyone else. I am not a game designer so it is difficult to for me to put forth an educated suggestion. My point is that specialization should be rewarding in both AV and piloting. Right now HAVs are OP to a single merc or a few unskilled mercs but not to two high skilled AV guys but I think it should be that way, maybe not for militia but ever other tier should be. CCP is trying to work it out but the variables involved are complex and it takes tons of data to arrive at a balanced solution.
Hmmmm weapon modifications are fine as I see it as long they do not drastically affect or modify a weapons intended role of natural characteristics.
I will post here in more depth when I get back home.....but point is I am willing and supportive of discussion that allows us to develop a means of customising our weapons and altering their basic utilities as long as those do no drastically alter the functionality of that weapon, and as long as the modules come with draw backs.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8349
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 04:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tectonic Fusion wrote:The Robot Devil wrote:[quote=True Adamance][quote=The Robot Devil][quote=Dheez]When I soloed a HAV it is always because the pilot didn't make wise choices.
Also if it's a militia tank they are easy to kill. But if they are double or triple hardened they are European extreme mode even if you have 3 dedicated forge gunners.
You kind of have to consider MLT HAV the unofficial Standard AV, and Maddy/ Gunlogi the unofficial adv tanks.
It still pisses me off that players can drive MLT tanks and be essentially as effective as an invested tanker. MLT HAV are not just a thorne in Avers side. I hate them too.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8350
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 04:34:00 -
[8] - Quote
Rusty Shallows wrote:Patrlck 56 wrote:Where can one find this Forge Gun nerf? :3 On the off chance you are serious last December we had the Uprising 1.7 patch. CCP basically nerfed all Infantry AV into junk while simultaneously buffing vehicles. In short a repeat disaster of Uprising 1.0 but in a more limited group. What stings is we had a reassurance they were going to be more careful with nerfing but in the end every nerf was demanded by a select group of people on the forums. So not only was no effort put into game design but we were lied to. I use to liked Forge Guns. Unfortunately they changes in the game since Chromosome to now made whatever place they had awkward. Increases in LAV speeds and the old brick-tanked-HAV over a year ago pretty much forced people to the assault variant. When only one (Ishukone Assault Forge) is combat effective then there is something wrong with the entire class. If the Devs were using them in games they would have noticed this. Or at the very least it would have been obvious nerfing the charging time was the worst decission possible. The entire class needs a complete redesign from the ground up. Without Assault or Breach variants. Or just remove them from the game. Frankly I care more about the wasted SP. Also what the O.P. said, buff Swarms Launchers.
Infantry AV is most certainly not useless.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
|
|
|