Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alena Ventrallis
The Neutral Zone
907
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 01:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
AV is taking a nerf in 1.8. Fine, whatever.
But let's give AV, and more specifically swarms, more areas to hit for bonus damage.
Perhaps have the very front (where rl tanks are the most armored) do damage as we have it now. Hitting a tank from the sides does 10% more. From the back (where rl tanks are weakest) you get 20% extra damage. The weakspot in the back gets the same 30% damage.
Makes positioning much more important. AV can get their lost damage back by using tactics (flanking, waiting til they can hit it from the back, etc). Tanks now can't just roll up, and have to worry about what they are exposing to the enemy. And more importantly, it means that swarms can actually have a decent chance of getting in on the bonus damage that only forges (unless the swarmer gets lucky) have been able to get at.
Best PVE idea I've seen.
Fixed link.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8550
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 01:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Agreed but I would make the distinction to HAV armour of having benefits to the tanker to position I would make front armour resist between 5%-10% better than usual, in a sense that really means that a tanker should engage in a specific manner...which in turn makes them predictable.
Consequently I would say side armour either does +0%-10% damage while the rear of the HAV takes between 20%- 35% extra damage with the weak point still present for that added efficiency rating for skill shots.
However.....without really having racial AV even making a model like this work....is well......practically impossible.... still I do love the idea that my armour, my positioning would affect gameplay.
Primarily though....... front and side armour need to be looked at, side armour is of course thinner by design.......but is also the largest faces of the HAV . As such balancing the static AV models against any modifiers would have to result in a balanced value of damage dealt.
Additionally if we get into that how do we alter dropship armour/ shield efficiencies to match this system.... and balance whatever static AV values we settle on against dropships in general.....
"Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!"
-Dagger Two
|
Garth Mandra
The Southern Legion League of Infamy
359
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 02:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'd like to see what happens if infantry weapons do full damage to tank weakspots. |
SponkSponkSponk
The Southern Legion League of Infamy
715
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 02:07:00 -
[4] - Quote
Note that this frees up design space: for instance, APCs might have lower HP than a tank, but compensate via no (or fewer) weak spots (as befits a vehicle used for infantry/urban support)
Selling dust codes!
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8551
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 02:13:00 -
[5] - Quote
SponkSponkSponk wrote:Note that this frees up design space: for instance, APCs might have lower HP than a tank, but compensate via no (or fewer) weak spots (as befits a vehicle used for infantry/urban support)
Indeed it could...... but in order to establish a model for these values we' actively need to set AV values and sure they didn't vary.
"Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!"
-Dagger Two
|
Alena Ventrallis
The Neutral Zone
909
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 03:33:00 -
[6] - Quote
And the HAV weakspots don't have to be a full side. For instance, perhaps the bonus applies to the rear half of the side, but not the front half.
In any case, racial AV would not hinder this system from working. We could perhaps even give tanks a damage resistance to being hit from the front as suggested by Adamance. But the point is, AV is taking a nerf, but this gives them that damage back, while requiring tactics instead of module stacking to achieve that damage. This makes for a more interesting battle, where AV could let a tank pass to get a shot at it's weaker backside as opposed to opening up on it where it's defenses would be strongest. (ie: the front)
This also aids swarms, as unlike forge guns, you cannot decide exactly where on the tank you are going to hit. Which means that hitting the weakspot of the tank is way more about luck than any kind of skill. This gives them the ability to get in on the bonus damage that currently can only be consistently applied with forges.
I'm actually in favor of giving a damage resistance to the front of an HAV. Would give tankers the ability to benefit from positioning, while simultaneously giving AV a reason to flank them. This in turn give tanks more incentive to fit small turrets, in order to cover their weaker areas.
Best PVE idea I've seen.
Fixed link.
|
Gavr1Io Pr1nc1p
230
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 03:54:00 -
[7] - Quote
Garth Mandra wrote:I'd like to see what happens if infantry weapons do full damage to tank weakspots. not a bad ideaGǪ.im shotgunning some scrubby tankers tonight
Kills-Archduke Ferdinand
Balance!
|
Hoover Damn
H.A.R.V.E.S.T. Legacy Rising
77
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 06:34:00 -
[8] - Quote
Garth Mandra wrote:I'd like to see what happens if infantry weapons do full damage to tank weakspots. They'd have to be pretty tiny to prevent it ruining tank gameplay altogether.
"Any job worth doing with a laser is worth doing with many, many lasers." - Unknown
|
Ronan Elsword
Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn
239
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 08:30:00 -
[9] - Quote
How would this work with shields? Unlike armor they encompass the entire vehicle.
PvE 2014
|
Alena Ventrallis
The Neutral Zone
912
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 08:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
Ronan Elsword wrote:How would this work with shields? Unlike armor they encompass the entire vehicle. More energy is dedicated to the front of the shield rather than the rest, with the back having the lowest.
Best PVE idea I've seen.
Fixed link.
|
|
Ronan Elsword
Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn
239
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 08:32:00 -
[11] - Quote
Gavr1Io Pr1nc1p wrote:Garth Mandra wrote:I'd like to see what happens if infantry weapons do full damage to tank weakspots. not a bad ideaGǪ.im shotgunning some scrubby tankers tonight
I think they only changed the resist to infantry weapons the way they did because they changed the way vehicles shields regenerate. Used to be constant shield regeneration.
(misses shredding LAV's with HMG)
PvE 2014
|
Asha Starwind
DUST University Ivy League
540
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 09:21:00 -
[12] - Quote
Good suggestion but just to nitpick RL tanks are weakest at the top, javelins and some tow missiles are designed to exploit this.
Mad Bomber
Now with 50% less profile
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8581
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 10:11:00 -
[13] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:And the HAV weakspots don't have to be a full side. For instance, perhaps the bonus applies to the rear half of the side, but not the front half.
In any case, racial AV would not hinder this system from working. We could perhaps even give tanks a damage resistance to being hit from the front as suggested by Adamance. But the point is, AV is taking a nerf, but this gives them that damage back, while requiring tactics instead of module stacking to achieve that damage. This makes for a more interesting battle, where AV could let a tank pass to get a shot at it's weaker backside as opposed to opening up on it where it's defenses would be strongest. (ie: the front)
This also aids swarms, as unlike forge guns, you cannot decide exactly where on the tank you are going to hit. Which means that hitting the weakspot of the tank is way more about luck than any kind of skill. This gives them the ability to get in on the bonus damage that currently can only be consistently applied with forges.
I'm actually in favor of giving a damage resistance to the front of an HAV. Would give tankers the ability to benefit from positioning, while simultaneously giving AV a reason to flank them. This in turn give tanks more incentive to fit small turrets, in order to cover their weaker areas.
If such a frontal armour resistance buff was implemented correctly with fair side and rear armour modifiers I could significantly see my current ideal resitiance module values (50% shield, 35% armour) drop a further 5% a piece.
"Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!"
-Dagger Two
|
Alena Ventrallis
The Neutral Zone
915
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 10:17:00 -
[14] - Quote
Asha Starwind wrote:Good suggestion but just to nitpick RL tanks are weakest at the top, javelins and some tow missiles are designed to exploit this. True, this is why urban environments are so deadly for them. I never worked directly with armor, so I never learned their specs. In any case, I think the concept is sound. AV gets a nerf, but can regain that damage with good tactics and positioning. HAVs can counter with their own positioning, making skill a little more important than number crunching.
Best PVE idea I've seen.
Fixed link.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8581
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 10:30:00 -
[15] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:Asha Starwind wrote:Good suggestion but just to nitpick RL tanks are weakest at the top, javelins and some tow missiles are designed to exploit this. True, this is why urban environments are so deadly for them. I never worked directly with armor, so I never learned their specs. In any case, I think the concept is sound. AV gets a nerf, but can regain that damage with good tactics and positioning. HAVs can counter with their own positioning, making skill a little more important than number crunching.
Personally then if we are taking it so far as rear, lower, and top armour being weak points I would stand/ request we in this discussion operate under the basis that frontal armour receives a 10% reduction to damage while side armour receives no damage modifiers.
I can understand mines dealing standard damage to thin lower armour, and lets say AV grenades and AV stations above HAV dealing extra damage as well as rear facing damage sources...... but if we try to apply negative modifiers to every sections of an HAV we start to see very limited manners HAV can actually engage in.
So Assuming HAV resistances modify damage like so
Side +/- 0% ___________________________ I I I I I I Rear +35% I Top/Bottom +15/20% I Frontal -10% I I I I I I I ___________________________I
EDIT- Damn this looks much more like a square on my posting screen......
"Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!"
-Dagger Two
|
Alena Ventrallis
The Neutral Zone
915
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 10:46:00 -
[16] - Quote
So basically they'd get bonus resistance on the front, and a resistance penalty everywhere else?
Best PVE idea I've seen.
Fixed link.
|
Korvin Lomont
United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION
791
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 11:37:00 -
[17] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:So basically they'd get bonus resistance on the front, and a resistance penalty everywhere else?
EDIT: I hesitate to put too much of a bonus on top. Forge guns on a tower can basically stay up there the whole match since not much beyond an orbital can even get up there without dying. But definitely bonus damage for the rear section, and I'm liking the idea of more resistance on the front.
Good point lower top vulnerability but drastically increase bottom vulnerability so proxies are finally useful |
Alena Ventrallis
The Neutral Zone
915
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 11:50:00 -
[18] - Quote
I'm hesitant on proxy usefulness. Currently they have no counter. There's no way a tank can find them, save driving slow and listening for the sound.
If proxies were able to be found by scanners, or in some way were able to be discovered, then definitely I am for them to be useful. But something like them need a counter before we make them too powerful.
At the same time, they don't really work if tanks can easily find them. Perhaps they show up within 15m? A slow moving tank has time to respond. One driving about willy nilly won't have time to react.
EDIT: Here's a thought. Proxies get a larger blast and detonate sooner to take advantage of this, and in addition to the sound, there is some sort of visual marker. Then decrease resistance to the bottom of tanks. So now, going fast is a hindrance. Tanks want to move slowly so as to avoid them, or better yet, deploy their small turret gunners to sweep the area for mines. Teamwork as a counter.
Best PVE idea I've seen.
Fixed link.
|
Spectral Clone
Dust2Dust. Top Men.
1804
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 11:57:00 -
[19] - Quote
Or, just, you know: Fix swarm damage so it is according to the ingame UI and not less than it CCP?!
Drop it like its hat.
|
CLONE117
True Pros Forever
731
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 21:08:00 -
[20] - Quote
with the up coming needed forever damage mod nerf. (even if complex is the only thing changed (still needed none theless). with av nades being reduced too 2. a buff in swarmlauncher from 220 per missile to 250 per missile seems reasonable now. (though i still want to know if mlt locus nades r going down too one and also wanting to know if that also means fused nades going too 0 as they already only have 1 grenade.)
for the percentage thing it kinda sounds stupid too me. for one.. isnt the treads of tanks the weakest part? ww2 german tanks had strong armor on the front and back of the tank. the U.S sherman tanks with the weaker armor and shorter cannons had to attack from the sides from what i know during those days. |
|
Alena Ventrallis
The Neutral Zone
921
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 21:13:00 -
[21] - Quote
Tanks are most heavily armored in front because the idea is the they ride in formation all facing the enemy firing straight ahead. Armor is weakest on top because they aren't supposed to be in an environment where they can be hit from above. If anything, they had strong armor on bottom too, there are plenty of videos on YouTube where an Abrams tuns over an anti-tank mine and keeps on chugging.
Gameplay wise, it makes it so a tank must worry about what part of his tank is being exposed. It gives AV a chance to regain their lost damage back through tactics and positioning. This makes for a much more engaging AV/V fight, with tactics outweighing a raw numbers game.
Best PVE idea I've seen.
Fixed link.
|
VikingKong iBUN
Third Rock From The Sun
30
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 22:19:00 -
[22] - Quote
+1 |
CLONE117
True Pros Forever
731
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 22:42:00 -
[23] - Quote
this idea seems to effect passive tanked vehicles the worst though. a triple hardened gunlogi or maddy is still going to devastate av and since most may run when attack with active hardeners its not a great solution to the problem.
from my experience with tank vs tank warfare though. positioning of your tank is important. for unhardened vehicles.
the caldari is more based on mobility and range rather than up close brawls in my opinion. while galente tanks can operate better at close range. depending on the turret its fitted with.
though ill swing my turret around facing backwards and shoot from hills that way. minimizing the amount of the vehicle showing so its harder to hit. i dont want dust to be any where near bf3. it turns tanks into a twitch shooter experience. 1.6 was impossible for mlt vehicles. 1.7 is improvement in vehicle vs vehicle combat where mlt can actually kill std tanks.. std tanks still have an advantage over mlt though. with the upcoming removal of that third av nade in 1.8 though. i think a small buff for swarm missile from 220 to 250 could be in order. and to give some changes to hardeners and active damage mods.i think this change could help achieve a better balance with av/vehicle.as well as not break anything. i really dont think we need to copy other games.
edit:though av is still capable of killing most vehicles solo with the use of tactics already. hardeners just overcome these tactics.though. |
Beeeees
KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION
467
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 23:09:00 -
[24] - Quote
A tanks weakspot is called "forgegun".
SHOOT THE CORE FOR MASSIVE DAMAGE
TOLD514
|
Powerh8er
DIOS EX. General Tso's Alliance
402
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 23:10:00 -
[25] - Quote
Usually where the engine is located are the weakspot of a tank, (slabbing heavy armor plates over an supercharged V12 dieselengine dont do well regarding overheat). Also i think HMG should do bonus damage against LAVs and dropships.
Te Valhall!
|
MRBH1997
Knights Of Ender Galactic Skyfleet Empire
84
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 23:55:00 -
[26] - Quote
As a tanker since closed beta I agree with this but not the AV nerf. But having to watch my sides and back especially even more would be an awesome challenge to have to deal wih.
CEO of Knights of Ender
Corporation Website: http://koe.shivtr.com
Public Channel: Knights of Ender Public
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 :: [one page] |