|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
517
   |
Posted - 2014.04.23 02:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
Obviously there are not enough threads about tanks or protostomping so I thought I would rectify that.
When discussing balance there is no single metric that can encompass all the variables but kdr is probably the best one to compare. So what do you think the AVERAGE tanker kdr should be? Why?
What do you think it is right now?
Because, that's why.
|
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
517
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 02:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
Just to clarify, I am not asking what a good tankers kdr would be, but what kdr would show tanks being balanced. Although I do like to hear how tankers actually fare and hear their views when we aren't in opposition.
Because, that's why.
|
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
517
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 03:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
Charlotte O'Dell wrote:ait...are you suggesting we use KDR to gauge BALANCE!?
Who even cares!?
All a high KDR means is an ambush stomping tank noob.
In Chrome we had a word for those people: Fags.
But I digress, a railgun or missile specced tanker will have a lower KDR than a blaster specced pilot.
Yes, which is why I am asking for averages, not individual kdr.
Because, that's why.
|
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
518
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 06:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
Joseph Ridgeson wrote:Balancing by KDR is a bad way to look at it. A Redline Sniper may have a lower KDR than a really good Assault player. Which one do people consider detrimental to the game and needs to be removed?
Again, individual performance isn't the issue or the gauge, what is important is how ALL snipers do against X, or in this case all tankers. I am interested in the bell curve, not the outliers.
Because, that's why.
|
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
518
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 06:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
Seymor Krelborn wrote:Nothing Certain wrote:Obviously there are not enough threads about tanks or protostomping so I thought I would rectify that.
When discussing balance there is no single metric that can encompass all the variables but kdr is probably the best one to compare. So what do you think the AVERAGE tanker kdr should be? Why?
What do you think it is right now? I cant see how you put an avg KDR on tankers and balance them from that ideal.... really tankers should get it as good as they are at tanking, I don't even think you really need to touch tanks, what we need is better av, more balanced av.... and cloaks on jihadi jeeps.
As i stated, kdr doesn't capture all the variables, but how many you kill and how often you die are both the easiest and most important measures of how you fare against others. Do you have another objective metric that is better? I can't think of one.
Because, that's why.
|
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
518
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 06:42:00 -
[6] - Quote
Athena Sentinel wrote:CCP are game simulators. See EVE for details. Its amazing real science and math simulating space,
Dust is a version of that. Lets not get hung up there. But themed with EVE is similar and hopeful soon joined.
My point. In real life if a army had a tank there was clear unstoppable power. The other army had to deploy specialized tactics or deploy a tank... Before this horses on the battle field played the same unstoppable power.
I don't use tanks, but if they get 40-0 and you QQ ... Bad on you. If you hate it so much specialise to blow them up - the gratification will be 10 fold fueled by revenge.
So your answer is that the tanker kdr average should be 40-0?
Because, that's why.
|
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
518
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 06:45:00 -
[7] - Quote
Athena Sentinel wrote:True Adamance wrote:Denn Maell wrote:Athena Sentinel wrote:CCP are game simulators. See EVE for details. Its amazing real science and math simulating space,
Dust is a version of that. Lets not get hung up there. But themed with EVE is similar and hopeful soon joined.
My point. In real life if a army had a tank there was clear unstoppable power. The other army had to deploy specialized tactics or deploy a tank... Before this horses on the battle field played the same unstoppable power.
I don't use tanks, but if they get 40-0 and you QQ ... Bad on you. If you hate it so much specialise to blow them up - the gratification will be 10 fold fueled by revenge. A good attitude to have, to be sure. But Eve and Dust both have strong elements of team play involved. In Eve a well built fleet is superior in every way to a solo player. In Dust, a well equipped squad working together will dominate against randomns. Tanks require 1 operator and usually don't equip small turrets. It is also not uncommon to witness a squad raining down "specialized retaliation" against a tank and they get away before being destroyed. To many benefits for players who put emphasis on fitting their HAV selfishly and not enough for those who choose to do it otherwise. You both make very good points. I can't argue that. Still I guess if I had any issue with them it would be that they are invisible on my map. Heavies are easier to see then tanks lol. If the balance is really off, I have not witnessed it. But the favor should go to the tank or often the more costly item. I don't believe 2 or 3 guys with swarm launchers at lvl 3 should take out a tank - I suspect this is what is happening now. But it should limit the tanks ability to combat effectively.. It will not be getting 40-0!
Could you explain your reasoning why 2 or 3 players using advanced fits shouldn't be able to kill one player?
Because, that's why.
|
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
519
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 07:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
Auris Lionesse wrote:Balanced would be 1.
Av should blow up tanks and tanks should kill infantry.
the whole a good tanker can survive thing is bs. Tankers can kill avers infantry can't kill tanks like they used to.
Meaning tanks need to be as vulnerable to av as infantry is to vehicles now
Balance is 1:1:1
My reasoning mirrors your own. It needs to be remembered that we are talking about players, whether they are in a vehicle or not, they are still just 1 player and the balance needs to be made between players, not an emotional pre - conceived idea about what tanks should be. Two players with the same SP, same ISK investment and same skill should have equal chances of killing each other. 1:1 is balanced, I have a hard time understanding how giving one player a huge advantage is balanced, which is why I ask the question I did. I really would like to hear a sound reason other than "its a tank".
I understand that tankers can spend much more ISK and the should gain advantage from that, but it should, in my mind, be commensurate with ISK expenditure/advantage in the rest of the game. A proto CR costs 30X what a STD one does yet only does 10% more damage. A good tank may cost 10X an equivalent dropsuit so what should it's advantage be? 10%? 25%? Why is it 200% or so?
Anyway, I really just want to hear people's opinions about this one metric, because I think it boils down the argument to how you view the tanks position in this game. It is academic, no one will stand for the kind of changes needed to achieve the balance I describe, and even I prefer not to have it.
Because, that's why.
|
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
519
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 14:11:00 -
[9] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote:Auris Lionesse wrote:Balanced would be 1.
Av should blow up tanks and tanks should kill infantry.
the whole a good tanker can survive thing is bs. Tankers can kill avers infantry can't kill tanks like they used to.
Meaning tanks need to be as vulnerable to av as infantry is to vehicles now
Balance is 1:1:1
How can you equate a hard armor infantry support ... anti-vehicle " Machine " against a " Meat-Bag " ??? That's like saying , " A car should be as strong as a person or the person that's driving it . " and if that was the case ... there would be way more vehicular homicide's . That's in the physical since and not mentally , a good driver is a strong driver like a good anti-vehicle trooper is a strong one , but again that's mental . People that say that just don't make much since to me but what do I know ??? Comparing a vehicle machine to a person slash " Meat-Bag " just doesn't seem like sound reasoning or balance . Its pure and simple algebra actually. 1man = 1man 1 tank > 1man therfore in order for a balanced statement, something must be > than tank, but < than man. This is AV 1man < 1tank < 1AV < 1man That is balance, however as you are probably aware A tank can kill an AVer An AVer can kill infantry This is fair, because it is required for defence and you (should) be much less effective at doing so, thus you have a reduced chance of fighti g back against your counter, but you can at least fight back. Infantry cannot fight a tank, so instead we give supply depots which allows infamtry to swap out for AV, this is balanced because you can kill them before they get to the supply depot. In addition if they respawn, they already died once so baalnce is maintained. If however it requires multiple people to destroy/reasonably suppress (as in for a significant enough time to allow an infantry to make a push) then tank becomes greater than infantry and you end up with pure unbalance. It annoys me oh so much when all of you generalize tanks and basically ask for blanket nerfs. All tanks are NOT the same. So stop generalizing them. Balance should look like this: AI tank (blaster) > infantry > AV infantry > AV tank (missile/rail) > AI tank I'm already forced to retreat with my missile tank at the presence of AV so I think that part of the equation is balanced. Blaster tanks have too much AV potential so that part still needs balancing through a blaster damage nerf. There needs to be a trade-off between AI and AV. Any argument that says that it shouldn't take a tank to kill a tank (as evidenced by AV tank > AI tank) is just wrong to make. Tanks and vehicles in general are very much roles just like infantry. Why does it take a dropsuit to kill an AV dropsuit then?
It doesn't take a dropsuit to kill an AV dropsuit, any tank can do it. The problem with your balance is that it takes a tank to kill a tank, therefore the team with the best tanker always wins. Infantry always dies to tanks also.
Because, that's why.
|
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
528
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 06:40:00 -
[10] - Quote
KalOfTheRathi wrote:Nothing Certain wrote:Obviously there are not enough threads about tanks or protostomping so I thought I would rectify that.
When discussing balance there is no single metric that can encompass all the variables but kdr is probably the best one to compare. So what do you think the AVERAGE tanker kdr should be? Why?
What do you think it is right now? Sorry, this is a dumb question. At least to me it is. I can play a game and go 2/4 because I am fighting single tank against two to three tanks working together. I have still called those good results. Not all the friends I play with run tanks, so I might well be the single tank or ADS on our side. At least the only non-MLT version. Normally I don't run double digits, because I mainly blow up vehicles and installations, all of which allow the operator to escape death. I only run high KD/R when I switch to blaster and focus on infantry. KD/R is useless in this game. While it might have purpose in other games this one it doesn't. Smart deploy will still drop you on the one remaining uplink that is being camped by Reds in ambush. Or within meters of it. There is No Matchmaking In Dust (tm) and thus KD/R will never truly show the balance of anything in the game. It is a metric that many like. In Dust SP counts first, then ISK and/or WP. Finally KD/R and win/loss. How you think a single metric can display balance is beyond me. It implies a simplistic view of a very complex and dynamic battle system that the players have absolutely no say in who or where they engage in battle except for being in a squad and setting the battle type. Welcome to Dust
I'm not sure you read my post. I agree individual kdr doesn't signify much, which is why I have repeatedly stated I am looking for the average. This means all tankers. What I really wanted to know was the kdr against different fits, such as infantry AV and tank AV and what people thought that metric SHOULD be. This is much harder to tease out though.
Because, that's why.
|
|
|
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
528
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 06:43:00 -
[11] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Nothing Certain wrote:Obviously there are not enough threads about tanks or protostomping so I thought I would rectify that.
When discussing balance there is no single metric that can encompass all the variables but kdr is probably the best one to compare. So what do you think the AVERAGE tanker kdr should be? Why?
What do you think it is right now? People like you are dangerous. Please leave.
If forums were important then yes, I would hope you would find me very dangerous. Facts and reason coupled with curiosity can be scary things.
I doubt if I will leaving anytime soon.
Because, that's why.
|
|
|
| |
|