|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1691
   |
Posted - 2014.04.30 13:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:KatanaPT wrote:Actually, honestly i think the whole problem would be solved with this:
- Penalty (OR inability to fire) to large tank weapons against infantry, make them into what they must be, tank and installation killers. Now we have a giant shotgun on top of a tank. If a tanker wants to go against infantry then install small turrets, because thats what they are for.
I agree we should not be able to solo a tank, and i also agree to the current state of the tanks, they are hard to kill, fast, great tank killers and they can dominate the battlefield, the problem is that most of the tanks nowadays run a single large turret and can kill everything. What happened to small turrets? What happened to their original purpose? (vs infantry) Be it a blaster or a rail, the tank large turrets must be really effective against what they were designed to do, other tanks, installations, vehicles, etc. It maybe unrealistic, (try to think about a 120mm sabot from a M1 against a enemy soldier), but afterall this is a scifi game.
--> Bring back small turrets role against infantry and delegate large turrets to their job.
This would fix tanks. If the denizens of tankers who love to kill infantry want to continue doing it again, just equip 2 good small turrets, a good crew and let it rip. I have been thinking about this, and make the small vehicle turrets a bit more fun to use. Maybe swarm launchers and HMG's as options as well. I can't hit a damn thing using moving blasters :(
I think turret type should help to define role, not size. The blaster turret will still hit infantry far easier than the railgun or missile turret; even if you halve its RoF and double its damage, that will not improve anything.
The blaster turret is and will always be an infantry killer. As such, it should have poor AV capabilities, of which it currently doesn't suffer from. Large blasters are too effective against other vehicles which upsets the balance. A single turret cannot both be an infantry killer as well as pose a threat to other vehicles. Remember the 1.6 blaster Maddy that was the be-all end-all to tanking? It both slaughtered infantry and vehicles alike, far outclassing the railgun and missile turret.
I believe that any balance efforts should first make a pass through the large turrets. Any AV buffs or tank nerfs will only upset the balance that there is between AV and missile/railgun tanks, as those types of tanks can't fire back effectively and are forced to retreat. Just like the hardener nerf was a rather huge nerf for missile tanks but an indirect buff to blaster and railgun tanks, because they both now get a reduced number if shots required to destroy another tank, while I still need my average of one missile volley plus a portion of another volley to destroy a fair amout of tanks. I also had to get rid of my damage amplifier to make up for a loss in EHP against blaster/railgun tanks due to the hardener nerf.
Balancing the Large Turrets
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1692
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 13:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Nothing Certain wrote:Minor Treat wrote:Vulpes Dolosus wrote:Ok, obviously it's broken and needs fixed and I'm not trying to defend it, but have you tried:
Similarly tiered forgeguns? What about Proto Min Commando w/ swarms? Rail/Missile Tanks? Teamwork?
Unrelated to the issue at hand, in all honestly, I'm really against a single player, no matter how dedicated to AV, being able to take on a fully proto-ed tank easily. Eventually yes, a dedicated AV should kill it eventually if not engaged or fled from, but not easily. I like this post. I agree a single AV should not be able to kill a Tank but I like to think that a single AV player should be a thorn in his side if he is spec into AVs Edit: i made a typo I strongly disagree. One player should be able to kill another player, whether in a suit or a vehicle.
And I strongly disagree with you. Why are all of you so hell-bent on destroying tanks? Is it not enough if you managed to make it activate its modules and retreat?
That's how it should be. A dedicated AV vs a dedicated tank won't be able to kill the tank, but it will be a huge hindrance to the tank and limit its abilities. Though two or more dedicated AV and the dedicated tank should be in trouble.
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1692
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 14:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Harpyja wrote:Nothing Certain wrote:Minor Treat wrote:Vulpes Dolosus wrote:Ok, obviously it's broken and needs fixed and I'm not trying to defend it, but have you tried:
Similarly tiered forgeguns? What about Proto Min Commando w/ swarms? Rail/Missile Tanks? Teamwork?
Unrelated to the issue at hand, in all honestly, I'm really against a single player, no matter how dedicated to AV, being able to take on a fully proto-ed tank easily. Eventually yes, a dedicated AV should kill it eventually if not engaged or fled from, but not easily. I like this post. I agree a single AV should not be able to kill a Tank but I like to think that a single AV player should be a thorn in his side if he is spec into AVs Edit: i made a typo I strongly disagree. One player should be able to kill another player, whether in a suit or a vehicle. And I strongly disagree with you. Why are all of you so hell-bent on destroying tanks? Is it not enough if you managed to make it activate its modules and retreat? That's how it should be. A dedicated AV vs a dedicated tank won't be able to kill the tank, but it will be a huge hindrance to the tank and limit its abilities. Though two or more dedicated AV and the dedicated tank should be in trouble. Because that same vehicle is hell-bent on killing our team? No, it is not enough. If a vehicle doesn't/cannot die, then where is the risk involved i using one? You've also yet to list a valid reason as to why it should be that way, so I'll just write this off as bantering from a tanker who feels as if he should never die to another person.
Me? Hell-bent on killing your team? With missiles? Lol, Atiim, just shows how indifferent you are to the whole of tanking. If I wanted to kill your team I'd be crying for 4 meter splash radius while keeping everything bing else unchanged for missiles.
You're thinking about blaster tanks. Yes, blasters need a damage nerf, but that is all. I agree, they aren't risking much if they can effectively counter other vehicles meant to destroy them.
In general it should be: AI tank (blaster) > infantry > AV infantry > AV tank (missile/railgun) > AI tank
*Going down the list decreases effectiveness*
Now, I think it's perfectly balanced how my missile tank is forced to retreat in the presence of AV infantry, that's why I should have infantry to counter them. On the flip side, infantry or AV infantry can't or have reduced efficiency against a blaster tank, which is why they should have an AV tank to counter it.
Infantry counter against the tank counter is thus similar to a tank counter against the infantry counter, and you get a nice mirrored balance.
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1692
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 14:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
Nothing Certain wrote:Harpyja wrote:Nothing Certain wrote:Minor Treat wrote:Vulpes Dolosus wrote:Ok, obviously it's broken and needs fixed and I'm not trying to defend it, but have you tried:
Similarly tiered forgeguns? What about Proto Min Commando w/ swarms? Rail/Missile Tanks? Teamwork?
Unrelated to the issue at hand, in all honestly, I'm really against a single player, no matter how dedicated to AV, being able to take on a fully proto-ed tank easily. Eventually yes, a dedicated AV should kill it eventually if not engaged or fled from, but not easily. I like this post. I agree a single AV should not be able to kill a Tank but I like to think that a single AV player should be a thorn in his side if he is spec into AVs Edit: i made a typo I strongly disagree. One player should be able to kill another player, whether in a suit or a vehicle. And I strongly disagree with you. Why are all of you so hell-bent on destroying tanks? Is it not enough if you managed to make it activate its modules and retreat? That's how it should be. A dedicated AV vs a dedicated tank won't be able to kill the tank, but it will be a huge hindrance to the tank and limit its abilities. Though two or more dedicated AV and the dedicated tank should be in trouble. Explain your reasoning WHY one player should not be able to kill another player. Please do not just make a version of "because it is a tank" or give me your vision of what a tank is but instead give me the justification in terms of game balance and dynamics. Seriously, I would really like to hear someone present an argument. The only argument I have seen presented is ISK expenditure and that is a valid argument for some advantage but not the degree of advantage conveyed.
Please tell me WHY you HAVE to destroy the tank to consider your job done. Again, let me ask you, is it not enough if you forced the tank to retreat?
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1692
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 15:00:00 -
[5] - Quote
I want to make my point clear, and this guy pretty much summed it up
lee corwood wrote:I'd also like to state that we're having a discussion about the effectiveness of AV versus tanks (and right now a very specific type of tank). Right now, all AV affects all classes of vehicles the same and I don't think it should. CCP should approach HAVs and DS as completely separate entitles. Every time we do this number/stat shuffle you hear:
tanks suck but DS is ok
DS now sucks but this one tank is ok
That seesaw effect is going to continue until you learn to treat them as completely separate entities that don't share static values and bonuses.
I hadn't said that triple rep Maddies are fine, or that blasters are fine. Those are two cases where AV vs tanks is not balanced. BUT, AV vs missile and railgun tanks is balanced.
That's why I am against overall tank nerfs or AV buffs because where you achieve balance, you gain imbalance elsewhere.
What I said before, that one AV should only force one tank to retreat, still holds merit, if everything is balanced appropriately. My missile and railgun are already forced to retreat when hit by AV. Now just make it more so for triple rep Maddies and blaster tanks.
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1693
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 17:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:Gelhad Thremyr wrote:1) Lets all agree on one thing, mechanized infantry (tanks) should have high HP and should be able to create opportunities for infantry. With that being said, if the level design of maps doesnt give enough possibilities to get behind cover let say 40-60% of the time (because no one would wage war in open spaces like we did 400 years ago) then tanks would naturally be less of a threat to infantry.
2) We want risk/reward to be balanced (because tanks cost alot, but with the data in hand a single tank can do easily 20 kills, if they are proto, than they netted a kill ISK value of 2 mil ISK alone if each proto infantry suit cost 100k)
3) Tank player alone in his vehicle should not add the equivalent of 2-3 more player in fire power alone. It causes imbalance in firepower on one side. This is clearly been demonstrated in TankBush with Nyain san and Milkman.
4) I would not touch the power of weapons has is, I think number wise the tripple rep madrugar is a kind of a fit, we should keep the customization of builds in this game.
5) If main turrets of tanks would be slower, engaging infrantry would be harder, and would require drivers to have small turrets to handle 20 meters or less infantry, throwing stuff at it. All tanks would suffer the turret slowness and it would make tank engagement better IMO.
6)Conclusion, do not touch the firepower but the hability to quickly kill all around a tank with a single driver, in BF3, tank turret do not allow you to be 100% effective against infantry ! I would agree if it wasn't for the accuracy of the blaster. No recoil, no dispersion, no muzzle climb, no pre-fire charge time, nothing. Blasters either need a reduction in fire power, AT LEAST 30% or it needs to be given dispersion that is about the same as the HMG (scaled up obviously) This would allow blasters to be better at suppressing infantry yet give AV enough of an oppurtunity that it can at least lock on a swarm launcher without dying.
Blasters need a damage reduction of about 33%, but nothing else in terms of nerfs. That will not only reduce their AI effectiveness and make it more skill involved, but it will severely limit their AV effectiveness, something that must be done.
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
|
|
|
| |
|