True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8962
   |
Posted - 2014.03.27 06:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Saberwing wrote:I-Shayz-I wrote:KenKaniff69 wrote:Why not buff AV and leave hardeners alone?
Hardeners are the only way to survive against mod'd rails
If you take away their effectiveness, vehicle combat will consist of two shot engagements that require no tactility or skill. Yeah nerfing tanks just messes up with the tank v tank balance...it's actually at a good place right now. Okay, thanks for the feedback guys. A couple questions then (and I'll relay this to the team): - How would you suggest going improving the tank situation? Increasing the viability of AV? - How would you go about fixing Railguns, if not range reduction? I believe damage fall-off is not an option for a server-side hotfix.
I have several suggestions to possibly fix the tank situation but first I should make my stance on the matter very clear. I do not believe vehicle balance can ever be achieved if we are constantly making additions and variations to and on AV weaponry. I personally believe we should strive for a static AV model whereby AV values are set to their respective tiers and there they remain.
At which point community wide testing can occur and feed back given to you or the CPM in regards to future developments.
Initially I would suggest a 5% increase to the damage profiles of AV weaponry, by this I mean their damage values, to bring them more inline with current HAV units. This is a small buff and can be further improved on should this buff fail to provide adequate results.
I further believe that if any changes are to be made regarding AV vs Vehicle combat, such changes should be made on the vehicle side of things and balanced around the static AV values.
These are some suggestions I have heard and or developed myself which could be applied together, or individually, the goal of which is to de-incentivise the use of multiple hardener units by reducing their efficiency or value as a module.
- Decrease is resistance applied by Shield Hardener units by 10% (down to 50%) and Armour Hardener units by 5% ( Down to 35%)
- An increase to the fitting costs of Armour and Shield Hardeners buy between 5-10%
-A decrease in the duration of Armour Hardeers down to 30 seconds from 36 Seconds and Shield Hardners down to 20 seconds from 24 seconds.
- A Hardener timer much akin to the Cloak Timer which places a limit on the activation of Armour and Shield Hardeners. The initial module activates and runs its duration after which the initial hardener unit begins its cooldown while all other hardner units enter a cool down equivalent to half the intial hardeners cool down timer.
E.G- A Madrugar is running two Basic Armour Hardners. Under fire the Pilot activates one of the Hardeners and the effect lasts 36 seconds. After which the Activated Basic Armour Hardener enters it primary cool down and the inactive one enters the halved cool down time.
I believe the later suggestion would not only de-incentivise the use of Hardener modules while not arbitrarily capping or limiting players, but also would reinforce the waves of opportunity concept CCP Wolfman was going for.
As I said before we need not apply them all but a few might go a long was to achieving some much needed temprorary balance until further AV options can be introduced to flesh out the AV tree and more Vehicles introduced to flesh out those trees as well. At which point we could then reassess how AV vs Vehicle works and make the necessary alterations to achieve a much more desired balance.
As for Railguns I would address them as follows.
I would not cap rail gun range at a lesser value. Limiting the range of the railgun already makes no sense, but in the interest of game balance I feel between 500-600m is appropriate.
I would decrease the RoF, placing a chambering of a Hybrid charge in between the consecutive rounds, or simply a charge time between each shot.
I would also decrease the elevation of the Railgun, decreasing its capacity to engage low flying air craft unless at longer range, and preventing the exploitation of hills to essentially provide 360 degree firing. Additionally I would alter HAV barrel depression, on all turrets, so that turrets do not have such a large down wards angle with which to hit infantry at close range.
Damage in my mind does not need to be altered, a slower firing Railgun should be able to with its magazine be able to inflict a kill on, or at least severely damage a vehicle as it is designed to do.
"Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!"
-Dagger Two
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8963
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 07:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
darkiller240 wrote:God friking damit
DONT NERF ALL VEHICLE
ONLY NERF TANKS
>:(
You cannot arbitrarily nerf one vehicle....that is not balanced.
All vehicles should function off of the same mechanics as one another.
Just as a simply buff to AV cannot only be made affect on one vehicle type. AV, and Vehicle gameplay must be made consistent throughout the entire game.
For example a dropship should never be more durable than an HAV, just an an HAV should never be faster than an LAV, just as a Railgun should do the same damage to a tank as a dropship, then so too should AV do the same damage to dropships as HAV.
"Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!"
-Dagger Two
|