|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Minor Treat
RisingSuns Dark Taboo
245
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 02:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
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 |
Minor Treat
RisingSuns Dark Taboo
246
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 03:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
LittleCuteBunny wrote:Maddies are supposed to be stand and deliver and 1 AV player shouldn't solo a tank. Damage over time does a better job against active tanks and burst damage is better against passive tanks.
Out of curiousity...
What do you mean Active Tanks, and passive Tanks? And What do you mean Damage over time, and burst damage?
(when you describe these can you include the weapon as well please to clarify a little more.) |
Minor Treat
RisingSuns Dark Taboo
246
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 03:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Swarms are an assistant AV. Who are you assisting? What makes you think Swarms are Assistant AV? It does not say that in the description of the weapon. |
Minor Treat
RisingSuns Dark Taboo
246
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 03:10:00 -
[4] - Quote
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Minor Treat wrote:LittleCuteBunny wrote:Maddies are supposed to be stand and deliver and 1 AV player shouldn't solo a tank. Damage over time does a better job against active tanks and burst damage is better against passive tanks.
Out of curiousity... What do you mean Active Tanks, and passive Tanks? And What do you mean Damage over time, and burst damage? (when you describe these can you include the weapon as well please to clarify a little more.) Active, hardeners, passive repairs. What about the burst damage and the damage over time?
|
Minor Treat
RisingSuns Dark Taboo
246
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 03:22:00 -
[5] - Quote
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Minor Treat wrote:Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Swarms are an assistant AV. Who are you assisting? What makes you think Swarms are Assistant AV? It does not say that in the description of the weapon. Light weaponry that any class can equip. That's like asking where it says a scrambler pistol is an assistant weapon. It says sidearm, but not assistant. Needless to say anyone who actually knows how to use the weapons and WHEN to use them can absolutely destroy. People who use the wrong weapon for the wrong time are the ones who complain the most. Triple repair tanks are the easiest thing in the world to solo. Here's a hint. It's not a tank, nor is it swarms. Well technically a pistol is what you call a sidearm because it on your side. I'm a marine and doesn't make any sense to call a weapon a assistant weapon.
As for when weapons are used. Yes you are right, if used correctly the weapon should be devastating as each make and model of every modern weapon is designed for certain purposes.
But my question revolved around "assistant weapons"
So you would classify as rifle as a "assistant weapon" given its a light weapon. how does a rifle assist?
Edit:
I'm not trying to make you feel uncomfortable, I'm just trying to understand your logic and what your trying to say. |
Minor Treat
RisingSuns Dark Taboo
247
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 05:15:00 -
[6] - Quote
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Minor Treat wrote: Well technically a pistol is what you call a sidearm because it on your side. I'm a marine and doesn't make any sense to call a weapon a assistant weapon.
As for when weapons are used. Yes you are right, if used correctly the weapon should be devastating as each make and model of every modern weapon is designed for certain purposes.
But my question revolved around "assistant weapons"
So you would classify as rifle as a "assistant weapon" given its a light weapon. how does a rifle assist?
Edit:
I'm not trying to make you feel uncomfortable, I'm just trying to understand your logic and what your trying to say.
How would you use an Assault Rifle vs a tank? Light weapons typically don't work as well vs vehicles. Or were you trying to make some sideways statement regarding the class of weaponry instead of the relative targets? AV weaponry runs on a different tier than antipersonel. To my knowledge, there are no sidearm AV weapons, hence those are the lowest tier. it would be like having a gun that fires wide area flashbangs in infantry combat, that do little damage. VS a heavy, that damage is moot, but vs a scout, that would be devastating.
Okay let me clarify what I am asking...
First off you mentioned "Light weaponry that any class can equip. That's like asking where it says a scrambler pistol is an assistant weapon. It says sidearm, but not assistant." end quote.
So, you said light weapons are considered assistant weapons. So that includes rifles, mass drivers, and basically anything that is light weaponry. So you were mentioning weapons not relevant to the targets, I just complied to it given the comment of sidearms and light weapons.
So From what you said, "light weaponry that any class can equip" would include assault rifles, and ect.
What I'm asking is how does one label a weapon an "assistant weapon"? Understand the reason we call weapons "weapons" is that they are designed to kill not to assist kills. That why they call it a weapon.
Further more How does AV run on different tiers than anti-personal? We have tiers of milita, basic, advance, and proto.
Edit: Also keep in mind, whats the purpose of having a assist weapons if another weapon is designed to kill the target better? You'd be better of having two Anti Vehicle weapons than 1 anti vehicle weapon and 1 assistant weapon. |
Minor Treat
RisingSuns Dark Taboo
247
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 07:39:00 -
[7] - Quote
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Minor Treat wrote:Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Minor Treat wrote: Well technically a pistol is what you call a sidearm because it on your side. I'm a marine and doesn't make any sense to call a weapon a assistant weapon.
As for when weapons are used. Yes you are right, if used correctly the weapon should be devastating as each make and model of every modern weapon is designed for certain purposes.
But my question revolved around "assistant weapons"
So you would classify as rifle as a "assistant weapon" given its a light weapon. how does a rifle assist?
Edit:
I'm not trying to make you feel uncomfortable, I'm just trying to understand your logic and what your trying to say.
How would you use an Assault Rifle vs a tank? Light weapons typically don't work as well vs vehicles. Or were you trying to make some sideways statement regarding the class of weaponry instead of the relative targets? AV weaponry runs on a different tier than antipersonel. To my knowledge, there are no sidearm AV weapons, hence those are the lowest tier. it would be like having a gun that fires wide area flashbangs in infantry combat, that do little damage. VS a heavy, that damage is moot, but vs a scout, that would be devastating. Okay let me clarify what I am asking... First off you mentioned "Light weaponry that any class can equip. That's like asking where it says a scrambler pistol is an assistant weapon. It says sidearm, but not assistant." end quote. So, you said light weapons are considered assistant weapons. So that includes rifles, mass drivers, swarm launchers, and basically anything that is light weaponry. So you were mentioning weapons not relevant to the targets, I just complied to it given the comment of sidearms and light weapons. But based on your response you want to focus on anti-vehicle weapons, which in that case I don't know why you brought up sidearms. What I'm asking is how does one label a weapon an "assistant weapon"? Understand the reason we call weapons "weapons" is that they are designed to kill not to assist kills. That why they call it a weapon. Further more How does AV run on different tiers than anti-personal? We have tiers of milita, basic, advance, and proto. Edit: Also keep in mind, whats the purpose of having a assist weapons if another weapon is designed to kill the target better? You'd be better of having two Anti Vehicle weapons than 1 anti vehicle weapon and 1 assistant weapon. First thing is that more than half of this quote is basically saying that the sideways tier comparisons are confusing you. Possibly, I wrote it in an awkward manner, and I'm not sure how to untangle what may already be there if you were not already following what I was saying, so instead I'll have to move forward a bit. AV weapons deal with an entirely different tier of damage, the minimum being around 800 Damage per shot, which is a STD swarm, then upwards from there. Infantry weapons start at about 20 damage per shot and work upwards. The damage is scaled toward different targets, infantry having a max of about 400-1800 or so HP, and vehicles which can have 2000- 7000 HP. They therefore cannot be treated under the same balancing measures, because of the damage requirements each one holds. This in turn creates different tiers in damage output, but because they are on their own tiers, they have to be inspected separately. (This separation is the reason swarms need to lock-on, and AV grenades are generally only of use against vehicles.) Assistant weapons generally have a concept of "wound" "maim" or "disable". For infantry such a weapon might be a net, poison, glue, or a weapon that might be able to damage muscle movement such as a taser, but for vehicles the category of "wound'' isn't really there because they aren't alive, but you can maim the ability of the repairs by inhibiting it a tad using swarms. In this particular example with the repairs tank, the swarms would be effective at assisting either one another, or a different type of AV because they would have to assist one another to overcome the repair ratios. Okay, that makes a lot more sense of what your trying to say.
But I am going to be respectfully blunt, I just don't agree with it.
The concept of "wound" or disable to vehicle makes sense until you understand that wounding a triple rep tank basically means you wound him for only 1 second before he completely repped up. That window of opportunity is simply too small unless your using combined arms but that's still only 1 second opportunity.
Now the concept of disable is interesting if it actually disabled the vehicle from moving (disable is more appropriate term than wounding). Now I understand why you call it assistant weaponry but I think the term your mean to use is "Elusive Attacks" which basically means if you can't take them down by force you take them down by means of overcoming their defenses passively. For example attacks like Poison, gas, or anyway to cripple the enemy would be a elusive attack. Essentially engaging while enemy is in a continual weaken state.
Tasers are something else entirely called non-lethal. Used specially to put down targets but to keep them alive. Tasers are not used in warfare because the objective is to kill the enemy.
Now when it comes to Vehicles there is weapons that destroy or support destroying them. These supports are equipment based like the guided laser targets painters. They are passive aggressive. Aggressive weapons are essentially what you see in everyday shooters to take down vehicles like rocket launchers, RPGS, Javelin, Forge Guns, Ect.
So Swarms Launchers are aggressive weapons but offer only 1 second of opportunity to allow concentrated fire. This is not supporting nor is it elusive. Its simply aggressive which means that the weapons design is to destroy it target. |
Minor Treat
RisingSuns Dark Taboo
247
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 08:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote:ZDub 303 wrote:It just blows my mind that people cannot see how overpowered triple reps are...
I like the idea of active tanking, its good that gallente tanks are favoring this form of play... however.. a tank should not be completely invulnerable to any form of AV. Strong against it? Sure, but given sufficient time an AVer should be able to kill a tank standing still.
This is just complete nonsense that people are actually trying to argue this is okay...
smh... It's not overpowering on a suit but it is on a vehicle , I know it's not the same thing but I keep reading that's what the Gal's are suppose to do and with the changes to the vehicle hardeners ... this should be expected , It's not undefeatable for a match but more so for a single encounter by someone with anything less than a FG . Now that's one person but two to three with swarmer's can perform the task of destroying the tank . I just don't see what's so hard to understand as well as the fact that there is a skill that increases the rep rate , so everyone's triple rep doesn't rep the same ... just like there is a skill for the recharge rate for the shield . Some have put in the SP's to help to make their vehicle more effective . The anti-vehicle situation has gotten much better since the changes to the rail range and the hardeners , if they changed the rest of the mods .. i.e. stacking penalties on everything and that's like rangers , dampeners and enhancers for the infantry skill tree like was suggested before .. then you would place this back into the 1.6 zone where as soon as any swarms were shot the tank had to retreat , where as this is still the case but not as exaggerated like in 1.6 with dam militia swarms even . You have R.E's , P.M's , flux and anti-vehicle grenades , swarms and forge gun's .. plus to a lesser degree the plasma cannon . Anti-vehicle has more than enough reliable options but yet , people act like there isn't because you can't on a constant .. take out a tank one on one . To be honest , all you have to do is grab a forge gun and you will . Well here is the problem with this argument
Tanks repair every 1 second with triple reps its alot of health back in a second. Essentially it removes the one Aver from the damage because each volley requires 2 seconds for each volley of swarms. So essentially That is two Prototype health repairs in each volley. The third Swarm Launcher is the only one really doing damage at all.
Most tankers don't relize it but your usually not only getting hit by swarms but AV grenades too. The swarm launchers reload time is 4 seconds long. But AV grenades are not our focus.
Now to take down 1 Tanks of triple reps requires 3 players with Swarms which mean that they essentially require 20% of the enemy team to take down one tank. Pull in two Tanks with the same fittings, and this will double the amount of AV players required to take down another tank which is 40% of the enemy team.
By bring in two tanks you can force enemy combatants to require half of their forces to take down two players in tanks, while your forces are still 90% focused on infantry and objectives. |
Minor Treat
RisingSuns Dark Taboo
247
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 08:19:00 -
[9] - Quote
Vin Vicious wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Not a dev, just a player.
Someone said one AV guy shouldn't be able to solo a tank. Sure I see that. And I can scare one of those guys away in my proAV fit, maybe. But when it's three tanks, you need at least 6 guys to deploy in AV gear, to scare them away unless AV unites against one tank and instapops one at a time.
In a pub, that's never going to happen.
Every pub game I have played in maps where a tank can truly affect the battle, is won by the team with madrepper superiority. The balance is way better in non tanky maps right now. Sadly I don't see a lot of tank v tank battles either which is probably what tankers desire.
This is a difficult problem and I know we have spent a lot of time on this internally
1) KDR of tanker vs non-tanker 2) ISK efficiency vs elite tanker comparable to elite assault player 3a) proto AV vs proto tanker 3b) proto AV vs standard tanker 3c) average AV needed to rapidly destroy a tank without tank recourse (2v1, 3v1, 4v1) 4) measuring the best tankers who are in the spotlight (very few) versus normal tankers who don't so so well 5) efficiency against infantry 6) nades and re's requre non slayer specialization, so AV is pretty inaccessible to majority of players.
Instead of more tankers v nontankers, what are some simple ways to balance this?
You could simply remove all tiers of AV and leave militia and basic than balance tanks vs AV Removing tanks from ambush would also dwindle down much of the threads complaining about tanks I agree with this.
Most AV issue revolve around prototype AV vs Basic Vehicle. I think that has a lot to do with current balance issues. You could still have Variants just with smaller values of damage and effectiveness compared to the current assault and breach variants of AVs.
For example:
Keep the Assault Forge Gun but bring it to a more balance AV level for Vehicles and remove prototype. Than as you guy introduce Advance vehicles and prototype vehicles bring in the AVs of Advance and prototype at the same time. |
Minor Treat
RisingSuns Dark Taboo
247
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 08:26:00 -
[10] - Quote
Minor Treat wrote:Vin Vicious wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Not a dev, just a player.
Someone said one AV guy shouldn't be able to solo a tank. Sure I see that. And I can scare one of those guys away in my proAV fit, maybe. But when it's three tanks, you need at least 6 guys to deploy in AV gear, to scare them away unless AV unites against one tank and instapops one at a time.
In a pub, that's never going to happen.
Every pub game I have played in maps where a tank can truly affect the battle, is won by the team with madrepper superiority. The balance is way better in non tanky maps right now. Sadly I don't see a lot of tank v tank battles either which is probably what tankers desire.
This is a difficult problem and I know we have spent a lot of time on this internally
1) KDR of tanker vs non-tanker 2) ISK efficiency vs elite tanker comparable to elite assault player 3a) proto AV vs proto tanker 3b) proto AV vs standard tanker 3c) average AV needed to rapidly destroy a tank without tank recourse (2v1, 3v1, 4v1) 4) measuring the best tankers who are in the spotlight (very few) versus normal tankers who don't so so well 5) efficiency against infantry 6) nades and re's requre non slayer specialization, so AV is pretty inaccessible to majority of players.
Instead of more tankers v nontankers, what are some simple ways to balance this?
You could simply remove all tiers of AV and leave militia and basic than balance tanks vs AV Removing tanks from ambush would also dwindle down much of the threads complaining about tanks I agree with this. Most AV issue revolve around prototype AV vs Basic Vehicle. I think that has a lot to do with current balance issues. You could still have Variants just with smaller values of damage and effectiveness compared to the current assault and breach variants of AVs. For example: Keep the Assault Forge Gun but bring it to a more balance AV level for Vehicles and remove prototype. Than as you guy introduce Advance vehicles and prototype vehicles bring in the AVs of Advance and prototype at the same time. Currently your infantry Warfare is pretty spot on, at least infantry combat is improving a lot.
Vehicle's have been reworked from the ground up but Anti-vehicles were not reworked which is probably why the current implementation of Vehicle vs Anti-vehicles warfare is constantly brought up in the community forums. |
|
Minor Treat
RisingSuns Dark Taboo
247
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 09:04:00 -
[11] - Quote
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote:Minor Treat wrote:
Keep the Assault Forge Gun but bring it to a more balance AV level for Vehicles and remove prototype. Than as you guy introduce Advance vehicles and prototype vehicles bring in the AVs of Advance and prototype at the same time.
Leave the forge gun alone , that's what's wrong with this game the constant direction changing , leave tiericide out of the picture with the remove this and that tier and combine this and that ... just work with making what you have better than it is now and the forge guns are fine . The reality comes down to Vehicles are forced to fit into a game where Prototype and advance Anti-Vehicles already exist. Either add in prototype Vehicles or remove variants to mainstream the game a little further. Vehicles were reworked from the ground up, So should the Anti-vehicles.
To it top, the attempts to keep trying to fit Vehicles and anti-vehicles have been going on for months now. Expecting different results by doing the same thing over and over again is insane. AV's I think need to be reworked so they fit into vehicular warfare and infantry together. |
Minor Treat
RisingSuns Dark Taboo
247
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 09:09:00 -
[12] - Quote
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Minor Treat wrote: Okay, that makes a lot more sense of what your trying to say.
But I am going to be respectfully blunt, I just don't agree with it.
The concept of "wound" or disable to vehicle makes sense until you understand that wounding a triple rep tank basically means you wound him for only 1 second before he completely repped up. That window of opportunity is simply too small unless your using combined arms but that's still only 1 second opportunity.
Now the concept of disable is interesting if it actually disabled the vehicle from moving (disable is more appropriate term than wounding). Now I understand why you call it assistant weaponry but I think the term your mean to use is "Elusive Attacks" which basically means if you can't take them down by force you take them down by means of overcoming their defenses passively. For example attacks like Poison, gas, or anyway to cripple the enemy would be a elusive attack. Essentially engaging while enemy is in a continual weaken state.
Tasers are something else entirely called non-lethal. Used specially to put down targets but to keep them alive. Tasers are not used in warfare because the objective is to kill the enemy.
Now when it comes to Vehicles there is weapons that destroy or support destroying them. These supports are equipment based like the guided laser targets painters. They are passive aggressive. Aggressive weapons are essentially what you see in everyday shooters to take down vehicles like rocket launchers, RPGS, Javelin, Forge Guns, Ect.
So Swarms Launchers are aggressive weapons but offer only 1 second of opportunity to allow concentrated fire. This is not supporting nor is it elusive. Its simply aggressive which means that the weapons design is to destroy it target.
Tazers will be implemented into the game, if the game plan stays as-is. A class of equipment called webifiers may one day be put to the field, the purpose of such is to slow down enemies by slightly paralyzing them. Also, swarms can overcome any Tank that has 2 or fewer repair modules, so the issue with swarms is only for one variant of defense on the tank.
I did see the Fanfest presentation.
So I saw the webifiers and I saw the Energy drainers. If they introduce webifiers than a lot of the Anti-vehicle issue's would be changed in terms of variables.
But I never saw anything about tazers though, you mind providing a link or a youtube video with the timestamp on it? |
|
|
|