DUST Search - Revert Hardener change and allow AV weapons to pierce resistance

All Channels

General Discussions

Revert Hardener change and allow AV weapons to pierce resistance

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens League of Infamy 816	Posted - 2014.03.28 10:48:00 - [1] - Quote Running my Madrugar today, two guys with Swarms could put me in a dangerous enough of a situation that I couldn't just sit there and "lolswarm" them with my hardener on. I could decide to sit there, letting them beat me down over some time, but any kind of extra damage (like a Forge Gunner deciding to whack a shot at me or two) would push me over the edge too quickly to escape. So good thing for Swarms as far as I can tell. Forge Gunners are still far more deadly so they may be overly devastating. Dunno, haven't seen too many yet. However, fighting other tanks turns out to be a lot less of a tank fight. With turrets dealing the same damage as before but losing about 20% of their EHP, it makes glass cannons a lot more powerful and fights ending a lot faster than before. If a double damage mod Sica is still killed in the same number of shots from a heavily defense based tank (about 3 or 4) but the defensive tank is killed in fewer shots now, it creates a far more favorable environment for the glass cannon. Before, the higher defenses could reasonably push a tank that doesn't do high damage (for a tank) to be able to survive the much higher damage of the glass cannon fit. Think of it as The Terminator with a baseball bat against an athesmatic teenager with a rocket launcher. Providing Terminator was prepared for the rocket launcher, it could face tank the damage and beat the troublemaker with the bat. The change to hardeners basically strips off 20% of the Terminator's EHP but keeps the rocket launcher guy intact. Terminator still kills the teen at the same speed but now the rocket launcher will kill the Terminator before the teen dies. There was an ebb and flow before. It was necessary to get the jump with a glass cannon to defeat the enemy; even a prepared fight where they are both ready wouldn't often go that well for the glass cannon. Now it seems that the glass cannon even wins prepared fights. Hardeners now mean that AV is a lot more devastating to tanks. Is it in balance? Dunno, I can't really say yet but it certainly feels closer than a tank sitting there eating Swarm after Swarm. Tank v Tank/Installation has certainly been tilted though, which was originally based upon the 40/60 hardeners. Try killing a railgun installation at close range with a hardened blaster tank without running away or trying to lessen the damage. I wouldn't be surprised if it killed you now when it wouldn't have before. I think it is possible to cleanly nerf one one side (Tank v Infantry) without hurting the other (Tank v Tank/Installation). Revert Hardeners back to 40/60 from 25/40 but give weapons specifically classified as AV weaponry the ability to have 37.5% of the damage ignore Armor Hardeners and 33.33% of the damage to ignore Shield Hardeners. It could work like this: 1. A Railgun hits a hardened Madrugar's armor for 1,500 damage. If the hardener is active, it drops the damage to 900. Basic, flat hardener. If it hit a Hardened Gunnlogi at 1,500 danage, it would be dropped to 600 damage. Same as before. Yes, I know the damage profile was ignored but this is just showing the point. 2. A Forge Gun, which I think everyone would agree is an AV weapon, hits a hardened Madrugar's armor for 800 damage. The damage is first multiplied by .375 to get 300. 800 - 300 = 500 which is reduced by the hardener's 40%. 500 x .6 = 300. 300 + 300 = 600 damage. That is the same as if the armor hardener were at 25%. 800 x . 75 = 600. The same would work for Shields but with a different number (.333). 800 x .333 = 266.64, 800 - 266.64 = 533.36 x .40 = 213.344 + 266.64 = 479.984. 800 x .6 = 480. So the damage is the same for AV weaponry. Everything bolded is the amount of damage that would not be reduced by a hardener. Multiple hardeners are an issue but you can just change the numbers: Two Armor Hardeners = 60.86% Reduction against Vehicles(32.14% of AV damage will ignore hardeners) Two Shield Hardeners = 80.86% Reduction against Vehicles(24.74% of AV damage will ignore hardeners) 1,500 damage Rail to Armor: 1,500 x .3917 = 587.55 1,500 damage Rail to Shield: 1,500 x .1914 = 287.1 800 damage Forge to Armor: 800 x .3214 = 257.12, 800 - 257.12 = 542.88 x.3914 =212.48 + 257.12 = 469.6 (800 x .3914 = 469.6, same damage as it does currently for AV) 800 damage Forge to Shield: 800 x .2474 = 197.92, 800 - 197.92 = 602.08 x .1914 = 115.238 + 197.92 = 313.15 ( 800 x .3914 = 313.12, same damage for AV as it does currently) By choosing the numbers, Tank v Tank can be put back to the slower fights it was a few days ago while keeping the nerf present for AV weapons. This also means that our aerial vehicle friends will not be as weak against tanks as they are now. Finally, by adopting the principal of different weapons having different effects, it opens the door for different ways of balancing other than flat reducing or increasing numbers. If the Plasma Cannon is weak against vehicles but the damage being increased would make it too devastating against Infantry, change the amount of damage it pierces hardeners. Or, since the game already have a baseline mathematic for damage against X, you can add to it: "Plasma Cannon now does an additional 20% damage to vehicles alone." tl;dr put hardeners back to 40/60 and allow a specific percentage of the damage done by AV weapons to not be reduced by the hardener. Comments or concerns? "People that quote themselves in signatures confuse me." -Joseph Ridgeson
crazy space 1 GunFall Mobilization 2228	Posted - 2014.03.28 10:53:00 - [2] - Quote OH NO , TWO proto swarms held back a tank? SOUNDS BROKEN tank to tank combat I think tanks need more weakspots that deal 150% 200% damage, tank weapon damage could then be lowered. Dropships need more weakpoints as well.
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens League of Infamy 816	Posted - 2014.03.28 11:08:00 - [3] - Quote crazy space 1 wrote: OH NO , TWO proto swarms held back a tank? SOUNDS BROKEN tank to tank combat I think tanks need more weakspots that deal 150% 200% damage, tank weapon damage could then be lowered. Dropships need more weakpoints as well. Did you read past the first paragraph? I never stated that it was broken for two Swarm Launchers to be able to hold back a tank. In fact, that is a good, good thing. The entire post is about making tanks more tanky against other tanks and installations while keeping AV as strong as they are now. The numbers I chose by which AV pierces hardeners make it equal to the amount of damage that is currently happening now. "Why not just lower damage of turrets to compensate the lowered EHP of a hardened vehicle?" Because that doesn't hit the glass cannon tank. They still up the damage and are still being killed at the same speed. Same for installations. By changing the hardener, you make it to where attacking a tank as a tank is far more important to do so when the hardener is on or off. Plus, it adds another layer to the strategy: "I am getting hit with Swarms and there is an enemy tank on the field somewhere. Do I turn my hardener on now to be able to shrug of the Swarms and risk being destroyed by the more prepared tank OR do I leave the situation without my hardener so my tank opponent doesn't catch so vastly weaker.?" "People that quote themselves in signatures confuse me." -Joseph Ridgeson
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 282	Posted - 2014.03.28 11:10:00 - [4] - Quote crazy space 1 wrote: OH NO , TWO proto swarms held back a tank? SOUNDS BROKEN Yeah, because it should take 1 STD Swarm to hold back/kill a STD tank if the tank doesn't kill the AV quickly enough or retreat quickly enough. Assuming no hardener of course. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 tanks, you will be missed.
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 2453	Posted - 2014.03.28 11:13:00 - [5] - Quote crazy space 1 wrote: OH NO , TWO proto swarms held back a tank? SOUNDS BROKEN tank to tank combat I think tanks need more weakspots that deal 150% 200% damage, tank weapon damage could then be lowered. Dropships need more weakpoints as well. You're an idiot. Please go back to kindergarten and learn to read. ak.0 4 LYFE CCP GIB LANCE TURRET PLOX LET ME MELEE PEOPLE WITH MY STEED
bamboo x Eternal Beings Proficiency V. 471	Posted - 2014.03.28 11:15:00 - [6] - Quote I read the first sentence or two and realized you're just ranting about installations. I disagree. Double stacking hardeners gave you an 80% resistance. Don't tell me that's not OP, especially in a dropship when you've got triple hardeners. But I agree that installations need a change. I heard they didn't nerf the distance on those but I could be wrong B.D. Wong AKA Dr. Wu returns to Jurassic Park sequel
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 767	Posted - 2014.03.28 11:20:00 - [7] - Quote You won't see forge guns until they fix the bug... they're unusable at this stage. Whenever someone mentions multiple AV players hit you for you to start taking damage, it's still broken - you are falling into the fallacy of the zero-sum game. In a 16 vs 16 game at the moment, any asset that forces an opposing team to use multiple assets to neutralise it (especially if their only purpose it to neutralise that asset) it's not balanced. Yes, it's a difficult thing to balance vehicles vs vehicles while maintaining balance with vehicles vs infantry - they're not quite there.
Toby Flenderson research lab 416	Posted - 2014.03.28 11:23:00 - [8] - Quote I'm ok with that. I don't have any place in deciding how tanks fight one another. As long as I don't notice any difference between the hot fix and your suggestion from an AV perspective, I don't see why anyone would lose in this scenario. AV against unhardened tanks is ok as is IMO. Take away the overwhelming effect of hardeners (your way or CCP's way) and the balance is shifted. I wanted to say balance was achieved but I did not play yesterday so I don't know. Either way, I like this idea. +1
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3128	Posted - 2014.03.28 11:24:00 - [9] - Quote My maddy yday with the new hardener changes was completely different The hardener now at 25% doesnt really stop anything, swarms already deal an extra 20% on top of what the base stats are and just say you get prof 5 then you have an extra 15% on top just to armor so 35% overall But ignore the prof for now, it deals 20% to armor and your hardener no matter what level it is only gives you an extra 25% resistance to whatever hits you FG is only a 10% bonus to armor but full prof 5 would give another 15% to armor Swarms against anything armor are now more lethal than ever, the hardener itself is generally useless since it can barely stop a normal swarm from doing at least 100% dmg to you, sure without the hardener it will be doing 120-135% damage and a FG hurts no matter what If anything with the maddy it may die out or be switched up a bit with pilots looking at that hardener or even using 2 at the same time to even get close to what the old numbers were, maybe rise of the 3 rep maddy may pop up a bit more just keep moving and dont let the bastards grind ya down or maybe we get some dual tanked ones As for rail the distance was cut short yday, redline rails did still exists but were useless mostly depending how far back they were Small rails are useless Shield hardener nerf comes into effect today, be intresting to see what happens Intelligence is OP
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens League of Infamy 817	Posted - 2014.03.28 11:30:00 - [10] - Quote bamboo x wrote: I read the first sentence or two and realized you're just ranting about installations. I disagree. Double stacking hardeners gave you an 80% resistance. Don't tell me that's not OP, especially in a dropship when you've got triple hardeners. But I agree that installations need a change. I heard they didn't nerf the distance on those but I could be wrong The only reason I brought up installations is because of their railgun and lack of hardeners. They are the glass cannon tanks that are easy to see. A glass cannon tank wouldn't have the hardener or the HP but would have the damage. Because of the reduction to the defensive tactic against glass cannons, one that doesn't really change glass cannons at all, glass cannons are given quite a boost. My main complaint is that tank fights are faster than they were before. It is kind of the TTK issue with dropsuits; a fight can be made to be so short that there is no test of skill. Yes, something had to be done for the sake of AV; I am merely suggesting a way that AV gets to be relevant and tanks don't instantly pop other tanks. 80% resistance from a Gunnlogi certainly was over the top but it was always seen as a problem for the AV players rather than the vehicle users (No, I don't mean like that). If I was an AV guy, Mr. Gunnlogi would double harden up and just run away when they turned off. They would come back 50 seconds later ready to do it all over again, invulnerable to my Swarm/Forge. However, I had no trouble against those guys with my single Hardener Madrugar. You pop both hardeners, I am running away and counting to 20. After that, I suddenly have the advantage and am ready to fight Thanks for the comment. "People that quote themselves in signatures confuse me." -Joseph Ridgeson

BrownEye1129 Death In Xcess Corporation 219	Posted - 2014.03.28 11:35:00 - [11] - Quote Fair enough OP. Infantry AV can do its job yet tank vs tank battles stay the same or where they were pre hotfix. 2 forge gun shots were able to take down my Incubus with its armor hardener up. Not sure if that should happen. I don't run vehicles too much but it just seemed too quick for an ADS to do anything but be a gorgon/viper. LOL "Easy Mode" Logi QQ
Django Quik Dust2Dust. 2563	Posted - 2014.03.28 11:45:00 - [12] - Quote If tank vs tank fights are now too short, how about lowering the damage done by their weapons? It would be like the infantry TTK nerf being applied to tanks too - tahdah! Dedicated sidearm scout - Watch out for that headshot Scout community is the nuts
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens League of Infamy 818	Posted - 2014.03.28 12:14:00 - [13] - Quote Django Quik wrote: If tank vs tank fights are now too short, how about lowering the damage done by their weapons? It would be like the infantry TTK nerf being applied to tanks too - tahdah! This is where my verbosity and 6,000 character limit of the forums have a problem; one post don't cut it for me. Lowering the damage done by vehicles changes many different things. You now have militia LAV's that are far harder to kill for the other vehicle user. Blasters and Railguns (Large and Small) balance against Infantry is changed drastically, though whether that is a bad thing in the case of blasters is up to debate. The glass cannon tank is still getting great use out of having no defenses and pushing their damage to where the turtle tank is still dead; even worse the turtle tank kills the glass cannon at the same speed. Hardeners are generally the difference between a glass cannon fit and a 'standard' fit. For Militia vehicles, it was just easier to throw in damage mods to kill the other vehicle. This keeps them vulnerable for lack of a hardener. When they attack turtle tanks, the turtle's defenses can beat their offense because of the strong hardener. Despite having lower damage, they face tank the glass cannon to death. The weaker hardener has caused that to no longer be the case. Lowering both side's damage doesn't change it either; the glass cannon still doesn't die before the turtle in a fight that the glass cannon doesn't get a drop on. "People that quote themselves in signatures confuse me." -Joseph Ridgeson
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens League of Infamy 820	Posted - 2014.03.28 14:39:00 - [14] - Quote Cleaned up the OP a bit. "People that quote themselves in signatures confuse me." -Joseph Ridgeson
Medic 1879 Forsaken Immortals Top Men. 1972	Posted - 2014.03.28 14:55:00 - [15] - Quote How about stopping a tank being able to fit 2-3 damage mods or lowering them from 30%, swarms are a bit better balanced vs HAV's at the moment they can be deadly but only if the HAV is within 175m all the tank has to do is back off for a bit then come back which suits the whole waves of opportunity thing. Not sure on forge guns I don't use them. Plasma cannons are still somewhat useful for ambushing a HAV but with one less AV nade timing is everything now. Rails now have shorter range to stop redline rail sniping but the problem is a railtank with double or triple damage mods can 2 shot pretty much any tank so shouldn't the simple solution to be to figure out why these glass cannons are so powerful and fix it instead of going into incredible detail with hardeners and AV piercing hardeners. Simply because it is 1 easier and 2 imagine if CCP try and code a whole new effect onto an existing weapon things could (probably would) go horribly wrong and we end up with swarms dealing stupidly high or low damage. Lead Diplomat for Forsaken Immortals.
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens League of Infamy 820	Posted - 2014.03.28 15:01:00 - [16] - Quote Because that doesn't help dropships deal with tanks hitting them or dropships fighting dropships. It also creates a point of choice: use the hardener against AV, which is going to ignore a huge portion of it anyway, or save it for the enemy vehicle that is going to try to rip your nipples off. "People that quote themselves in signatures confuse me." -Joseph Ridgeson
Medic 1879 Forsaken Immortals Top Men. 1973	Posted - 2014.03.28 15:06:00 - [17] - Quote Joseph Ridgeson wrote: Because that doesn't help dropships deal with tanks hitting them or dropships fighting dropships. It also creates a point of choice: use the hardener against AV, which is going to ignore a huge portion of it anyway, or save it for the enemy vehicle that is going to try to rip your nipples off. If the tanks are doing less damage I would say that does help the drop ship, especially if some triple damage mod gunnlogi can one shot them before they get their hardeners up. Having a better hardener on a DS will not help it against a tank, because unless they are flying around perma hardened the tank can 1-2 shot them and usually even if the tank hits them with a hardener up it doesn't take too many more shots to down it. Whereas if damage mods are lowered or you cant stack so many the tank might need more shots to take down the DS. Lead Diplomat for Forsaken Immortals.
Seigfried Warheit Caught Me With My Pants Down 269	Posted - 2014.03.28 16:03:00 - [18] - Quote Aren't most installation hunted down and gunned down within the the first minutes of battle? Terminators Bat = Large Blaster Turrets? and Glass Cannon =....Railguns and Missles? Shouldn't Railgun/Missles most of the time win against a blaster tank? It is a AI turret vs AV turret . The main issue I see is that there isn't a large/small turret designed against shield tanks yet.
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens League of Infamy 820	Posted - 2014.03.28 16:26:00 - [19] - Quote Seigfried Warheit wrote: Aren't most installation hunted down and gunned down within the the first minutes of battle? Terminators Bat = Large Blaster Turrets? and Glass Cannon =....Railguns and Missles? Shouldn't Railgun/Missles most of the time win against a blaster tank? It is a AI turret vs AV turret . The main issue I see is that there isn't a large/small turret designed against shield tanks yet. I included installations only because they show off the concept of glass cannon as they have no hardener. Terminator was actually Hardener + Plate Railgun against a militia with a Railgun with or without damage mods. Glass cannon never had any defenses so it wasn't changed in anyway where as pure tank was. Pure tank will kill glass cannon at the same speed while glass cannon kills much faster. A turtle tank lost nearly 2,000 EHP. That is great for infantry AV but it throws the balance of vehicle v vehicle. The change I suggested is just a way for nothing to change for vehicle vs vehicle, assuming you have a hardener, but still help out the AV guys. "People that quote themselves in signatures confuse me." -Joseph Ridgeson


Pages: [1] :: 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.