DUST Search - Vehicles vs AV is almost balanced

All Channels

General Discussions

Vehicles vs AV is almost balanced

» 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 - 0 post(s)
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10275	Posted - 2014.04.04 17:58:00 - [1] - Quote Since the hardener nerf, fighting tanks no longer feel like an overwhelming challenge. I can personally damage a tank enough with advanced swarms to make it retreat in fear, and with one or 2 more other AV players on the field we can manage to completely destroy a tank. In my opinion, this is how it should be. Sometimes I can even solo a militia tank if the driver is dumb enough to stick around. Tanks are much more expensive than AV, so I think its fair that solo-ing a tank should not be a common occurrence. I also don't think it that the price tag justifies taking an overwhelming force of AV to stop one tank like some tankers would like; while AV is much cheaper, it also requires teamwork, means less people on your team fulfilling objectives, and (with the exception of the commando) also it requires you to sacrifice the use of an anti-infantry light weapon. Anyway, I think where we are now is pretty close to the ideal. There is still things that need to be fixed with vehicles: Repair-tanking leads to near invincibility. I found this thread on the features and ideas board that shows how crazy it is. It basically means infantry don't ever have a realistic chance at destroying certain tanks and dropships. In one of the comments in the thread I link, one pilot shares a story of how it took clever coordination between 4 assault dropship pilots (including himself) to take down just one enemy assault dropship because of how obscenely effective repair tanking is. Large blasters are still way too good at killing infantry. A giant plasma high ROF machinegun mounted on a tank to easily mow down infantry and rack up a ton of kills seems inherently overpowered, there is a thread on the subject here. I would prefer if large blaster turrets had 30% less ROF, but 30% more damage (hell I would fine with 35-40% more damage); the DPS would remain the same, but it wouldn't be so overly powerful against infantry. Do blasters really need as much range as they currently have? They can hit you further than swarm launchers can lock-on. While this does not affect AV, at least not directly, railgun tanks should not out-DPS blaster tanks at close range. Their should be a tradeoff between range and DPS. You wouldn't give a sniper rifle more damage per second than an assault rifle, likewise you shouldn't give a large railgun turret higher DPS than a comparatively close range large blaster turret. At close range the large blasters should generally win, and at longer ranges the large railgun should have the advantage. These are my thoughts on the issue, and balance seems fairly close. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Mobius Wyvern Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad. 4997	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:15:00 - [2] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Since the hardener nerf, fighting tanks no longer feel like an overwhelming challenge. I can personally damage a tank enough with advanced swarms to make it retreat in fear, and with one or 2 more other AV players on the field we can manage to completely destroy a tank. In my opinion, this is how it should be. Sometimes I can even solo a militia tank if the driver is dumb enough to stick around. Tanks are much more expensive than AV, so I think its fair that solo-ing a tank should not be a common occurrence. I also don't think it that the price tag justifies taking an overwhelming force of AV to stop one tank like some tankers would like; while AV is much cheaper, it also requires teamwork, means less people on your team fulfilling objectives, and (with the exception of the commando) also it requires you to sacrifice the use of an anti-infantry light weapon. Anyway, I think where we are now is pretty close to the ideal. There is still things that need to be fixed with vehicles: Repair-tanking leads to near invincibility. I found this thread on the features and ideas board that shows how crazy it is. It basically means infantry don't ever have a realistic chance at destroying certain tanks and dropships. In one of the comments in the thread I link, one pilot shares a story of how it took clever coordination between 4 assault dropship pilots (including himself) to take down just one enemy assault dropship because of how obscenely effective repair tanking is. Large blasters are still way too good at killing infantry. A giant plasma high ROF machinegun mounted on a tank to easily mow down infantry and rack up a ton of kills seems inherently overpowered, there is a thread on the subject here. I would prefer if large blaster turrets had 30% less ROF, but 30% more damage (hell I would fine with 35-40% more damage); the DPS would remain the same, but it wouldn't be so overly powerful against infantry. Do blasters really need as much range as they currently have? They can hit you further than swarm launchers can lock-on. While this does not affect AV, at least not directly, railgun tanks should not out-DPS blaster tanks at close range. Their should be a tradeoff between range and DPS. You wouldn't give a sniper rifle more damage per second than an assault rifle, likewise you shouldn't give a large railgun turret higher DPS than a comparatively close range large blaster turret. At close range the large blasters should generally win, and at longer ranges the large railgun should have the advantage. These are my thoughts on the issue, and balance seems fairly close. Complete agreement on all three of these. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Tectonic Fusion 1393	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:16:00 - [3] - Quote Tell that to my forge gun. It can't even do damage. Solo Player Squad status: Locked
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3246	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:22:00 - [4] - Quote Missile/Rail tanks do wonders against nonhardened tanks Its a large blaster of course its going to kill infantry it is what it is there for, it actually works now because pre 1.7 all i got was shield flare alot of the time it was better for killing other tanks with it Your also going the wrong way about it all, at this rate vehicles will barely have any fits to use without it being classed as OP
Alena Ventrallis PAND3M0N1UM Lokun Listamenn 1130	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:22:00 - [5] - Quote As I poi ted out in the thread OP linked, the math used was horridly flawed. AFG has nearly 900 DPs, and reps can do just shy of 475 HP/s. A single forge gunner can kill a repper tank. Two makes it even easier. Best PVE idea I've seen. Fixed link.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10276	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:23:00 - [6] - Quote Tectonic Fusion wrote: Tell that to my forge gun. It can't even do damage. Forge gun isn't working a lot because of a bug. That's a technical issue, not a balance issue. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Vulpes Dolosus SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 1300	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:23:00 - [7] - Quote The thing about the repair stacking is that it's only designed to be uber defensive to infantry (and blasters, but I don't count those as AV). However, they are incredibly weak to rails and missiles. I think it's fair if they put all their eggs in one basket to defend against one type of threat and it leaves them defenseless against another, though I wouldn't be opposed to a slight nerf, either to base rate or the skill bonus. Me in my ADS: 1,2
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10278	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:37:00 - [8] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Missile/Rail tanks do wonders against nonhardened tanks Its a large blaster of course its going to kill infantry it is what it is there for, it actually works now because pre 1.7 all i got was shield flare alot of the time it was better for killing other tanks with it Your also going the wrong way about it all, at this rate vehicles will barely have any fits to use without it being classed as OP The fact that there are large turrets specifically designed to specifically eradicate infantry is insane. It basically stealing the role of infantry with 3,000+ HP, super speed, and an extreme amount of more fire power. It is just bad game design. While I'm ok with blasters killing infantry, at this level of effectiveness its far too much. Dial down the anti-infantry capability a bit, and dial up the anti-vehicle/installation power a bit as well. Its damage profile as a blaster would definitely secure it a role as an anti-shield vehicle weapon. As for the comment about barely having fits to use, that is not the case at all. I think repair-tanking should be an acceptable tactic, but right now its far too effective. There should never be a dominant unkillable strategy that is practically immune to AV; it reduces the value of different fits, and reduces variety in gameplay. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
The-Errorist 621	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:42:00 - [9] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: As I poi ted out in the thread OP linked, the math used was horridly flawed. AFG has nearly 900 DPs, and reps can do just shy of 475 HP/s. A single forge gunner can kill a repper tank. Two makes it even easier. Obviously you didn't read the linked thread well enough, the DPS shown there took into account charge time and reload speed.
Goric Rumis Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 394	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:45:00 - [10] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: The fact that there are large turrets specifically designed to specifically eradicate infantry at such levels of effectiveness is inherently insane. It basically stealing the role of infantry with 3,000+ HP, super speed, and an extreme amount of more fire power. It is just bad game design. While I'm ok with blasters killing infantry, at this level of effectiveness its far too much. Dial down the anti-infantry capability a bit, and dial up the anti-vehicle/installation power a bit as well. Its damage profile as a blaster would definitely secure it a role as an anti-shield vehicle weapon. I might disagree with you if infantry weren't so completely exposed to vehicles. They would have to overhaul all the maps for the large blaster turret to be acceptable. It has to have limitations that it just doesn't have at present. The Tank Balancing Factor No One Is Discussing

KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10281	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:47:00 - [11] - Quote Goric Rumis wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: The fact that there are large turrets specifically designed to specifically eradicate infantry at such levels of effectiveness is inherently insane. It basically stealing the role of infantry with 3,000+ HP, super speed, and an extreme amount of more fire power. It is just bad game design. While I'm ok with blasters killing infantry, at this level of effectiveness its far too much. Dial down the anti-infantry capability a bit, and dial up the anti-vehicle/installation power a bit as well. Its damage profile as a blaster would definitely secure it a role as an anti-shield vehicle weapon. I might disagree with you if infantry weren't so completely exposed to vehicles. They would have to overhaul all the maps for the large blaster turret to be acceptable. It has to have limitations that it just doesn't have at present. Yeah, I think I would be fine with blasters being so good against infantry if there was more cover for infantry. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
calisk galern BurgezzE.T.F General Tso's Alliance 2306	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:49:00 - [12] - Quote why would Av be balanced? all they did was nerf the ** out of infantry AV and reduced the range on rail guns... suddenly balanced? i'm not ignoring the hardener nerfes, but infantry av can't kill my non-modded soma, so ya that doesn't mean ** to infantry.
137H4RGIC SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 142	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:54:00 - [13] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: The thing about the repair stacking is that it's only designed to be uber defensive to infantry (and blasters, but I don't count those as AV). However, they are incredibly weak to rails and missiles. I think it's fair if they put all their eggs in one basket to defend against one type of threat and it leaves them defenseless against another, though I wouldn't be opposed to a slight nerf, either to base rate or the skill bonus. Madrugar Fit - two Complex Heavy Armor Reps, one Basic Hardener. Armor still reps against all infantry, and can survive two blaster tanks for long engagements, and survive any onslaught of rails, with enough time to get away. Madrugar can take against both types with relative ease.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10282	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:56:00 - [14] - Quote calisk galern wrote: why would Av be balanced? all they did was nerf the ** out of infantry AV and reduced the range on rail guns... suddenly balanced? i'm not ignoring the hardener nerfes, but infantry av can't kill my non-modded soma, so ya that doesn't mean to infantry. I can assure you that infantry AV can definitely kill an un-modded soma. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt** Gû¦Gû+
Velvet Overkill SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 126	Posted - 2014.04.04 19:01:00 - [15] - Quote calisk galern wrote: why would Av be balanced? all they did was nerf the ** out of infantry AV and reduced the range on rail guns... suddenly balanced? i'm not ignoring the hardener nerfes, but infantry av can't kill my non-modded soma, so ya that doesn't mean ** to infantry. Wanna make that a bet?
Rusty Shallows 1404	Posted - 2014.04.04 19:01:00 - [16] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Tectonic Fusion wrote: Tell that to my forge gun. It can't even do damage. Forge gun isn't working a lot because of a bug. That's a technical issue, not a balance issue. It is impossible to say if the current situation is balanced or to even evaluate it while their is a bug in place. It will bias the data in such a way that when it is fixed our current observations become obsolete. After 1.7 I only spawned in with Forge Guns when it was absolutely necessary. Ever since hearing about the bug I have not used my Main in battle since 1.8 dropped. Thank God I have two ALTs. Forums > Game: So here is a cookie and a Like. Please keep posting. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! >>> GòÜ(GÇóGîéGÇó)Gò¥ >>>
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1497	Posted - 2014.04.04 19:15:00 - [17] - Quote I really like where the AV vs tanks balance is. Now tank v tank just needs balancing. The railgun needs some nerfing to damage and RoF with an increase to heat cost. I disagree with your points on the blaster turret. It will still be the most effective large turret at AI, so it's AV abilities should be the weakest. Currently it's AV capabilities are too powerful due to the hardener nerf, so I think an overall damage nerf on the large blaster is in order. Then it won't deal so much damage at infantry while still being the best turret at AI while sacrificing AV abilities. Large blasters should not be both effective at AI and AV as they were in 1.6. They had a good balance between the two before the hardener nerf. I'm still of the opinion though that swarms shouldn't be able to interrupt my hardened shield regen. But perhaps once we get shield based AV; I just think it doesn't make sense that an anti-armor specialized weapon can deter a shield tanked vehicle. It's like asking for bug spray to also deter sharks when you're in the ocean. I agree with the points made above on repping tanks. They make themselves powerful against infantry at the cost of making themselves weak to high alpha damage, such as a rail or missile tank. As long as that trade-off exists, reps are fine. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
The-Errorist 621	Posted - 2014.04.04 19:15:00 - [18] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Tectonic Fusion wrote: Tell that to my forge gun. It can't even do damage. Forge gun isn't working a lot because of a bug. That's a technical issue, not a balance issue. It is impossible to say if the current situation is balanced or to even evaluate it while their is a bug in place. It will bias the data in such a way that when it is fixed our current observations become obsolete. After 1.7 I only spawned in with Forge Guns when it was absolutely necessary. Ever since hearing about the bug I have not used my Main in battle since 1.8 dropped. Thank God I have two ALTs. Because the bug consistently goes away and you can see when it does, one can evaluate the forge-gun, it's just that you can only evaluate it when the dropsuit and weapons skills kick in when one's armor and shields fill all the way.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4887	Posted - 2014.04.04 19:20:00 - [19] - Quote Repair Tanking: I've agreed with this point since BEFORE THE HARDENER NERF. It was a problem then, and now that it's been indirectly sort-of-buffed by hardeners become less attractive, it's more of a problem than it was before. Blasters: The problem with Blasters is the same problem we had before 1.8 came out. There's no clarity on their role. There are two ways CCP could fix Blasters to make them a worthwhile option without being unfair. There are two explanations provided by people trying to argue that Blasters aren't OP, and CCP need to choose one and back that proposed role up with legitimate changes to the functionality of the weapon. 1. Blasters are an anti-infantry turret: Fine, then give them the same kind of damage reduction that all other anti-infantry weapons get when shooting vehicles. Since they're large-scale weapons, it doesn't have to be as harsh as the small arms penalty given to ARs and the like, but something like 70 or 80% efficiency would help them fill the role and make them less viable for vehicle combat. If this happens, Blaster tanks will require support in combined-arms combat, either from a tank with another turret type, or from AV infantry. 2. Blasters are CQC turrets. In that case, make their range ACTUALLY SHORT. They're not all that much shorter range than Railguns right now. Keep them powerful against infantry and vehicles, but make it so they have to get REALLY CLOSE to hurt anything. Railguns: Last, but definitely not least. Yes. SOMETHING needs to change. Railguns are meant to have high alpha/burst damage and long range. Reducing the rate of fire would make them less viable as a burst damage weapon, but at the same time, nerfing damage significantly would feel wrong for a railgun. SLIGHT damage nerf and SLIGHT RoF nerf combined should do it - but knowing CCP, they need us to emphasise the "err on the side of OP" nerfbat recommendation. In addition to these proposed changes, I still think the missile reloading system needs to work more like shotgun reloading. When you reload a missile turret at the moment, you have to wait the full reload time (longest in the game) even if you're only reloading a single missile. With how long the reload delay is, missiles have serious issues in combat which at times aren't warranted. You don't necessarily need the Shotgun's ability to interrupt a reload and fire whatever's been loaded (although that might be nice), but at the very least, the reload time should be shorter when reloading after 2 - 3 missiles than when reloading a full volley's worth at a time.
Dauth Jenkins Ultramarine Corp 410	Posted - 2014.04.04 19:25:00 - [20] - Quote calisk galern wrote: why would Av be balanced? all they did was nerf the ** out of infantry AV and reduced the range on rail guns... suddenly balanced? i'm not ignoring the hardener nerfes, but infantry av can't kill my non-modded soma, so ya that doesn't mean ** to infantry. Come at my availability suit, and We'll see how well your soma does. The problem is, most people gave up even trying to destroy tanks in 1.7, so they don't even attempt to in 1.8 -Sincerely --The Dual Swarm Commando

Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4888	Posted - 2014.04.04 19:32:00 - [21] - Quote Dauth Jenkins wrote: availability suit Autocorrect is OP. Please nerf.
Alpha 443-6732 General Tso's Alliance 393	Posted - 2014.04.04 19:46:00 - [22] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Since the hardener nerf, fighting tanks no longer feel like an overwhelming challenge. I can personally damage a tank enough with advanced swarms to make it retreat in fear, and with one or 2 more other AV players on the field we can manage to completely destroy a tank. In my opinion, this is how it should be. Sometimes I can even solo a militia tank if the driver is dumb enough to stick around. Tanks are much more expensive than AV, so I think its fair that solo-ing a tank should not be a common occurrence. I also don't think it that the price tag justifies taking an overwhelming force of AV to stop one tank like some tankers would like; while AV is much cheaper, it also requires teamwork, means less people on your team fulfilling objectives, and (with the exception of the commando) also it requires you to sacrifice the use of an anti-infantry light weapon. Anyway, I think where we are now is pretty close to the ideal. There is still things that need to be fixed with vehicles: Repair-tanking leads to near invincibility. I found this thread on the features and ideas board that shows how crazy it is. It basically means infantry don't ever have a realistic chance at destroying certain tanks and dropships. In one of the comments in the thread I link, one pilot shares a story of how it took clever coordination between 4 assault dropship pilots (including himself) to take down just one enemy assault dropship because of how obscenely effective repair tanking is. Large blasters are still way too good at killing infantry. A giant plasma high ROF machinegun mounted on a tank to easily mow down infantry and rack up a ton of kills seems inherently overpowered, there is a thread on the subject here. I would prefer if large blaster turrets had 30% less ROF, but 30% more damage (hell I would fine with 35-40% more damage); the DPS would remain the same, but it wouldn't be so overly powerful against infantry. Do blasters really need as much range as they currently have? They can hit you further than swarm launchers can lock-on. While this does not affect AV, at least not directly, railgun tanks should not out-DPS blaster tanks at close range. Their should be a tradeoff between range and DPS. You wouldn't give a sniper rifle more damage per second than an assault rifle, likewise you shouldn't give a large railgun turret higher DPS than a comparatively close range large blaster turret. At close range the large blasters should generally win, and at longer ranges the large railgun should have the advantage. These are my thoughts on the issue, and balance seems fairly close. TL;DR, nerf the ******* railgun also I can confirm that I can solo tanks with an advanced AFG, no proficiency or damage mods. I too feel that the hardener nerf almost balanced it all, but in my opinion the only problem left to solve (disregarding bugs) is the railgun DPS issue. This can be solved by making the railgun act like a bolt pistol; make it charge every shot. Also, dramatically increase the heat cost per shot (so that it actually plays a significant role in how the gun operates. 6 shots before overheating? Please...).
Alena Ventrallis PAND3M0N1UM Lokun Listamenn 1136	Posted - 2014.04.04 20:12:00 - [23] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: As I poi ted out in the thread OP linked, the math used was horridly flawed. AFG has nearly 900 DPs, and reps can do just shy of 475 HP/s. A single forge gunner can kill a repper tank. Two makes it even easier. Obviously you didn't read the linked thread well enough, the DPS shown there took into account charge time and reload speed. EDIT: also the max possible repair rate a Madrugar can get when it has an advanced neutron blaster, is 512.5 HP/s when it has 2 complex and 1 advanced heavy repairer modules on with maximum fitting skills and vehicle armor repair systems to lv5. In order to lower the sustained dps to 388, the reload speed would have to exceed 10-12 seconds. Obviously you didn't read my post in that thread. And with max fitting skills, you run out of CPU before being able to fit 2 complex reps and an advanced rep with an advanced turret. Best PVE idea I've seen. Fixed link.
medomai grey WarRavens League of Infamy 511	Posted - 2014.04.04 20:22:00 - [24] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Since the hardener nerf, fighting tanks no longer feel like an overwhelming challenge. I can personally damage a tank enough with advanced swarms to make it retreat in fear, and with one or 2 more other AV players on the field we can manage to completely destroy a tank. In my opinion, this is how it should be. Sometimes I can even solo a militia tank if the driver is dumb enough to stick around. Tanks are much more expensive than AV, so I think its fair that solo-ing a tank should not be a common occurrence. I also don't think it that the price tag justifies taking an overwhelming force of AV to stop one tank like some tankers would like; while AV is much cheaper, it also requires teamwork, means less people on your team fulfilling objectives, and (with the exception of the commando) also it requires you to sacrifice the use of an anti-infantry light weapon. Anyway, I think where we are now is pretty close to the ideal. There is still things that need to be fixed with vehicles: Repair-tanking leads to near invincibility. I found this thread on the features and ideas board that shows how crazy it is. It basically means infantry don't ever have a realistic chance at destroying certain tanks and dropships. In one of the comments in the thread I link, one pilot shares a story of how it took clever coordination between 4 assault dropship pilots (including himself) to take down just one enemy assault dropship because of how obscenely effective repair tanking is. Large blasters are still way too good at killing infantry. A giant plasma high ROF machinegun mounted on a tank to easily mow down infantry and rack up a ton of kills seems inherently overpowered, there is a thread on the subject here. I would prefer if large blaster turrets had 30% less ROF, but 30% more damage (hell I would fine with 35-40% more damage); the DPS would remain the same, but it wouldn't be so overly powerful against infantry. Do blasters really need as much range as they currently have? They can hit you further than swarm launchers can lock-on. While this does not affect AV, at least not directly, railgun tanks should not out-DPS blaster tanks at close range. Their should be a tradeoff between range and DPS. You wouldn't give a sniper rifle more damage per second than an assault rifle, likewise you shouldn't give a large railgun turret higher DPS than a comparatively close range large blaster turret. At close range the large blasters should generally win, and at longer ranges the large railgun should have the advantage. These are my thoughts on the issue, and balance seems fairly close. Agree for the most part. As for large turrets, blasters are supposed to be good at killing infantry and rails good for vehicles. If a large blaster turret has a greater DPS than large rail turrets, we will see the return of large blaster turrets dominating everything. I've been told that people prefer fake smiles over the honest expressions of their fellow men. : )
Alena Ventrallis PAND3M0N1UM Lokun Listamenn 1137	Posted - 2014.04.04 20:25:00 - [25] - Quote medomai grey wrote: Agree for the most part. As for large turrets, blasters are supposed to be good at killing infantry and rails good for vehicles. If a large blaster turret has a greater DPS than large rail turrets, we will see the return of large blaster turrets dominating everything. Large Blasters should be AV weapons instead of AP. The AP turrets should be small turrets. Best PVE idea I've seen. Fixed link.
medomai grey WarRavens League of Infamy 511	Posted - 2014.04.04 20:33:00 - [26] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: medomai grey wrote: Agree for the most part. As for large turrets, blasters are supposed to be good at killing infantry and rails good for vehicles. If a large blaster turret has a greater DPS than large rail turrets, we will see the return of large blaster turrets dominating everything. Large Blasters should be AV weapons instead of AP. The AP turrets should be small turrets. In order to pull that off, some very big changes have to be made to the large blaster turret. The best way I can think of to achieve this is a decrease in rate of fire, increase damage, drastic increase in spread, and having bullets randomly curve out like the forge guns of old. Essentially up the DPS but lower the accuracy to were its frustratingly annoying to kill smaller targets like infantry. I've been told that people prefer fake smiles over the honest expressions of their fellow men. : )
Alena Ventrallis PAND3M0N1UM Lokun Listamenn 1137	Posted - 2014.04.04 20:35:00 - [27] - Quote medomai grey wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: medomai grey wrote: Agree for the most part. As for large turrets, blasters are supposed to be good at killing infantry and rails good for vehicles. If a large blaster turret has a greater DPS than large rail turrets, we will see the return of large blaster turrets dominating everything. Large Blasters should be AV weapons instead of AP. The AP turrets should be small turrets. In order to pull that off, some very big changes have to be made to the large blaster turret. The best way I can think of to achieve this is a decrease in rate of fire, increase damage, drastic increase in spread, and having bullets randomly curve out like the forge guns of old. Essentially up the DPS but lower the accuracy to were its frustratingly annoying to kill smaller targets like infantry. The only reason this would be a ba idea is that beyond blaster tanks, there really isn't anything for AV tanks to engage. We need more vehicle diversity before implementing this. Best PVE idea I've seen. Fixed link.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 6388	Posted - 2014.04.04 21:10:00 - [28] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Tanks are much more expensive than AV, [..] This is not the case. While paying for a vehicle upfront is more expensive, an Anti-Vehicle user is subject to death far more often than the average tanker, meaning that the true cost of AV is their fitting multiplied by their deaths as AV. Take a look at these fittings. Here, we have a fully decked, top-of-the-line AV fitting. It's got all of the tools an AVer needs to get the job done, and it's 3rd best AV fitting in the game. The Cost: 227,490 ISK. Now let's look at this fitting. Here, we have a Gunnlogi built for Anti-Vehicle purposes. It's also a top-of-the-line fitting, and one of the best Railgun fittings in the game. (I think) The Cost: 448,020 ISK. Based on my experience, an AVer using this suit can expect to die about 3-4 times on average. So now what seems like half the price of the HAV (227,490 ISK), is actually a cost ranging 682,470 ISK - 909,960 ISK. That isn't "much more expensive" by any definition. So with that in mind, shouldn't it be the Pilot who barely lives solo? The Snack That Smiles Back! "Swarmers" [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Takron Nistrom Tinfoil Hatz 303	Posted - 2014.04.04 21:35:00 - [29] - Quote I do not agree with more than one person needing to kill a tank currently. When one pilot can tie up 3+ mercs, thats wrong. Until it takes at least 2 mercs to pilot a tank. One guy should be able to pop ur crutchmobiles all day. GÇ£Pulvis et umbra sumus. (We are but dust and shadow.)GÇ¥ GÇò Horace, The Odes of Horace
CLONE117 True Pros Forever 750	Posted - 2014.04.04 21:54:00 - [30] - Quote sometimes im thinking i die more when in a tank than i do out of one.. though while using my rep blaster maddy the main ppl i tend to kill with any type of av are standing really still not bothering to move at all. kinda makes an easy target for you. (oh look a tank i think ill just stand in front of his big turret and fire swarms at him and not bother to move while he returns fire.) that seems to be the mentality i come across the most. if they were to only move an inch they would live. mlt vets are eternal. they shall be the bane to proto scrubs everywhere...

TERMINALANCE Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 283	Posted - 2014.04.04 21:58:00 - [31] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: As I poi ted out in the thread OP linked, the math used was horridly flawed. AFG has nearly 900 DPs, and reps can do just shy of 475 HP/s. A single forge gunner can kill a repper tank. Two makes it even easier. Obviously you didn't read the linked thread well enough, the DPS shown there took into account charge time and reload speed. EDIT: also the max possible repair rate a Madrugar can get when it has an advanced neutron blaster, is 512.5 HP/s when it has 2 complex and 1 advanced heavy repairer modules on with maximum fitting skills and vehicle armor repair systems to lv5. Schooled.
Magnus Amadeuss Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 676	Posted - 2014.04.04 22:03:00 - [32] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Since the hardener nerf, fighting tanks no longer feel like an overwhelming challenge. I can personally damage a tank enough with advanced swarms to make it retreat in fear, and with one or 2 more other AV players on the field we can manage to completely destroy a tank. In my opinion, this is how it should be. Sometimes I can even solo a militia tank if the driver is dumb enough to stick around. Tanks are much more expensive than AV, so I think its fair that solo-ing a tank should not be a common occurrence. I also don't think it that the price tag justifies taking an overwhelming force of AV to stop one tank like some tankers would like; while AV is much cheaper, it also requires teamwork, means less people on your team fulfilling objectives, and (with the exception of the commando) also it requires you to sacrifice the use of an anti-infantry light weapon. Anyway, I think where we are now is pretty close to the ideal. There is still things that need to be fixed with vehicles: Repair-tanking leads to near invincibility. I found this thread on the features and ideas board that shows how crazy it is. It basically means infantry don't ever have a realistic chance at destroying certain tanks and dropships. In one of the comments in the thread I link, one pilot shares a story of how it took clever coordination between 4 assault dropship pilots (including himself) to take down just one enemy assault dropship because of how obscenely effective repair tanking is. Large blasters are still way too good at killing infantry. A giant plasma high ROF machinegun mounted on a tank to easily mow down infantry and rack up a ton of kills seems inherently overpowered, there is a thread on the subject here. I would prefer if large blaster turrets had 30% less ROF, but 30% more damage (hell I would fine with 35-40% more damage); the DPS would remain the same, but it wouldn't be so overly powerful against infantry. Do blasters really need as much range as they currently have? They can hit you further than swarm launchers can lock-on. While this does not affect AV, at least not directly, railgun tanks should not out-DPS blaster tanks at close range. Their should be a tradeoff between range and DPS. You wouldn't give a sniper rifle more damage per second than an assault rifle, likewise you shouldn't give a large railgun turret higher DPS than a comparatively close range large blaster turret. At close range the large blasters should generally win, and at longer ranges the large railgun should have the advantage. These are my thoughts on the issue, and balance seems fairly close. Standard and advanced swarms are completely underpowered. Proto swarms are ok. Fixing swarms
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10295	Posted - 2014.04.04 22:03:00 - [33] - Quote Atiim wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Tanks are much more expensive than AV, [..] This is not the case. While paying for a vehicle upfront is more expensive, an Anti-Vehicle user is subject to death far more often than the average tanker, meaning that the true cost of AV is their fitting multiplied by their deaths as AV. Take a look at these fittings. Here, we have a fully decked, top-of-the-line AV fitting. It's got all of the tools an AVer needs to get the job done, and it's 3rd best AV fitting in the game. The Cost: 227,490 ISK. Now let's look at this fitting. Here, we have a Gunnlogi built for Anti-Vehicle purposes. It's also a top-of-the-line fitting, and one of the best Railgun fittings in the game. (I think) The Cost: 448,020 ISK. Based on my experience, an AVer using this suit can expect to die about 3-4 times on average. So now what seems like half the price of the HAV (227,490 ISK), is actually a cost ranging 682,470 ISK - 909,960 ISK. That isn't "much more expensive" by any definition. So with that in mind, shouldn't it be the Pilot who barely lives solo? I would not use a proto fitting for AV, only maybe a 50k advanced one. I don't think most people would ever use prototype to fight tanks, so its not a good basis to understand the price of vehicles vs AV IMO. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2384	Posted - 2014.04.04 22:04:00 - [34] - Quote The only problem with blasters is accuracy. I pulled out 5 headshots at 95m with a blaster. Just add dispersion, enough that blasters aren't quite as strong against infantry at range, job done. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
Magnus Amadeuss Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 676	Posted - 2014.04.04 22:06:00 - [35] - Quote medomai grey wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: medomai grey wrote: Agree for the most part. As for large turrets, blasters are supposed to be good at killing infantry and rails good for vehicles. If a large blaster turret has a greater DPS than large rail turrets, we will see the return of large blaster turrets dominating everything. Large Blasters should be AV weapons instead of AP. The AP turrets should be small turrets. In order to pull that off, some very big changes have to be made to the large blaster turret. The best way I can think of to achieve this is a decrease in rate of fire, increase damage, drastic increase in spread, and having bullets randomly curve out like the forge guns of old. Essentially up the DPS but lower the accuracy to were its frustratingly annoying to kill smaller targets like infantry. Or like others have suggested, just change blaster efficiency from 100% to 20% for anti-infantry. It really is that simple, change one number in the database. Fixing swarms
TERMINALANCE Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 283	Posted - 2014.04.04 22:08:00 - [36] - Quote Its not anyway balanced. dedicated AV should always have the advantage over tanks in a 1v1 context, its what the role does. Pro AV forgegun fit is expensive. over 250k isk each, its super weak vs all other infantry and it is the slowest moving largest hitbox most easily detected suit in the game that is vulnerable to all weapon systems. A proto av forgegun should have no trouble taking out a proto tank 1v1 if the forgegun gets first round hit and has the high ground. Proto swarms should take a maximum of 2v1 tank to have a almost guaranteed kill vs enemy tanks. Any more then that and the entire games match balance becomes unworkable. Now either this means you reduce tank and av prices so tanks get used to dieing more and get rid of this KD invulnerable attitude. or you raise the price of the AV and tank fits and Largely raise the rewards for killing tanks so its work the extra effort. or you create a better system for tanks to be in the game, with cooldowns for calling in tanks during the match, and other features.
CLONE117 True Pros Forever 750	Posted - 2014.04.04 22:09:00 - [37] - Quote im sticking up for the rep maddy in this case as it doesnt really need nerfing. but that reload really doesnt matter there since that what the tank essentially took advantage of. the fact u need to reload. any single rail gun or missile tank can obliterate the fit. and small common encounters such as single individual av is what the fit is most effective with. any large alpha strike pretty much instakills it. i have used that 512.5 hps really throughly. not mention that i spent several months saving up my sp just to unlock it. even then its possible to solo. but it seems no av as come up with an efficient counter. well its primary weakness is big aplha strike. or sustained dps damage. its tanking passively. so its got several weaknesses over all but ony fortified against very specific things so its just a massive trade off.. mlt vets are eternal. they shall be the bane to proto scrubs everywhere...
Rusty Shallows 1411	Posted - 2014.04.04 22:19:00 - [38] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: It is impossible to say if the current situation is balanced or to even evaluate it while there is a bug in place. It will bias the data in such a way that when it is fixed our current observations become obsolete. snip Because the bug consistently goes away and you can see when it does, one can evaluate the forge-gun, it's just that you can only evaluate it when the dropsuit and weapons skills kick in when one's armor and shields fill all the way. I have had individual games prior to 1.7 (two patches ago) where suddenly the Forge Gun or HMGs malfunctioned. Either not charging to fire, canceling charge, or not spooling at critical times. Can you safely state that CCP has fixed that inconsistent bug? The HMG one cleared up in all of my games after the December hot-fix. The hit-detection problem with Forge Guns was still active last month. That one is an old reoccurring issue. Forums > Game: So here is a cookie and a Like. Please keep posting. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! >>> GòÜ(GÇóGîéGÇó)Gò¥ >>>
The dark cloud The Rainbow Effect Negative-Feedback 2672	Posted - 2014.04.04 22:33:00 - [39] - Quote The tripple repping madrugar is just stupid. There is allmost no AV that could break the tank on that. I tried swarms and forgeguns just to find out that the tank repped all off the damage back while i was charging the 2nd shot. There are only 3 options how to fix this: -stacking penalty on armor reps -faster ROF for AV -nerfing the amount of reps on armor repair modules itself. I shall show you a world, a world which you cant imagine, a world full off butthurt n00bs at the other end of my gun
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 422	Posted - 2014.04.04 22:51:00 - [40] - Quote I might make a separate post regarding the ISK balance argument that tankers often make. I think you can make a viable AV fit for around 50K, I also think a comparable tank would be 500K. I'm being generous to the tankers because the argument allows me to be. If we look at ISK/efficiency ratios at different equipment and weapons what do we find. Let's start with swarms (you'll have to look the numbers up since I am using my phone) STD have 4 missiles as our base. Pay 10 times the ISK , you get 25% more missiles, proto cost 40X and gives you 50% more. Combat Rifle: 10X:10% DPS , 50X:20% DPS My numbers are off but gives us the magnitude if change we should consider. Let's go with the 10X:25% increase in one attribute as a astandard. If we consider a tank a "module" then spending 10X the isk should give us 25% more efficiency. The fastest drop suit is about 12 m/s, a tank therefore should have a top speed of 16 m/s. Drop suit total HP is about 2500, tanks should have 3125. Continue this with damage and range and you will see where tanks should be to be truly balanced and consistent with the rest of the game. The funny thing is no one is even arguing for true balance, we all accept that vehicles should be OP and out of line with the rest of the game. We accept that they are inherently unfair and what we argue about is just how unfair is tolerable and makes for good gameplay, but please don't try to convince us that you are owed this level of advantage because you paid more for it. Because, that's why.

Rannici Ancient Exiles. Dirt Nap Squad. 164	Posted - 2014.04.04 23:09:00 - [41] - Quote THIS POST MAKES ME SICK. OP IS CLEARLY A TANKER POSTING GARBAGE TO KEEP CCP FROM BUFFING AV. AV NEEDS A BUFF. NOW. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. MY PROF 5 WYRKOMI CANNOT TAKE OUT A PROPERLY FITTED SICA EVEN IF I HIT IT WITH ALL 7 OF MY MISSILE VOLLEYS IN QUICK SUCCESSION. THAT IS WRONG.
Mobius Wyvern Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad. 5000	Posted - 2014.04.04 23:13:00 - [42] - Quote Rannici wrote: THIS POST MAKES ME SICK. OP IS CLEARLY A TANKER POSTING GARBAGE TO KEEP CCP FROM BUFFING AV. AV NEEDS A BUFF. NOW. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. MY PROF 5 WYRKOMI CANNOT TAKE OUT A PROPERLY FITTED SICA EVEN IF I HIT IT WITH ALL 7 OF MY MISSILE VOLLEYS IN QUICK SUCCESSION. THAT IS WRONG. NOT ENOUGH CAPITALS Also, take your filth elsewhere. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
TERMINALANCE Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 283	Posted - 2014.04.04 23:47:00 - [43] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: I might make a separate post regarding the ISK balance argument that tankers often make. I think you can make a viable AV fit for around 50K, I also think a comparable tank would be 500K. I'm being generous to the tankers because the argument allows me to be. If we look at ISK/efficiency ratios at different equipment and weapons what do we find. Let's start with swarms (you'll have to look the numbers up since I am using my phone) STD have 4 missiles as our base. Pay 10 times the ISK , you get 25% more missiles, proto cost 40X and gives you 50% more. Combat Rifle: 10X:10% DPS , 50X:20% DPS My numbers are off but gives us the magnitude if change we should consider. Let's go with the 10X:25% increase in one attribute as a astandard. If we consider a tank a "module" then spending 10X the isk should give us 25% more efficiency. The fastest drop suit is about 12 m/s, a tank therefore should have a top speed of 16 m/s. Drop suit total HP is about 2500, tanks should have 3125. Continue this with damage and range and you will see where tanks should be to be truly balanced and consistent with the rest of the game. The funny thing is no one is even arguing for true balance, we all accept that vehicles should be OP and out of line with the rest of the game. We accept that they are inherently unfair and what we argue about is just how unfair is tolerable and makes for good gameplay, but please don't try to convince us that you are owed this level of advantage because you paid more for it. I am
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10296	Posted - 2014.04.05 04:26:00 - [44] - Quote Rannici wrote: THIS POST MAKES ME SICK. OP IS CLEARLY A TANKER POSTING GARBAGE TO KEEP CCP FROM BUFFING AV. AV NEEDS A BUFF. NOW. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. MY PROF 5 WYRKOMI CANNOT TAKE OUT A PROPERLY FITTED SICA EVEN IF I HIT IT WITH ALL 7 OF MY MISSILE VOLLEYS IN QUICK SUCCESSION. THAT IS WRONG. I must not know myself as well as I think I do, because I could have sworn I wasn't a tanker. Strange. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
The-Errorist 625	Posted - 2014.04.05 05:12:00 - [45] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: The-Errorist wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: As I poi ted out in the thread OP linked, the math used was horridly flawed. AFG has nearly 900 DPs, and reps can do just shy of 475 HP/s. A single forge gunner can kill a repper tank. Two makes it even easier. Obviously you didn't read the linked thread well enough, the DPS shown there took into account charge time and reload speed. EDIT: also the max possible repair rate a Madrugar can get when it has an advanced neutron blaster, is 512.5 HP/s when it has 2 complex and 1 advanced heavy repairer modules on with maximum fitting skills and vehicle armor repair systems to lv5. In order to lower the sustained dps to 388, the reload speed would have to exceed 10-12 seconds. Obviously you didn't read my post in that thread. And with max fitting skills, you run out of CPU before being able to fit 2 complex reps and an advanced rep with an advanced turret. EDIT: After checking protofits a second time, I found that I didn't have blaster fitting skill to 5 on my max skills character. It is indeed possible to fit 2 complex reps and an advanced rep with an advanced turret. Of course, this means you have to leave two slots empty, but regardless I was in error. After working out the dps calculations myself instead of using dust.thang.dk for it, I noticed you were right about the sustained dps being wrong; it's 652 instead of the other number. Here's a spreadsheet that shows how I calculated the stuff.
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1966	Posted - 2014.04.05 05:40:00 - [46] - Quote I would add a slight tracking nerf for blasters if that's not enough, but otherwise yea. But missiles are still OP as ****. 1 bursting all day long. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1966	Posted - 2014.04.05 05:41:00 - [47] - Quote Rannici wrote: THIS POST MAKES ME SICK. OP IS CLEARLY A TANKER POSTING GARBAGE TO KEEP CCP FROM BUFFING AV. AV NEEDS A BUFF. NOW. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. MY PROF 5 WYRKOMI CANNOT TAKE OUT A PROPERLY FITTED SICA EVEN IF I HIT IT WITH ALL 7 OF MY MISSILE VOLLEYS IN QUICK SUCCESSION. THAT IS WRONG. lol, troll failed. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
The-Errorist 625	Posted - 2014.04.05 08:51:00 - [48] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Repair Tanking: I've agreed with this point since BEFORE THE HARDENER NERF. It was a problem then, and now that it's been indirectly sort-of-buffed by hardeners become less attractive, it's more of a problem than it was before. ... Railguns: Last, but definitely not least. Yes. SOMETHING needs to change. Railguns are meant to have high alpha/burst damage and long range. Reducing the rate of fire would make them less viable as a burst damage weapon, but at the same time, nerfing damage significantly would feel wrong for a railgun. SLIGHT damage nerf and SLIGHT RoF nerf combined should do it - but knowing CCP, they need us to emphasise the "err on the side of OP" nerfbat recommendation. Railguns were never meant to have high burst damage, only missiles were.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4915	Posted - 2014.04.05 09:54:00 - [49] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: Garrett Blacknova wrote: Repair Tanking: I've agreed with this point since BEFORE THE HARDENER NERF. It was a problem then, and now that it's been indirectly sort-of-buffed by hardeners become less attractive, it's more of a problem than it was before. ... Railguns: Last, but definitely not least. Yes. SOMETHING needs to change. Railguns are meant to have high alpha/burst damage and long range. Reducing the rate of fire would make them less viable as a burst damage weapon, but at the same time, nerfing damage significantly would feel wrong for a railgun. SLIGHT damage nerf and SLIGHT RoF nerf combined should do it - but knowing CCP, they need us to emphasise the "err on the side of OP" nerfbat recommendation. Railguns were never meant to have high burst damage, only missiles were. Railguns have high burst by virtue of their high alpha damage. Alpha and burst damage are basically the same principle applied as a contrast to sustained damage weapons which need higher DPS to compensate. The more I think about this, the more I think the best nerf to Railguns would be to simply make them overheat faster so they only get 2 or 3 shots before overheating (depending on skills and tier of the weapon) Fire 2 shots and DON'T overheat, wait a moment, then fire, then continue pausing between shots to sustain damage over time, OR go for 3 shots in a row for maximum burst damage, but at the cost of DPS because you're overheating and having to wait out an extended cooldown period.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3248	Posted - 2014.04.05 10:21:00 - [50] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Missile/Rail tanks do wonders against nonhardened tanks Its a large blaster of course its going to kill infantry it is what it is there for, it actually works now because pre 1.7 all i got was shield flare alot of the time it was better for killing other tanks with it Your also going the wrong way about it all, at this rate vehicles will barely have any fits to use without it being classed as OP The fact that there are large turrets specifically designed to specifically eradicate infantry at such levels of effectiveness is inherently insane. It basically stealing the role of infantry with 3,000+ HP, super speed, and an extreme amount of more fire power. It is just bad game design. While I'm ok with blasters killing infantry, but at this level of effectiveness its far too much. Dial down the anti-infantry capability a bit, and dial up the anti-vehicle/installation power a bit as well. Its damage profile as a blaster would definitely secure it a role as an anti-shield vehicle weapon. As for the comment about barely having fits to use, that is not the case at all. I think repair-tanking should be an acceptable tactic, but right now its far too effective. There should never be a dominant unkillable strategy that is practically immune to AV; it reduces the value of different fits, and reduces variety in gameplay. You mean because the blaster actually works now its OP? i noticed nothing was ever said about blaster pre 1.7 because they didnt work, it was like missiles back in the chrome days they worked wonders but were again OP, fact is blaster is AI turret more than an AV turret but now thanks to the hardener nerf is can also be more effective against vehicles. If vehicles didnt have an AI turret then why would we bother with vehicles? the HAV has the blaster so it can defend itself from AV and scouts and FG etc, the small turrets are genrally useless for this role unless you happen to use small missile which for some reason make the large look bad for killing infantry even tho i full auto 12 at someone and get next to no splash Passive repair mods work, but also they are against lore where shield always recharges and armor has an active repair tank unless you use remote reps which we no longer have. Bottom line is we have less choice than we ever had so the same fits which actually work are going to be more popular but that means less variety for everyone involved and half the mods wont get touched again

Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2386	Posted - 2014.04.05 10:32:00 - [51] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: I would add a slight tracking nerf for blasters if that's not enough, but otherwise yea. But missiles are still OP as ****. 1 bursting all day long. I wouldn't even say you need that, add dispersion at about HMG values (scaled up to the weapon obviously) and replace the Aiming Reticule with something a little less precise, like the forge guns. Et Voila, Blasters are now harder to use against infantry, almost impossible at range, yet still get full effectiveness against vehicles at short/medium range. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2386	Posted - 2014.04.05 10:35:00 - [52] - Quote Rannici wrote: THIS POST MAKES ME SICK. OP IS CLEARLY A TANKER POSTING GARBAGE TO KEEP CCP FROM BUFFING AV. AV NEEDS A BUFF. NOW. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. MY PROF 5 WYRKOMI CANNOT TAKE OUT A PROPERLY FITTED SICA EVEN IF I HIT IT WITH ALL 7 OF MY MISSILE VOLLEYS IN QUICK SUCCESSION. THAT IS WRONG. You clearly know nothing about the prolific posters of this forum, if your PROF 5 wyrkomi can break a SICAs shields, YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. END OF STORY Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
Shadow of War88 0uter.Heaven 222	Posted - 2014.04.05 11:16:00 - [53] - Quote The Caldari graciously equipped its scouts with a advanced sensor package that shames other nations scouts for even trying to cloak. & too the State will provide its shielded armor core a new weapon system that will extract tears from infantry around the cluster. When the Sagaris & Caldari pilot suit are finalized all will bow before the State. Till then enjoy firing prototype AV at standard tanks, peasant! & justice for all
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10304	Posted - 2014.04.05 15:25:00 - [54] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Missile/Rail tanks do wonders against nonhardened tanks Its a large blaster of course its going to kill infantry it is what it is there for, it actually works now because pre 1.7 all i got was shield flare alot of the time it was better for killing other tanks with it Your also going the wrong way about it all, at this rate vehicles will barely have any fits to use without it being classed as OP The fact that there are large turrets specifically designed to specifically eradicate infantry at such levels of effectiveness is inherently insane. It basically stealing the role of infantry with 3,000+ HP, super speed, and an extreme amount of more fire power. It is just bad game design. While I'm ok with blasters killing infantry, but at this level of effectiveness its far too much. Dial down the anti-infantry capability a bit, and dial up the anti-vehicle/installation power a bit as well. Its damage profile as a blaster would definitely secure it a role as an anti-shield vehicle weapon. As for the comment about barely having fits to use, that is not the case at all. I think repair-tanking should be an acceptable tactic, but right now its far too effective. There should never be a dominant unkillable strategy that is practically immune to AV; it reduces the value of different fits, and reduces variety in gameplay. You mean because the blaster actually works now its OP? i noticed nothing was ever said about blaster pre 1.7 because they didnt work, it was like missiles back in the chrome days they worked wonders but were again OP, fact is blaster is AI turret more than an AV turret but now thanks to the hardener nerf is can also be more effective against vehicles. If vehicles didnt have an AI turret then why would we bother with vehicles? the HAV has the blaster so it can defend itself from AV and scouts and FG etc, the small turrets are genrally useless for this role unless you happen to use small missile which for some reason make the large look bad for killing infantry even tho i full auto 12 at someone and get next to no splash Passive repair mods work, but also they are against lore where shield always recharges and armor has an active repair tank unless you use remote reps which we no longer have. Bottom line is we have less choice than we ever had so the same fits which actually work are going to be more popular but that means less variety for everyone involved and half the mods wont get touched again Its hard to take you seriously when your default reaction is to defend tanks regardless of balance issues. Most vehicle users I know about clearly see the problem with nearly indestructible permanently repairing vehicles. You can never recognize that something works too well when it comes to vehicles. Before 1.7, blasters still worked, and I still experienced battles where they went 20/0 because of how east it is to get kills with. If small turrets are that ineffective against anti-infantry, then the reasonable thing to do would be to buff them (small blasters require more dispersion, its too hard to hit infantry with them in a moving vehicle); small turrets generally match the killing power of infantry weapons, so its a far more fair scenario. What is NOT the reasonable thing to do is allow an extremely powerful to effortlessly slaughter everything in its path. I am not proposing that large blasters be nerfed, or that they should become unable to kill infantry, I am proposing a change of role by giving them much more damage, and less rate of fire. Large blasters should be the best close range AV turret, and still retain much of their infantry-killing potential, but just less of it. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3250	Posted - 2014.04.05 15:27:00 - [55] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Missile/Rail tanks do wonders against nonhardened tanks Its a large blaster of course its going to kill infantry it is what it is there for, it actually works now because pre 1.7 all i got was shield flare alot of the time it was better for killing other tanks with it Your also going the wrong way about it all, at this rate vehicles will barely have any fits to use without it being classed as OP The fact that there are large turrets specifically designed to specifically eradicate infantry at such levels of effectiveness is inherently insane. It basically stealing the role of infantry with 3,000+ HP, super speed, and an extreme amount of more fire power. It is just bad game design. While I'm ok with blasters killing infantry, but at this level of effectiveness its far too much. Dial down the anti-infantry capability a bit, and dial up the anti-vehicle/installation power a bit as well. Its damage profile as a blaster would definitely secure it a role as an anti-shield vehicle weapon. As for the comment about barely having fits to use, that is not the case at all. I think repair-tanking should be an acceptable tactic, but right now its far too effective. There should never be a dominant unkillable strategy that is practically immune to AV; it reduces the value of different fits, and reduces variety in gameplay. You mean because the blaster actually works now its OP? i noticed nothing was ever said about blaster pre 1.7 because they didnt work, it was like missiles back in the chrome days they worked wonders but were again OP, fact is blaster is AI turret more than an AV turret but now thanks to the hardener nerf is can also be more effective against vehicles. If vehicles didnt have an AI turret then why would we bother with vehicles? the HAV has the blaster so it can defend itself from AV and scouts and FG etc, the small turrets are genrally useless for this role unless you happen to use small missile which for some reason make the large look bad for killing infantry even tho i full auto 12 at someone and get next to no splash Passive repair mods work, but also they are against lore where shield always recharges and armor has an active repair tank unless you use remote reps which we no longer have. Bottom line is we have less choice than we ever had so the same fits which actually work are going to be more popular but that means less variety for everyone involved and half the mods wont get touched again Its hard to take you seriously when your default reaction is to defend tanks regardless of balance issues. Most vehicle users I know about clearly see the problem with nearly indestructible permanently repairing vehicles. You can never recognize that something works too well when it comes to vehicles. Before 1.7, blasters still worked, and I still experienced battles where they went 20/0 because of how east it is to get kills with. If small turrets are that ineffective against anti-infantry, then the reasonable thing to do would be to buff them (small blasters require more dispersion, its too hard to hit infantry with them in a moving vehicle); small turrets generally match the killing power of infantry weapons, so its a far more fair scenario. What is NOT the reasonable thing to do is allow an extremely powerful to effortlessly slaughter everything in its path. I am not proposing that large blasters be nerfed, or that they should become unable to kill infantry, I am proposing a change of role by giving them much more damage, and less rate of fire. Large blasters should be the best close range AV turret, and still retain much of their infantry-killing potential, but just less of it. I can only work with what i have and what CCP have given us and frankly CCP have been taking away more things and nerfing them Anyway this is the only real answer to vehicles Part 1: Engineering & Capacitors Part 2: Armor & Shield Part 3: Modules & Skills Part 4: Vehicles Part 5: Overview
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10304	Posted - 2014.04.05 15:34:00 - [56] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: I can only work with what i have and what CCP have given us and frankly CCP have been taking away more things and nerfing them Anyway this is the only real answer to vehicles Part 1: Engineering & Capacitors Part 2: Armor & Shield Part 3: Modules & Skills Part 4: Vehicles Part 5: Overview While I doubt it will truly be the "only real answer to vehicles", I will give it a read. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1507	Posted - 2014.04.05 15:42:00 - [57] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Missile/Rail tanks do wonders against nonhardened tanks Its a large blaster of course its going to kill infantry it is what it is there for, it actually works now because pre 1.7 all i got was shield flare alot of the time it was better for killing other tanks with it Your also going the wrong way about it all, at this rate vehicles will barely have any fits to use without it being classed as OP The fact that there are large turrets specifically designed to specifically eradicate infantry at such levels of effectiveness is inherently insane. It basically stealing the role of infantry with 3,000+ HP, super speed, and an extreme amount of more fire power. It is just bad game design. While I'm ok with blasters killing infantry, but at this level of effectiveness its far too much. Dial down the anti-infantry capability a bit, and dial up the anti-vehicle/installation power a bit as well. Its damage profile as a blaster would definitely secure it a role as an anti-shield vehicle weapon. As for the comment about barely having fits to use, that is not the case at all. I think repair-tanking should be an acceptable tactic, but right now its far too effective. There should never be a dominant unkillable strategy that is practically immune to AV; it reduces the value of different fits, and reduces variety in gameplay. You mean because the blaster actually works now its OP? i noticed nothing was ever said about blaster pre 1.7 because they didnt work, it was like missiles back in the chrome days they worked wonders but were again OP, fact is blaster is AI turret more than an AV turret but now thanks to the hardener nerf is can also be more effective against vehicles. If vehicles didnt have an AI turret then why would we bother with vehicles? the HAV has the blaster so it can defend itself from AV and scouts and FG etc, the small turrets are genrally useless for this role unless you happen to use small missile which for some reason make the large look bad for killing infantry even tho i full auto 12 at someone and get next to no splash Passive repair mods work, but also they are against lore where shield always recharges and armor has an active repair tank unless you use remote reps which we no longer have. Bottom line is we have less choice than we ever had so the same fits which actually work are going to be more popular but that means less variety for everyone involved and half the mods wont get touched again Its hard to take you seriously when your default reaction is to defend tanks regardless of balance issues. Most vehicle users I know about clearly see the problem with nearly indestructible permanently repairing vehicles. You can never recognize that something works too well when it comes to vehicles. Before 1.7, blasters still worked, and I still experienced battles where they went 20/0 because of how easy it is to get kills with. If small turrets are that ineffective against anti-infantry, then the reasonable thing to do would be to buff them (small blasters require more dispersion, its too hard to hit infantry with them in a moving vehicle); small turrets generally match the killing power of infantry weapons, so its a far more fair scenario. What is NOT the reasonable thing to do is allow an extremely powerful to effortlessly slaughter everything in its path. I am not proposing that large blasters be nerfed, or that they should become unable to kill infantry, I am proposing a change of role by giving them much more damage, and less rate of fire. Large blasters should be the best close range AV turret, and still retain much of their infantry-killing potential, but just less of it. Blasters are meant for AI. As such they should be the worst at AV, period. Blasters, due to their automatic nature, will always kill infantry the easiest out of all of the large turrets. This is why they must be the worst at AV. Making them the best at AI AND giving them CQC AV abilities is just wrong. I want to avoid the 1.6 blaster Maddy that could kill anything. Blasters should keep their AI as long as they are the worst at AV. But their AV got a bit too powerful with the hardener nerf, so I think a damage nerf to large blasters will limit their AV abilities once again and also reduce the woes of the infantryman. Repping fits are fine as they are. They increase their defense against infantry AV at the cost of being highly susceptible to railguns and missiles. I think that's a fair trade-off. Let's not even forget proxies and REs. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1507	Posted - 2014.04.05 15:43:00 - [58] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: I can only work with what i have and what CCP have given us and frankly CCP have been taking away more things and nerfing them Anyway this is the only real answer to vehicles Part 1: Engineering & Capacitors Part 2: Armor & Shield Part 3: Modules & Skills Part 4: Vehicles Part 5: Overview While I doubt it will truly be the "only real answer to vehicles", I will give it a read. May I also suggest you to take a look at this to see my view on the large turrets. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
The Terminator T-1000 Skynet Incorporated 338	Posted - 2014.04.05 15:47:00 - [59] - Quote Really? A proto swarm launcher with prof 5 and 2 complex mods on a proto minmatar commando suit which adds extra 10% damage does less damage than an advance swarm back in 1.6 before all the nerfs to swarms, dmg mods and prof. Swarms range should be increased to 250 meters and damage increased to 300
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10305	Posted - 2014.04.05 16:03:00 - [60] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Blasters are meant for AI. As such they should be the worst at AV, period. Blasters, due to their automatic nature, will always kill infantry the easiest out of all of the large turrets. This is why they must be the worst at AV. Making them the best at AI AND giving them CQC AV abilities is just wrong. I want to avoid the 1.6 blaster Maddy that could kill anything. Blasters should keep their AI as long as they are the worst at AV. But their AV got a bit too powerful with the hardener nerf, so I think a damage nerf to large blasters will limit their AV abilities once again and also reduce the woes of the infantryman. Repping fits are fine as they are. They increase their defense against infantry AV at the cost of being highly susceptible to railguns and missiles. I think that's a fair trade-off. Let's not even forget proxies and REs. We shouldn't have AI large turrets to begin with, its silly. Only small turrets should be primarily anti-infantry given that their fire power is close to that of infantry weapons, thus does not usurp the role of infantry. A large turret on a tank basically being a giant AR outdoing infantry at their own role; not too mention what a horrible experience to infantry it is. Being automatic by itself is not reason enough while something will always be better at anti-infantry. Railguns are actually automatic; much like the rail rifle they just keep firing after the initial spool up, but they're a poor choice for anti-infantry engagements despite being automatic because of their ROF. If blasters had a ROF reduction (coupled with an equivalent or better damage increased), the ROF change would make them no longer as good as an anti-infantry turret. The way I propose it, they would only be better at AV to the degree that they become less effective at AI. There should never be a tank that is immune to infantry AV weapons, even if its at the cost of being weak against other vehicles... which isn't even the case. 137H4RGIC wrote: Madrugar Fit - two Complex Heavy Armor Reps, one Basic Hardener. Armor still reps against all infantry, and can survive two blaster tanks for long engagements, and survive any onslaught of rails, with enough time to get away. Madrugar can take against both types with relative ease. I will read your thread. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+

KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10306	Posted - 2014.04.05 16:05:00 - [61] - Quote The Terminator T-1000 wrote: Really? A proto swarm launcher with prof 5 and 2 complex mods on a proto minmatar commando suit which adds extra 10% damage does less damage than an advance swarm back in 1.6 before all the nerfs to swarms, dmg mods and prof. Swarms range should be increased to 250 meters and damage increased to 300 My brother uses a Minmatar commando (level 4), has advanced swarms, and he's pretty effective at AV. Either you're doing it wrong, or you're expecting too much. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10306	Posted - 2014.04.05 16:15:00 - [62] - Quote @Takashiro Kashuken: I do like the idea of having capacitors in Dust, as well as more varied modules to increase the diversity of vehicle fits on the battlefield. I also very much the idea of stasis webifiers, and neutralizers at the hands of infantry. All skills should indeed have bonuses. @Harpyja: I think we have fundamentally different views of what large blasters should be like. Also, I commented on your earlier post as well on the previous page. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Samahiel Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 332	Posted - 2014.04.05 18:43:00 - [63] - Quote I want to put this bugbear to rest, because it's one of the stupidest fallacies that continues to rear it's ugly head in these discussions. CCP has stated multiple times that they do not balance around isk. At most potential effectiveness for isk scales logarithmically with perfect tactical choices and perfect strategic application.
Alpha 443-6732 General Tso's Alliance 394	Posted - 2014.04.06 17:30:00 - [64] - Quote TERMINALANCE wrote: Its not anyway balanced. dedicated AV should always have the advantage over tanks in a 1v1 context, its what the role does. Pro AV forgegun fit is expensive. over 250k isk each, its super weak vs all other infantry and it is the slowest moving largest hitbox most easily detected suit in the game that is vulnerable to all weapon systems. A proto av forgegun should have no trouble taking out a proto tank 1v1 if the forgegun gets first round hit and has the high ground. Proto swarms should take a maximum of 2v1 tank to have a almost guaranteed kill vs enemy tanks. Any more then that and the entire games match balance becomes unworkable. Now either this means you reduce tank and av prices so tanks get used to dieing more and get rid of this KD invulnerable attitude. or you raise the price of the AV and tank fits and Largely raise the rewards for killing tanks so its work the extra effort. or you create a better system for tanks to be in the game, with cooldowns for calling in tanks during the match, and other features. But AV does have an advantage over tanks in a 1v1 its called a RAILGUN and when you want to counter the RAILGUN, bring out infantry AV leave e a v e
Alpha 443-6732 General Tso's Alliance 394	Posted - 2014.04.06 17:32:00 - [65] - Quote Samahiel wrote: I want to put this bugbear to rest, because it's one of the stupidest fallacies that continues to rear it's ugly head in these discussions. CCP has stated multiple times that they do not balance around isk. At most potential effectiveness for isk scales logarithmically with perfect tactical choices and perfect strategic application. To explain, since some of you are unfamiliar with the reasoning. Balancing around isk or any other number leads to an arms race that quickly reaches a static balance of an ultimate min-maxed solution. For a truly dynamic meta, you need a rock-paper-scissors type balance where increased strength, effectiveness, flexibility or other advantage comes as the result of an ultimate and non-negotiable weakness or limitation. For a positive contribution to the discussion; I would support more options, other than raw damage, for infantry AV. Deployable area denial along the lines of prox mines. Say AOE stasis webifiers to stop a retreat, or energy neutralizers to deactivate hardeners/reps; Movable tank barricades to deny access and limit mobility; and those deployable personal shields CCP promised back when cloaks were first talked about. How about expanding hacking to not just taking nullcannons, but to also raising and lowering barricades? They dont need to balance solely around isk, but items need to show a general quality for how much they cost. I think I've said the bolded before and I completely agree with you on that part
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1526	Posted - 2014.04.06 17:52:00 - [66] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: @Takashiro Kashuken: I do like the idea of having capacitors in Dust, as well as more varied modules to increase the diversity of vehicle fits on the battlefield. I also very much the idea of stasis webifiers, and neutralizers at the hands of infantry. All skills should indeed have bonuses. @Harpyja: I think we have fundamentally different views of what large blasters should be like. Also, I commented on your earlier post as well on the previous page. And indeed we do. You mentioned that small turrets should be purposed for AI instead. I don't really see how that will work, considering that it's the turret type that determines what it's good for, not its size. Its size only determines which vehicles can use that kind of turret and to what degree of effectiveness. The turret types are as follows: Blaster Railgun Missile Autocannon Artillery Beam Laser Pulse Laser The turrets with high RoF are italicized. These are the turrets that will have an easier time hitting infantry than the other turrets. There's nothing that you can do about it. I'd be very interested to know how you can make their different sizes have different roles, because to me, it's the turret type that determines its role, whereas turret size determines fitting ability and effectiveness. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32 Atiim didn't agree with limiting tanks!
Alpha 443-6732 General Tso's Alliance 394	Posted - 2014.04.06 18:00:00 - [67] - Quote Harpyja wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: @Takashiro Kashuken: I do like the idea of having capacitors in Dust, as well as more varied modules to increase the diversity of vehicle fits on the battlefield. I also very much the idea of stasis webifiers, and neutralizers at the hands of infantry. All skills should indeed have bonuses. @Harpyja: I think we have fundamentally different views of what large blasters should be like. Also, I commented on your earlier post as well on the previous page. And indeed we do. You mentioned that small turrets should be purposed for AI instead. I don't really see how that will work, considering that it's the turret type that determines what it's good for, not its size. Its size only determines which vehicles can use that kind of turret and to what degree of effectiveness. The turret types are as follows: Blaster Railgun Missile Autocannon Artillery Beam Laser Pulse Laser The turrets with high RoF are italicized. These are the turrets that will have an easier time hitting infantry than the other turrets. There's nothing that you can do about it. I'd be very interested to know how you can make their different sizes have different roles, because to me, it's the turret type that determines its role, whereas turret size determines fitting ability and effectiveness. As long as the turret makes a reasonable compromise for its infantry killing power, it should be fine. The current blasters aren't really that much of a problem, to people that pay attention and use cover. If a heavy/tank has a bunch of you suppressed, remove the line of sight and reengage at a different angle, don't run TOWARDS it like a moron.


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.