Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
967
   |
Posted - 2014.05.23 15:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
XxGhazbaranxX wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Well, the intent was to both recognize that and take steps to adress it by buffing AV through grenades and the PLC while reducing the Blaster efficiency against infantry. You also have to take into consideration that tanking is too cheap at the moment. When tanks get destroyed it doesnt have a huge impact on the one running it because they are not expensive.... On the other hand when I lose my 525k dropship I feel it and that means I go negative for the next 3 matches minimum.
It does have a very large impact thank you very much. The only way I could manage staying isk positive is NOT losing them every match, but I'm also a very experience driver.
I will say that Soma's and Sica's need a price increase to better reflect their power.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
969
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 17:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
Himiko Kuronaga wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Well, the intent was to both recognize that and take steps to adress it by buffing AV through grenades and the PLC while reducing the Blaster efficiency against infantry. The blaster is worthless against other tanks in a serious battle. This will just further solidify the rail as being the only viable turret in the game. If you were going to cripple large blasters versus infantry then you needed to do the following. 1. Cripple the Rail's rate of fire. (OR reduce the effectiveness of rail damage mods) 2. Cripple the blaster's accuracy. (like the old scatter cannons, but a bit more extreme) 3. GREATLY boost the blasters damage output against vehicles. 4. Increase damage to Missiles. 5. Slightly increase range to Rail's. This would have ensured every large turret type was usable against vehicles at the highest tier of competition within their range of choice. Currently if you don't run rail, you're either suppressing infantry or being worthless. Removing the one thing blasters do is going to make that a lot more black and white.
I completely disagree with that first statement. Blasters ARE NOT USELESS against other vehicles, particularly shield vehicles. But when faced with a rails, I do understand how it can seem that way.
Boosting the blaster damage while crippling the rails, I think, would shift the power in the blaster madrudgers favor. Making it the new OP go to fit. Not only could you take out infantry MUCH easier, but gunnlogis would crumble in seconds. Madrudgers would be king again.
This make me wonder, does the problem lay within the turrets themselves, or perhaps the tanks? I do see the turrets as a problem, but not in the way most other do. The problem I see is that the turrets are too static, as well as tanks.
You have a single blaster, that is trying to fulfill the role of AV, while maintaining effectiveness in the AI department. Missiles are OP against armor, but crap against hardened shields. And rails are the end to any vehicle.
Where is our AV blaster for dealing with tanks?
Where is our long range siege rail, extreme range and low damage?
Wtf can we do about missiles (these have ALWAYS been lost)
Where is the variety? We need to quit trying to cram everything into the 3 turret types and actually create turrets with specific roles.
For example, let's take the rails.
-High damage, short range, low rate of fire, slower tracking. Let's call this the shotgun rail. Kinda like what we got now, this is our brawler. Range of 250m sounds about right
-Low damage, Long range, High rate of fire, Decent tracking. Our siege rails. They won't outright kill targets, but soften them for other tankers on the field, or AV. Though concentrate enough fire and you can take out targets.
Or blasters
-AI, Short range, does more damage to infantry and less to vehicles, good tracking. Think 100M range max, and damage cut in half against vehicles. Want to improve your AV capabilities, slap small turrets on it and call in some gunners.
-AV, double range of the AI, reduced effectiveness against infantry and full damage to vehicles, good tracking. So 200M range, does basically no damage to infantry, but decent damage output to vehicles. The key here though is the range.
Currently, a blaster can easily drop infantry out to 200M even if they are applying less damage due to the range. But hit a vehicle at that range and it barely scratches the paint. The most useful AV attribute is RANGE I believe when it comes to turrets.
Variety, that's what is missing. Things need to be broke down into smaller parts and quit trying to fulfill multiple roles. Or something like that. It just seems to me that we need more to balance against to help normalize numbers. Like AV needs variants, tanks need that too.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
969
|
Posted - 2014.05.26 17:35:00 -
[3] - Quote
Derrith Erador wrote:
My personal opinion is that ADS and tanks, when fully spec'd into, shouldn't take one guy with a set of proto swarms to kill.
They should have to work for that kill, for sure. Even if I go AV now, while my swarms won't kill them, it certainly gives them pause and reduces the time they can stick with an engagement.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
970
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 22:43:00 -
[4] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Vehicle damage mods get mentioned a lot. Let's address a little bit later. Reducing Vehicle Damage mod bonuses, to bring them back in line with the Hardener Nerf, would have a couple benefits. - It would increase TTK for tank battles. A tank battle that is over in 2 or 3 shots before you can react is frustrating. A tank battle where a tank is killed in 4 or 5 shots while each tank tries to out manoeuver the other, is quite fun even if you end up losing the engagement. A tank battle where a you put 7 or 8 shots into a tank and it gets away is getting frustrating again.
I'm more about having a tank battle that lasts most of a full clip. While before the major tank changes, a typical tank fight would go something like 7 or 8 shots and the tank gets away, yes frustrating.
Now though, I don't think it's nearly as bad as you do get something for your efforts, WP. I really don't know if 4 to 5 shots from a rail could really be considered a very long engagement. While it would give you time to react and disrupt their shots, you can almost count on the first 2 landing, meaning they just need 2 to 3 more shots. That's like 3 more seconds above the current TTK.
The way I imagine it is that a rail would need to actually watch overheat for one on one engagements. Right now the only thing overheat limits are the number of tanks I can blow up before needing to cooldown for the next one. One clip atm is like 3 dead tanks, stacking damage mods.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|