DUST Search - Hardner nerf news from CCP Wolfman

All Channels

General Discussions

Hardner nerf news from CCP Wolfman

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Kairos Nitak Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 22	Posted - 2014.03.27 05:12:00 - [31] - Quote Before they changed the whole vehicle balance everything was fine except for the fact that tankers were losing so much money that it wasn't worth it. They should have just reduced the price and everything would be ok. Infantry would have a fighting chance and tankers wouldn't be in the poor house.

CCP Saberwing C C P C C P Alliance 2902	Posted - 2014.03.27 05:17:00 - [32] - Quote 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. CCP Saberwing // DUST 514 Community Manager // @kanafchian

MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 278	Posted - 2014.03.27 05:25:00 - [33] - 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. Fixing swarms to do the damage they are supposed to do would be a start to see what more needs to be done. 100% more time between each Railgun shot. My .2 ISK R.I.P. Pre-1.7 tanks, you will be missed.
Meisterjager Jagermeister 43	Posted - 2014.03.27 05:26:00 - [34] - Quote I think the slower regen of hp is a good idea.
Kovinis Sparagas Bullet Cluster 189	Posted - 2014.03.27 05:33:00 - [35] - 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. wow! CCP ask us for help! Now I've seen it all! ok am... well... am... don't know what to say. I want to help and this is my only chance. I need not to screw up! hello can't really say about the first one, but can comment on the second one: for me range comes to one thing: more range - less damage. So for me Railguns should be very long range (as it is) but small damage. And why not use some practice from EVE Online? If you try to shoot small object with a bigger gun, you make less damage. And guns rotate slower - it also helps small objects to escapte it's death guns. So this way HAVs and mercenaries can co-exist but don't really matter one about the other, and the real battle would be HAVs vs HAVs and mercs vs mercs. Two games in one. Two dimensions. Like in trailers. I hope I helped a little bit. Always wanted to be useful I support BPO removal; RDV to take your vehicles back; and racial weapons on starter fits
BIGRED 4UALL Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1	Posted - 2014.03.27 05:35:00 - [36] - 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. What my suggestion would be is when the hardeners are on take away the ability to shoot the weapon. Railgun range should be reduced the same as the turrets on the battle field should be reduced. And as far as that goes the forge gun range should be reduced as well.
Psychotic Shooter Ancient Exiles. Dirt Nap Squad. 161	Posted - 2014.03.27 05:39:00 - [37] - 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. Hey CCP Saberwing To improve the Tank Vs Infantry Situation I would increse the despersion on the blaster making it harder to hit infantry I would reduce shield Hardener since armour tanks can be taken out by av hardened shield tank are pretty much unbeatable, i would also take vehicle damage mods down to 15% I Would leave Rail damage where it is no fall of since it is a Long range weapon but i would increase the shot interval from 1.4 second to either 2.0 or 2.5 also if you take your finger of the trigger the rail should have to cool down to 0 before you can start shooting again this would prevent people from taking there finger of the trigger to get over the delay between shots. Dust 514 Closed Beta Vet Tanker for Hire Contact me in game
ZDub 303 TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 2390	Posted - 2014.03.27 05:39:00 - [38] - Quote Rails need a dps reduction, through rof reduction imo
Bro-metheus Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 70	Posted - 2014.03.27 05:39:00 - [39] - 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. Increase the cooldown between shots for the railgun, lower the ammo count. increase the charge up time for railgun shots. decrease overall railgun dmg. remove splash from the railguns. remove tanks seeing infanry at long range IE they can only see other vech and stuff long range. Make tanks only first person view. Make tank recall only for the red line. Do not reward war points for tank shots from the redline. Reduce tank warpoints for kills on infantry. lots of options, cant tell you which one of those to use. For the AV side you need to fix the swarms Pri #1 for the forge gun you need to up its range by 25% and its dmg needs a good buff. here is the main thing though. If you look at the Differential between specing inf suits. Lets say you take a heavy suit. now you can brick tank it and you can speed tank it but the dif is not massive compared to the weapons it faces. the Spread of EHP and other factors on tanks is insanely large. This makes balancing far far more unwieldy. you will notice this more when you try to install the other racial tanks. to get noticeable dif between them your going to have to go to even more extremes to make them noticeable. You need to close that gap. No matter the tank, asking for more then 2 forge gun AV to be required to fight it/counter it effectively (right now that number is somewhere in the 5-6 AV needed for a good kill mark and that is insane) is a recipe for disaster. you need to close ranks on the tank spead. So to do that, you up the base stats of the tanks, you drop down the % increase from moduals to relative how the spread for Dropsuits is. And you take the AV damage and buff it to the DPS necessary. It should never take more then 2 proto swarms to take out a proto tank if they both empty their magazines into him and no more the 1 proto av to take out a proto tank if he gets all of his forge gun hits before reload. Now i know by now tankers are freaking out. but here is the thing DROP the tank prices to reflect this. OR up the rewards AV gets for the tank kill and the Reward tanks get for kills. This is a good way to adjust AV. Now with regards to a hotfix. Right Now the tank EHP and hardener spread is TOO LARGE. you buff AV enough to be effective against dual hardeners, all other tanks get crushed and Dual harder is the only way to go/survive. that is a fact. You need to bring hardeners down to a rate where they are still useful but the spread is not more then lets say 15%-25% and the cool downs reflect a sensible game play style. Then adjust AV to match it. You need to think hard about how much spread you want in tank moduals. too much and its literally unbalanceable vs av because hardeners will create to much spread. same goes for all tank moduals.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 3163	Posted - 2014.03.27 05:40:00 - [40] - Quote Eliminate the full auto on rails. Make them spool up for each shot and make that spool time significant. That would prevent them from killing dropships in 1.5 seconds. Though range reduction for redline rails is very tempting. It's not realistic, but it does solve the risk vs. reward problem. Can you prevent all shooting out of the redline?

Kairos Nitak Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 22	Posted - 2014.03.27 05:44:00 - [41] - Quote Yes please! Buff AV! And can we please have our 3rd av nade back? Even if they're buffed, 2 nades is worthless. The forge gun is the only decent av we've had in a while.. and right now its glitching. Swarms are absolutely worthless and plasma cannons are impossible to use unless the vehicle is close and not moving.. if you're lucky enough to hit them you should at least be rewarded.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 3163	Posted - 2014.03.27 05:47:00 - [42] - Quote Long term you need to separate infantry and vehicles. Give them different tasks and they won't have to be balanced against each other so strictly.
Vell0cet SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 1270	Posted - 2014.03.27 05:50:00 - [43] - 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. Nerfing the secret resistances mentioned in Judge's swarm videos would be a good place to start. Making things more overt helps everyone figure out balance. I think the biggest issue with rail guns is the redline itself. There obviously needs to be SOMETHING in place to prevent spawn camping the enemy MCC, but it is a difficult problem. I can't comment on rail tank damage itself, perhaps it needs changes too, but the issue of redline rail tanks is the redline itself for sure. One mechanism for redline fixes that might work is to have your timer for entering the enemy redline function like stamina or the cloak (instead of resetting to full every time you leave the enemy redline). You have a capped amount of time (maybe 40 seconds), exiting the enemy redline slowly charges that time back up. If it ever hits 0 then you're dead. Even just limiting this for the arial redline might be sufficient. Your dropship won't be able to linger in the enemy airspace for more than 40 seconds, and it'll take 40 seconds out of the redline to recharge, so you can't spawn camp for long periods (certainly long enough for the enemy to spawn in some AV fits and take you out the next time you cross the line. This likely isn't hot fixable. I don't think addressing the deep and intricate problems involved with balancing AV and vehicles should be handled as a hotfix. I'd like to see a 1.9 patch quickly in April before the big fanfest stuff you guys have planned, with no new content, just balancing and bug fixes. It would be healthy for the game. It would also take the pressure off the team if the fanfest goodies end up getting delayed (as big, exciting new things tend to), since the game should be in a reasonably balanced place. Best PvE idea ever!
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens League of Infamy 799	Posted - 2014.03.27 05:53:00 - [44] - 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 am going to try to be objective and reasonable as possible. Yes, I am a full time tanker. Yes, I don't want them to be in bad as a place as they were in 1.6. No, I don't want a win machine. Tank v. Tank feels right about now. You have the glass cannons that can kill the brick but only if they get the drop. It seems balanced to me. Buffing AV means that LAV's and Dropships get hurt pretty bad. Going full nerd: If the DM makes the monsters to-hit high enough to hit the Sword and Board fighter, the monsters are going to absolutely crush the bard in a single hit. I don't think that AV as a whole is too weak. Forge Guns are quite deadly to my Madrugar. Swarms are a joke. I have seen them not even be able to break my Shield Regeneration before, and they cannot with my Gunnlogi. First thing is to ensure that any AV / vehicle weapon can stop Shield regeneration. So if the limit is 100 damage, make it count before damage reduction. So if a Swarm was going to do 120 damage before reduction but is hit down to 95, it still stops regeneration while doing 95 per hit. Made this a while back. Railgun range is annoying. Seeing Mr. Sica in the redline taking pot shots at everything is annoying. I hit him, he rolls back. Range won't fix that though, just reduce the area by which he can deny other vehicles so that is another problem. The range probably should be reduced but not overly. It still needs to be a viable mid-long range weapon out in the field but not total area denial from the redline. Make hardeners share the same CD. Let them still be fit and used but make them ALL activate when a single one is used. This would mean that a tank that is meant to kill another tank in a single engagement, say damage mod 2-hardener gunnlogi, still works. They activate their hardener and both turn on. They have their 80% resistance for that ONE fight. Afterwards, they are vulnerable. That is a "wave of opportunity." This change, rather than just saying "1 hardener per customer" doesn't limit the builds significantly. Double Hardener Madrugar still works but it is now EXTREMELY difficult to kill for a portion of time rather than being very hard to kill ALL the time and being able to choose to be EXTREMELY difficult to kill for a portion of time. Possibly increase the CD of hardeners if multiple ones are used at the same time. Say an extra 20% CD for each additional one. It still keeps it a choice without making it the obvious choice. Right now, two complex hardeners on a Madrugar means the hardeners are active all the time. Three on a shield vehicle means it has 60% reduction all the time. No "wave of opportunity." Undo the nerf to weapon proficiency for Forge Guns and Swarm Launchers. Make it like the Nova Knife one. Possibly, and I mean be really careful with this, introduce "AV Weapon Damage Modifications" that increase the damage of AV weaponry by more than 3/4/5%. Might be a problem for the Forge and Plasma Cannon though as they might get to "splash kills infantry" points. Militia tanks need to lose a high or low slot. Sica and Soma both being 2:2 does not show the advantages of either. It just means that people dual tank with a Sica because it has more PG/CPU. Reduce the Sica to 2:1 and the Soma to 1:2. This lets people test if they want to be an armor tank or a shield tank while lowering the power of a militia tank spam. Damage mods on vehicles are too powerful. 30% is kind of insane. It turns a Militia turret into a Prototype Turret. They stack too easily. Either make it 1 per customer, reduce the amount it adds, or severely hit the stacking penalty. A tank with a Prototype Railgun and two or three damage can two shot just about anything. If it is running hardeners, three shots... The Militia tank thing is the most obvious "do this" in my book. "People that quote themselves in signatures confuse me." -Joseph Ridgeson
Vulpes Dolosus SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 1136	Posted - 2014.03.27 06:43:00 - [45] - 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. - Biggest thing to remember is to not over look how these changes "balance" with other vehicles. ADSs and LAVs are in a good spot, defensively (though the Saga could use more CPU), if you ask me. I do think that, with the new changes to Prof skills and damage mods, the damage for AV could get a buff across the board, especially swarms (though not back to pre1.7 levels). Other than that, I think we just need some new content. More infantry AV weapons, especially heavy, will make the battlefield more dynamic and bring more threats, especial to shield based vehicles. E-War, such as webifiers, could also help turn the tides of AV vs V due to cleverness instead of raw firepower. New vehicle turrets will add some variety to the mix of AV vehicles, perhaps. In addition to some nerfs, logi vehicles could make a stunning return and actually fulfill a vital role. (I've made threads about most/ all if you're interested in some of my ideas). - The biggest problem with rails, imho, is the redline. Pure in simple, they can reach far, over the whole map in most cases, with impunity, and the only way to get them back is to take your rail tank to midfield/the enemy redline and attempt to kill them (which more than not doesn't happen because after the first or second shot, they duck behind a hill). Imo, the easiest way to end this (and other redline abuses) is to just get rid of it. Add bubble shields/ bunkers (whatever the map will allow) that can't be shot into or out of and let the rest of the playable map be open. The only other things I'd suggest is a nerf to damage mods (to about 15-20% I guess), increase to rail fitting costs (to remove their tanking ability for ganking), RoF a little, Me in my ADS: 1,2
GVGMODE WorstPlayersEver 152	Posted - 2014.03.27 06:43:00 - [46] - Quote CCP Saberwing wrote: [quote=I-Shayz-I][quote=KenKaniff69] 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? - would you go about fixing Railguns, if not range reduction? I believe damage fall-off is not an option for a server-side hotfix. Listening non vehicle players is a key for disaster. - How would you suggest going improving the tank situation? Increasing the viability of AV? It has been said so many times un-tiercide the modules. You cannot have MLT-STD-ADV modules with the same duration/cooldown/ damage resistance as PROTOTYPE level and expect to have a good situation in regards to tanks. There is no reason for a player with 0 SP into vehicles to invest in them at the moment, because MLT modules+tanks are so disposable (price) and effective that they will spam them and don't mind if it blows because it only costs 68k to spam the next MLt tank Go drive a tank and try to sustain damage from 2 to 3 forge gunners at the same time and you will wipe, watch a +20M SP pilot die to a bomb jeep driver that has only 1/100 of your total SP invested in remote explosives and costs 20 times less, watch a player solo a tank by using sticky REs on your weak spot. - 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. Increase the gap between MLT-STD-ADV-PRO turrets (not just rails), since the damage gap is so little a MLT turret can kill a fully hardened Tank that is using PRO modules easily. In a ADS vs Tanks scenario without involving the redline, additional AV/tank hitting each other... the ADS should win because they can hover over the tank without any risk due to turret motion/angle, the tank cannot fight back and the ADS can also reach a tremendous height in seconds if needed. As for rails well it is good at killing vehicles, which is its main role since the splash radius it has is a joke and calculating the projectile travel time vs a moving target such as infantry does require some experience with them. Overall changes to vehicles: - Un-tiercide the modules and increase the gap between them - Reduce the CPU and PG of MLT and STD tanks, assuming we get ADV level vehicle per se marauder class. - Increase the damage gap between current turrets. - Increase the damage profile of swarms vs ADS from 55% to 75% at least - Reduce the turbulence of ADS when being hit. - Bomb jeeps with Remote Explosives need to go, they discourage tankers to play in the field and stay in the redline ( it costs 0 ISK and less than a couple skill points to make one with BPOs or 25k ISK without BPOs) Pilot: (Tanks / Assault Dropships) Skype: GVGMODE
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8962	Posted - 2014.03.27 06:46:00 - [47] - 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
Spectral Clone Dust2Dust. Top Men. 1900	Posted - 2014.03.27 06:57:00 - [48] - Quote He is asking for an idea on how to fix tank and AV balance with a quick fix, not how to revamp the tanks again dudes. I would say, make it impossible to fit more than one hardener on all tank hulls. Just like you can only fit one cloak on infantry. Also make it impossible to fit more than one damage mod on all tank hulls. Hopefully this is only one parameter that has to be changed, and it can be done in the item DB without compiling !? Drop it like its hat.

CCP Saberwing C C P C C P Alliance 2905	Posted - 2014.03.27 06:58:00 - [49] - Quote Spectral Clone wrote: Hopefully this is only one parameter that has to be changed, and it can be done in the item DB without compiling !? Yep, we'd aim to get this out on a server-side hotfix rather than having to submit a downloadable patch. It limits our options somewhat, but we're keeping an eye on this thread and discussing. CCP Saberwing // DUST 514 Community Manager // @kanafchian

Bar Be Circle of Huskarl Minmatar Republic 21	Posted - 2014.03.27 07:05:00 - [50] - Quote CCP Saberwing wrote: 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 don't understand. After many constructive threads, videos etc on this in the months since 1.7 dropped you ask moments before the change is made... Eh? I would suggest someone puts a bit of effort into digging through the forums and YouTube for the nuggets of gold amongst the BS. What are the odds of a good hotfix idea being fairly presented and debated in this single thread..? As an infantry player my main counter to tanks is not to play Ambush...

COVERT SUBTERFUGE PSU GHOST SYNDICATE DARKSTAR ARMY 783	Posted - 2014.03.27 07:06:00 - [51] - Quote Spectral Clone wrote: He is asking for an idea on how to fix tank and AV balance with a quick fix, not how to revamp the tanks again dudes. I would say, make it impossible to fit more than one hardener on all tank hulls. Just like you can only fit one cloak on infantry. Also make it impossible to fit more than one damage mod on all tank hulls. Hopefully this is only one parameter that has to be changed, and it can be done in the item DB without compiling !? Tanks shouldn't be able to have multiple hardeners. That's the biggest issue, they stack them and can't be hurt. Just buff AV back to where it was before you huys nuked it. Buff swarm damage back to where it was and increase the range again. Proud Minmatar scout - Republic Merc 7/10 Immune to bitter/jaded vet syndrome Alt of THE GREY CARDINAL - eWar Merc
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 11820	Posted - 2014.03.27 07:09:00 - [52] - Quote Zirzo Valcyn wrote: it's the plates that need nerfing. nerf the plates. Get out. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Kitt 514 True North. 144	Posted - 2014.03.27 07:10:00 - [53] - Quote Damage Tank Speed Pick two, and you will balance vehicles. Tanks have all 3, so even if you can hurt a tank, it can just zip away.
Aeon Amadi Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 5366	Posted - 2014.03.27 07:12:00 - [54] - Quote AV definitely needs to be more viable. Tanks are in a decent place, I feel, apart from some edge cases that usually are related to AV not being viable (shields recharging through AV damage). (Edit: But for the love of god, please take this in moderation... Let's go slow with this, bump it up until it works, not bump it too high, then back down, and back up like we've been doing xD) If Railguns are a problem from the redline, I'd much rather just deal with it for another month or so to have them fixed right (implementing falloff) instead of making a vindictive change to their range that reduces their overall effectiveness as a whole. Reducing range is a bandaid that doesn't really work because, no matter what, there will always be cases where they're able to shoot out of the redline, or just stay back there and wait for the enemy to come to them. Useful Links //forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133588 //forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134182
Captain Crutches Nexus Marines 65	Posted - 2014.03.27 07:14:00 - [55] - Quote I'm not a tanker or AV specialist, just a Rail Rifle toting assault wannabe, but it seems the thing to do is buff AV more than nerf tanks. About the only AV stuff I ever see is forge guns currently, and those are barely scraping by as a means of tickling tanks enough to make them back off for a few seconds. I'd say consider at least these things, in no particular order and with no presumption to know methods, numbers, or plausibility because it's 3 AM and I'll soon hate myself for still being awake: - Buff swarm damage and/or range, and while you're at it maybe bring back dumbfire because that was kinda cool IMO - Buff AV grenade damage and/or give us 3 of those again (used to only ever run those back in the murder taxi days, worked wonders) - Make the plasma cannon not sh!t, somehow - Nerf range/firing arc on rail tanks to keep them out of the redline, as Judge Rhadamanthus explained No idea if those are plausible or reasonable goals, but they're what came to mind off the top of my head. Glad to see this is being addressed. Now off to bed~ Anti-Respec \| Anti-Protostomp \| Anti-"Slayer Logi" \| Pro-Tiericide \| Pro-EVE/Dust Link \| Pro-CCP Fun > Winning > KDR
The-Errorist 582	Posted - 2014.03.27 07:14:00 - [56] - 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. When uprising 1.8 came, the ttk of unhardened vehicles vs other unhardened vehicles dropped dramatically (not counting damage mods). Contrary to what CCP intended, that made tanking less fun and made hardeners too important. Hardeners need nerfed by 5% and they would also need to have a shorter active duration or have higher fitting costs. They are just too useful to not have much of a downside. The only problem with large railguns are that they have way to much damage per second than large blasters and higher damage per minute than large blasters and missiles. For the weapon that has the largest optimal range, it should have the least dps and or dmp. To improve AV and vehicle balance in general: shield tanks should not be able to continue repairing while under fire, the shield delay damage threshold is too high. Armor repair modules are too effective and to be nerfed; on an Gallente, tank you can get a permanent repair rate very close to a shield recharge rate of a Caldari one, have a hardener, and still be able to get an advanced large turret. On a Incubus, you can stack all of the low slots with armor repairs and repair more damage per second than 3 assault forge-gunners can deal. Flux and AV grenades need their capacity increased back to 3. Plasma cannon projectile speed is too slow and it needs to have 2 rounds per magazine. Swarm launcher range lock-on needs to be increased by at most 50m or they need their missile speed increased. Not as important changes that would make vehicles VS infantry more balanced: Tanks have more innate resistance to light weapons than light and medium vehicles when they don't need it. When one is in a vehicle, there should be a swarm launcher lock-on notification.
darkiller240 WarRavens League of Infamy 646	Posted - 2014.03.27 07:27:00 - [57] - Quote God friking damit DONT NERF ALL VEHICLE ONLY NERF TANKS >:( "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8963	Posted - 2014.03.27 07:45:00 - [58] - 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
Johnny Guilt Algintal Core 617	Posted - 2014.03.27 07:45:00 - [59] - Quote Is this why iv been able to kill DSs and Tanks with the forge tonight? it's like Chrismas! A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. GalHeav E-vo
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 698	Posted - 2014.03.27 07:48:00 - [60] - Quote CCP Saberwing wrote: Spectral Clone wrote: Hopefully this is only one parameter that has to be changed, and it can be done in the item DB without compiling !? Yep, we'd aim to get this out on a server-side hotfix rather than having to submit a downloadable patch. It limits our options somewhat, but we're keeping an eye on this thread and discussing. Scaling railgun damage down so that the ADV and PRO versions are closer to the STD variant would be a start. If damage from Railguns and Large Missiles are reduced then the hardeners could also be brought down a tad, as they won't be needed quite as strong. Reducing the alpha damage of major anti vehicle weaponry would reduce the need for hardeners to be so severe (Railguns, Large Missile, Forge Gun only) This would also permit the other types of weaponry to suddenly be more effective vs vehicles, instead of useless annoyances (such as the Mass Driver and Plasma Cannon) This would also allow relative weaponry such as Remote explosives and Proximity mines to have a larger niche as well, since they are technically Melee class AV. Mind you, that if you nerf hardeners now, when Webifiers come out you will have to raise the power of hardeners again because of vulnerability ratios. If you can read this, it means you are reading. Unless you are skimming



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.