|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Dirt Nap Squad.
689
   |
Posted - 2014.03.27 21:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
Da Intro
If you don't know me, my name is Tebu Gan(20mil SP). I'm a rather active player, and I frequent the forums quite often. In fact, I think I spend more time here than I do in game. My main role is a vehicle user. I've also recently taken to swarms and forge guns to help give me clarity on the Tank vs AV imbalance. I'm certainly not one of the most popular or overly vocal members of the community, but as an introvert(INTJ to be exact), that is how I like it.
I struggled through pre 1.7 with my gunnlogi, giving as much positive feedback as possible, while trying to remain objective to the problems at hand. And at times doing a complete 180 when given another point of view from fellow players. We can't be right all the time!
Even with the advent of 1.7, while I enjoyed the nice change, it didn't take a rocket scientist to see that tanks were OP. Anybody that would like to call me a "crybaby" that asked for this, I will kindly direct you to my sig, then to the post linked within that one. If you know me at all, you would know that all I've ever "cried" for is balance. It's not just a mantra to me in game, but a mantra I carry with me for life.
Life is about balance. A balance between work, my hobby here on the forums, with my girlfriend, and family. (My girlfriend calls these postings, my essays)
But you know, after attempting for over a year now to provide good solid feedback, I give up. It really doesn't matter. I tried to explain this to fellow corp mates last night as they were blaming the people on the forums for everything OP. Like tanks, how was this even the forum goers fault? I calmly explained that often CCP takes your feedback and shoves most of it through the paper shredder like the worthless trash it clearly is. ( I know, being a negatude right now)
I visit these forums often, and while most of it is absolute garbage, there are many very constructive threads that really hit on the issues at hand. There are many people on here I've seen make some very good postings, and much respect always to them. While I don't expect them to actually do exactly what is being said, at the very least I expect them to take notice of the problems being brought up.
Not just that, but putting it in context with what and how it was said, then going out there trying to reproduce the same results to get a clear picture of the problem.
Now, I'm really trying to be calm here, and I know that they do take notice of the feedback provided, but it seems often times they are unwilling to take directly from said feedback and apply it to the game. I know they have their own ways of tackling problems but sometimes I have to question the logic behind their actions.
TANKS
So let's get down to it! I drive tanks, it's what I know best, nearly inside and out. No I don't makes spreadsheets, and the such to determine good fits. I simply make them, and drive them to their strengths. Finding what works and what doesn't and why. Improving my fits in the process.
Which is why I question the current train of thought CCP is following with their tank "Nerfs". Yes, tanks need SLIGHT adjustments here and there. Not just that but certain AV weapons need some attention(SWARMS). So let me just mention the current round of changes they are/have implemented.
Rails
Railguns range reduced from 600M to 300M.
I actually suggested this EXACT thing several weeks ago. So I totally agree and am happy with this change. But again, the problem isn't so much the railgun directly, but the lack of variety for railguns. I understand it's not something you can hotfix but well done for what I consider a smart change in the meantime. Read my sig for more information on that.
Armor Hardeners
For a maddie, it doesn't lose much in way of this change because you really didn't address the TRUE issue with them.
Armor hardeners reduced from 40% to 25%.
Is it just me, or does 25% seem WAY low to anyone else. Yes maddies rely heavily on armor reps for survival, but how in the world did you determine that the armor hardener itself was the problem? Obviously the armor hardener wasn't the problem to me but the reps themselves. I'm able to out rep most light AV WITHOUT the hardener. If it wasn't for CPU/PG restraints(I'm heavily shield invested) I would run 3 reps ALL DAY LONG.
A simple change of how often the tics tic, would do the trick. As in, rather than repping every second, they do it once every 5 seconds, slowing the rate of recharge, and putting more importance on the need for that 40% hardener (now at 25%). See, currently it's nothing to pop behind some quick cover and come out few a few seconds later ready to rock.
See, you really missed the core of the issue here, Armor (and Shield) tanks are not following your, "waves of opportunity" philosophy. There should be a time when a tank can take on the world, changing the course of the battle single handedly. But after this short period has ended, tanks become vulnerable to destruction. Your proposed changes though do a complete 180.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Dirt Nap Squad.
689
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 21:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
Reserved
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Dirt Nap Squad.
690
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 22:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
Quil Evrything wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:...But after this short period has ended, tanks become vulnerable to destruction. Your proposed changes though do a complete 180.
and ironically, shortening rail tank range, makes tanks as a whole, LESS vulnerable. So, other than for the dropship whiners, overall, its a tank BUFF, not a nerf. Well played, CCP TankGod, well played.
It wasn't so much the range in tank vs tank that was the problem though. While I hated redline rail tanks, on larger maps they can easily be avoided and dealt with.
Not to mention, it may help DS out with redline rails, it still doesn't address how effective rail are in CQC. But for now it's a good change, though not as huge as you describe in my opinion.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Dirt Nap Squad.
690
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 22:18:00 -
[4] - Quote
Xaviah Reaper wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Da Intro
If you don't know me, my name is Tebu Gan(20mil SP). I'm a rather active player, and I frequent the forums quite often. In fact, I think I spend more time here than I do in game. My main role is a vehicle user. I've also recently taken to swarms and forge guns to help give me clarity on the Tank vs AV imbalance. I'm certainly not one of the most popular or overly vocal members of the community, but as an introvert(INTJ to be exact), that is how I like it.
I struggled through pre 1.7 with my gunnlogi, giving as much positive feedback as possible, while trying to remain objective to the problems at hand. And at times doing a complete 180 when given another point of view from fellow players. We can't be right all the time!
Even with the advent of 1.7, while I enjoyed the nice change, it didn't take a rocket scientist to see that tanks were OP. Anybody that would like to call me a "crybaby" that asked for this, I will kindly direct you to my sig, then to the post linked within that one. If you know me at all, you would know that all I've ever "cried" for is balance. It's not just a mantra to me in game, but a mantra I carry with me for life.
Life is about balance. A balance between work, my hobby here on the forums, with my girlfriend, and family. (My girlfriend calls these postings, my essays)
But you know, after attempting for over a year now to provide good solid feedback, I give up. It really doesn't matter. I tried to explain this to fellow corp mates last night as they were blaming the people on the forums for everything OP. Like tanks, how was this even the forum goers fault? I calmly explained that often CCP takes your feedback and shoves most of it through the paper shredder like the worthless trash it clearly is. ( I know, being a negatude right now)
I visit these forums often, and while most of it is absolute garbage, there are many very constructive threads that really hit on the issues at hand. There are many people on here I've seen make some very good postings, and much respect always to them. While I don't expect them to actually do exactly what is being said, at the very least I expect them to take notice of the problems being brought up.
Not just that, but putting it in context with what and how it was said, then going out there trying to reproduce the same results to get a clear picture of the problem.
Now, I'm really trying to be calm here, and I know that they do take notice of the feedback provided, but it seems often times they are unwilling to take directly from said feedback and apply it to the game. I know they have their own ways of tackling problems but sometimes I have to question the logic behind their actions.
TANKS
So let's get down to it! I drive tanks, it's what I know best, nearly inside and out. No I don't makes spreadsheets, and the such to determine good fits. I simply make them, and drive them to their strengths. Finding what works and what doesn't and why. Improving my fits in the process.
Which is why I question the current train of thought CCP is following with their tank "Nerfs". Yes, tanks need SLIGHT adjustments here and there. Not just that but certain AV weapons need some attention(SWARMS). So let me just mention the current round of changes they are/have implemented.
Rails
Railguns range reduced from 600M to 300M.
I actually suggested this EXACT thing several weeks ago. So I totally agree and am happy with this change. But again, the problem isn't so much the railgun directly, but the lack of variety for railguns. I understand it's not something you can hotfix but well done for what I consider a smart change in the meantime. Read my sig for more information on that.
Armor Hardeners
For a maddie, it doesn't lose much in way of this change because you really didn't address the TRUE issue with them.
Armor hardeners reduced from 40% to 25%.
Is it just me, or does 25% seem WAY low to anyone else. Yes maddies rely heavily on armor reps for survival, but how in the world did you determine that the armor hardener itself was the problem? Obviously the armor hardener wasn't the problem to me but the reps themselves. I'm able to out rep most light AV WITHOUT the hardener. If it wasn't for CPU/PG restraints(I'm heavily shield invested) I would run 3 reps ALL DAY LONG.
A simple change of how often the tics tic, would do the trick. As in, rather than repping every second, they do it once every 5 seconds, slowing the rate of recharge, and putting more importance on the need for that 40% hardener (now at 25%). See, currently it's nothing to pop behind some quick cover and come out few a few seconds later ready to rock.
See, you really missed the core of the issue here, Armor (and Shield) tanks are not following your, "waves of opportunity" philosophy. There should be a time when a tank can take on the world, changing the course of the battle single handedly. But after this short period has ended, tanks become vulnerable to destruction. Your proposed changes though do a complete 180.
The so called "tank" nerfs, are equally dropship and LAV nerfs. CCP still hasnt figured out the concept of "side-effects". What changes one thing, surely changes another, there go cause and effect.
EXACTLY. Which is why I say, they really missed the issue here.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Dirt Nap Squad.
690
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 23:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Black SlaverX wrote:
No, no there shouldn't be. Why do you ask?
How about my team has 3 tanks... how about 5 tanks?
When exactly will these windows abate??
Here is the deal. You all just took a dump all over dust 514, the second we see that we can kill you, no tank will be safe, ever. You don't like that? Well maybe you fags shouldn't have crapped dust up for 4 months eh?
Did you notice that they reduced the tank count in ambush to 2?
While you clearly have me pegged as some dumbass, I must say you do have a point. The force multiplier and what not. But you missed the fact that I'm talking about increasing the total downtime and reducing the up time to actually have this "waves of opportunity" affect. It's a "nerf" all the same, but one that's inline with the entire reason tanks are like this in the first place.
With the WP for vehicle damage, as incentive, and an increase to vulnerability, tanks and AV could share more balance, but the way they are doing it is wrong and game breaking for not just tanks, but vehicles in general.
While I do understand the frustration you have had with tanks, please sir don't take it out on me. I want an end to it just like you. As a tank driver myself, plus a swarm user and forge user, I understand well these issues. Listen a little before you jump to the hating.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Dirt Nap Squad.
692
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 13:40:00 -
[6] - Quote
TheBLAZZED wrote:The simple fix would have been to only allow one hardener fitted. Same with damage mods... "Waves of opportunity" done. They do it with many other modules. The only things that scares me are "throw away tanks" and assault forge guns. Ive been tanking for well over a year. I dont really care about the changes, I just want something new to do.
And as I've suggested, there are ways of going about discouraging the use of multiple hardeners, that don't involve restricting fits directly.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Dirt Nap Squad.
692
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 13:42:00 -
[7] - Quote
Beeeees wrote:Luna Angelo wrote:I studied video game design.
Opinion invalidated. Studying video game design is the computer science equivalent of women-¦s studies.
Well, when I went to school for video game design, it seemed more focused on coding, 3D mathematics, some statistics, ect. I think maybe you have the wrong idea of it.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Dirt Nap Squad.
710
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 19:40:00 -
[8] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:I agree with all of your points, except for one.
I think that swarms SHOULD be ineffective against hardened shields. After all, they are specialized anti-armor weapons; they are not meant to be general purpose (like the plasma cannon or forge gun) or even anti-shield specialized. This is why we need racial parity for AV.
Without full racial parity, people are crying why their anti-armor specialized weapon is ineffective against shield and want to make it into a weapon that's both specialized against armor and can hurt shield. That just doesn't make sense. You skilled into a weapon that's specialized for beating armor. Yes you didn't have much of a choice, but that's why you have to cry for full racial parity, not making your weapon a general purpose AV weapon with increased armor effectiveness.
True, much like the large missile turrets being very ineffective against shields. But still, I saw no reason that a shield should be invincible to anything!
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Dirt Nap Squad.
714
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 21:28:00 -
[9] - Quote
Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Your posts make my ears bleed so F*cking long.
I know, there is only so much though you can say in a few words for topics as complex as this. But agreed, a summary is needed for those less inclined to reading.
But I do wonder, how do written words make your ears bleed? Shouldn't it have more to do with your brain or eyes?
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Dirt Nap Squad.
722
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 15:39:00 -
[10] - Quote
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote:Black SlaverX wrote:No, no there shouldn't be. Why do you ask? How about my team has 3 tanks... how about 5 tanks? When exactly will these windows abate?? Here is the deal. You all just took a dump all over dust 514, the second we see that we can kill you, no tank will be safe, ever. You don't like that? Well maybe you fags shouldn't have crapped dust up for 4 months eh? Tanks could have always been dealt with and destroyed but the fact that players complained and didn't want to put forth the effort .. because they couldn't solo one anymore with swarms instead of using other tools , i.e. : Fluxes , grenades , pm's , re's and teaming with someone just devote to a.v. to quell the threat . Think of how fast the threat could have been solved with the help of a forger or another swarmer instead of trying to go at it alone . You really can not lump the last four months on the shoulders of vehicle users , seeing as how most noticed not much of a anti-vehicle attempt by players , the fact that for the most part ... militia vehicle mods perform like advanced mods and there was no noticeable drop off except the charge time and one could ride out that difference while they recharge , Rail guns covered most of all maps , players who skilled tried to focus on militia vehicles while trying to show those in the community that they were not part of the problem and not to blame and after a concerted effort and a bunch of QQing on the forums , players are realizing how much easier it is to confront vehicles , that along with the hardener and rail gun nerf . Things are changing and I for one just can't understand why post like these keep popping up without giving some of the fixes time to work them selves out ??? Just to let most know , tankers see what is happening , respect the views of the community but feel slighted that players are quick to blame them for the action of those who attempted to get money and kills the easy way ( Militia Tanks ) and because of the poison being spread about the ineffectiveness of A.V. weapons . Stop blaming the tankers , they will and do admit what is wrong and finally realize who the real instigators are . Those who " Easy Ride militia tanks " .
I think the biggest thing that upsets a lot of tankers like myself, is the fact that they didn't address the real issues at hand when it came to tanks. The change, the way I see it, IS NOT A FIX. All it really is is a bandaid to stem the flow.
And I can comment that AV was underpowered, as I've used swarms (killin POORLY fit tanks), and forge guns. But for my swarmer, the most underpowered AV atm, I used a logi (not possible now I think) with prox mines, AV nades, and stacked damage mods.
I recall one match, a city map (ambush), where there were at least 4 tanks on the field. We had some good cover from the tanks, and after they lost a few tanks to my prox mines, they certainly kept their distance. What amazed me though, was how infantry just THREW themselves to the tanks. We had the advantage. All we needed was someone else layin out some prox mines, a forge and another swarmer. Then pull the tanks and enemy infantry ON OUR TURF.
Nope, blueberries were more inclined to run outside the city into the death zone. Then they ***** on the forums about how OP tanks are because their swarms won't drop one with a single clip. Yes swarms were weak to shield tanks in particular, and that was a problem that should have been addressed. But often times, it's because they never actually put any effort into it. I used everything at my disposal, and could drop poor fit tanks, and drive away, or force good tankers to reconsider their approach.
I've been in matches with fellow tankers from my corp, and watched in dismay as a few swarmers and forge gunners ROLLED us like nothing. It was times like that I questioned the validity of the AV's claims on the forums. These were seasoned tankers, killed by AV. I thought that wasn't possible??? LoL
But the thing is, it used to just take but a few shots from a swarm or forge to take one out. From quite a bit of distance to boot. Not to mention rendering problems (which are fixed FINALLY) with the swarms and AV themselves (basically nothing rendered for tankers 150M out, sometimes even when they were standing right next to them). AV had it VERY easy then. And I think a lot of them except that now. They don't want to actually deal with a tanks, they just want to make it go away as quickly as possible, so they don't you know, die.
When AV said tanks were too fast, I grabbed my LAV with a heavy rep, and ambushed these tanks. Yeah they drove away, but I was right behind them putting on the pressure. Sometimes I would set up a bit of a distance away, and lay my prox trap, then move up to the tanker and tempt him with the easy kill. Then drag it back to my trap, force some quick unexpected heavy damage and unleash the swarm!
Yes very difficult to solo tanks (with swarms in particular, much easier with forge guns) but not always impossible. If my swarms at the very least prevented shield regen or if those reps weren't reppin so fast, many more tanks would have died to my efforts. But I loved it, and it was always satisfying to watch a tank burn to my swarms. It always made me think, **** you scrubs and your I can't kill a tank mentality.
A little effort goes a LONG ways.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
|
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Dirt Nap Squad.
722
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 15:45:00 -
[11] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Harpyja wrote:I agree with all of your points, except for one.
I think that swarms SHOULD be ineffective against hardened shields. After all, they are specialized anti-armor weapons; they are not meant to be general purpose (like the plasma cannon or forge gun) or even anti-shield specialized. This is why we need racial parity for AV.
Without full racial parity, people are crying why their anti-armor specialized weapon is ineffective against shield and want to make it into a weapon that's both specialized against armor and can hurt shield. That just doesn't make sense. You skilled into a weapon that's specialized for beating armor. Yes you didn't have much of a choice, but that's why you have to cry for full racial parity, not making your weapon a general purpose AV weapon with increased armor effectiveness. True, much like the large missile turrets being very ineffective against shields. But still, I saw no reason that a shield should be invincible to anything! Invincible, no, but it should take more than one swarm user to deter a shield tanked vehicle. The swarm launcher should give up effectiveness against shield and gain effectiveness against armor. But again, we need full racial parity and give laser-based AV that people can use to take out shield tanked vehicles. Edit: or CCP can give us ammo types following EVE's ammo system. Then swarm users can load EMP missiles for shield damage and change to explosive missiles for armor damage.
Yeah, you commented on one of my "balancing turrets" threads about your ammo system, of which I love. But I still say, at the very least, swarm damage should prevent shield regen. So in this way they can work in tangent with other AV to take down tanks. There is no sense in a swarm doing absolutely nothing but tickle a tank!
It really makes them "useless" when faced with a shield tank. It would still do low damage, but at least they don't feel totally useless like they did.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
|
|
| |
|