|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lorhak Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
3382
   |
Posted - 2014.06.05 12:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
Pretty much no-one disputes that the railgun is the king of HAV combat, and those that do are a bit confused.
I don't think anyone feels this is a sensible state of affairs.
What I propose is this, in general terms. Nerf railguns by 20% DPS (for example). Nerf blasters by 30% (for example). Nerf missiles by 20% (or some number that will make it exceedingly difficult to instagib HAVs, cut their reload time by some enormous number (like 50%) and increase their ammunition capacity by a number proportionate to the reload time decrease.
This would hopefully lead to longer tank battles that offer a variety of tactics to achieve victory, and also allow room for things like the nerfing of passive repair modules; at the moment the state of the turrets means that any lesser repair quantity is practically pointless.
Hopefully longer battles would allow lower rep amounts to be relevant.
Or perhaps you disagree?
BlowoutForCPM
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
3387
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 14:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
I actually think damage mods would be fine if the base damage wasn't so high.
BlowoutForCPM
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
3390
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 16:34:00 -
[3] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Pretty much no-one disputes that the railgun is the king of HAV combat, and those that do are a bit confused.
I don't think anyone feels this is a sensible state of affairs.
What I propose is this, in general terms. Nerf railguns by 20% DPS (for example). Nerf blasters by 30% (for example). Nerf missiles by 20% (or some number that will make it exceedingly difficult to instagib HAVs, cut their reload time by some enormous number (like 50%) and increase their ammunition capacity by a number proportionate to the reload time decrease.
This would hopefully lead to longer tank battles that offer a variety of tactics to achieve victory, and also allow room for things like the nerfing of passive repair modules; at the moment the state of the turrets means that any lesser repair quantity is practically pointless.
Hopefully longer battles would allow lower rep amounts to be relevant.
Or perhaps you disagree? Have you stopped tanking? A long battle against a competent pilot is like having teeth pulled with no novocaine. It never ends, and whoever screws up first is the first to perish.
I hardly think 20% is a sufficiently significant increase in TTK to end up with battles lasting significantly longer than they do now.
Considering how quickly fights end these days, that is.
The fights I've engaged in recently have in no way been as long as they were in 1.6 and prior; tank battles are over in almost a heartbeat these days, and it really screws with balancing. DPS has to be high, which means regeneration and defenses have to be similarly high, which makes it really difficult to balance infantry AV successfully.
I have no interest in being one-shotted. Neither, I imagine, do you.
But what I'm seeing is this current meta ending in HAVs without defenses activated being destroyed in the time it takes for a triple rep Madrugar to get assfucked by a damage modded XT.
Furthermore, 'whoever screws up first' is always without exception the loser in the fights. Sometimes your mistake was to engage in the first place.
BlowoutForCPM
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
3393
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 17:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:I like the way your going with this . But I'd increase the range on rails to 400m as they are supposed to be the longest range weponary but at the moment all they have is an extra 50m on top of missile range and 50m is nothing for a tank. I would also give missiles back their old burst fire say 4 missiles per volly.
What I was thinking was also adding a rail variant (we'll call it 'regulated' for now) that has, say, half the damage, 25% higher RoF and 450m range. Also zero splash.
That way we have a long range harassment rail, as well as a close range demolisher.
But yes, if not that, then definitely increase the range to 400m.
I'm not really a fan of burst fire on missiles, don't really see the point. Essentially the only difference would be that the damage would be spread out a little more. They'd be pretty much the same thing as rails in that scenario, I think. I actually quite like the full-auto; I do think their spread should be tightened and their drop off removed, though.
As for blasters, I think they could comfortably take a significant nerf in DPS. Make them poor against vehicles, but decent against infantry (so tighten the dispersion to about 80m instead of its current 40m).
Spkr4theDead wrote:I had no problem with the tank fights before Uprising. But I guess infantry wanted to be able to one-shot a Surya with Darkside swarms on the MLT starter fit too, so they had tanks nerfed.
You really do like absurd hyperbole, don't you?
I have never seen anyone claim they wanted to solo anything at all with Darkside swarms, and I've never seen anyone claiming an MLT starter fit should ever solo any vehicles except MLT free LAVs.
You are, almost singlehandedly, the reason that HAV pilots have a reputation on these forums as unreasonable and over-entitled.
BlowoutForCPM
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
3394
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 17:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
calisk galern wrote:Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Pretty much no-one disputes that the railgun is the king of HAV combat, and those that do are a bit confused.
I don't think anyone feels this is a sensible state of affairs.
What I propose is this, in general terms. Nerf railguns by 20% DPS (for example). Nerf blasters by 30% (for example). Nerf missiles by 20% (or some number that will make it exceedingly difficult to instagib HAVs, cut their reload time by some enormous number (like 50%) and increase their ammunition capacity by a number proportionate to the reload time decrease.
This would hopefully lead to longer tank battles that offer a variety of tactics to achieve victory, and also allow room for things like the nerfing of passive repair modules; at the moment the state of the turrets means that any lesser repair quantity is practically pointless.
Hopefully longer battles would allow lower rep amounts to be relevant.
Or perhaps you disagree? it has always been rail for tanks blaster for infantry and missiles as an in between that can fill both roles. it's to soon to tell how the blaster nerf will change these roles but from what I saw yesterday the blaster is still the king of anti-infantry
It always has been 'what', exactly?
Rail is better than missiles for everything at all.
Blaster is better for infantry and arguably comparable for AV.
Blasters are the reason HAVs are having these issues at the moment
Large turret DPS is the reason we're having these issues at the moment.
Nerf large turret DPS, nerf Large Blasters, then Heavy Armour Repairers can be cut. Then AV will pretty much automatically be balanced.
Tank v tank is in a good place.
Tank v infantry is in a bad place.
Tank v infantry's poor current interaction is primarily due (thanks to the hardener nerf) to the large blaster's devastating power vs infantry, and the heavy armour repairer's ability to out-rep the sustained DPS of all infantry AV means there's no easy counter.
Nerfing large turrets means we can nerf hardeners, which means infantry AV is more effective.
Nerfing large Blasters means the AI role can perform in its niche while not interfering with the AV roles of missiles or rails (where rails are primary AV, presumably).
It's half past three, so I'm not 100% sure that was coherent. But it's there.
BlowoutForCPM
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
3396
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 18:32:00 -
[6] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:I had no problem with the tank fights before Uprising. But I guess infantry wanted to be able to one-shot a Surya with Darkside swarms on the MLT starter fit too, so they had tanks nerfed.
You really do like absurd hyperbole, don't you?
Lynn Beck wrote:Buff tank HP, nerf repairs. Alot.
It's straight up ******** i need to either alpha their ass with a 1500 isk remote explosive set, or spend 190k Isk running lv3 prof/reload/ammo and commando 5 minmatar JUST to kill a non-sica/soma tank in a reasonable time(2 clips and a shot to 6 clips, **** man)
It should be possible to solo tanks, and tanks should, well tank.
Give tanks base Hp of like 20k, but a regen of like 50, make them use repair tools or shield boosters to stay in the field longer.
Then it takes me 3 clips to kill still, sure, but at least you're hurting, and won't be able to infinitely tank up to 6/7 ENTIRE CLIPS.
I agree with you in theory, but your numbers don't really make sense :P
for starters, this would actually make AVing harder - a triple hardened Gunnlogi had 20k EHP in 1.7, before regen.
But yeah, in theory I agree.
I don't think that's the whole story, in any way, shape or form.
Why is it that infantry feels the need to efficiently destroy HAVs?
Because a HAV can decimate them.
Reduce the ability of HAVs to destroy infantry, and you reduce the necessity of alpha-killing a tank.
When it's no longer necessary to kill a tank by alpha, make it so that it's possible to kill it through sustained DPS.
Preferably do them at the same time, but not in the other order.
I have no problem with people soloing tanks; I have a huge problem with my 2.8M fitting (or hell, even my 500k fitting like my old Scattered Blaster fitting, or however expensive it was) being destroyed from beyond my render distance.
Now they the rendering issue is mostly fixed (thanks to a rather ham-fisted nerf, but apparently that's the only way to do it, but whatever) the AV balance can change.
Buffing AV is not an option, so changing the way AV interacts with HAVs is the way to balanceZ
simply nerfing one item does not fix the problem; it would simply make a whole raft of new ones. This is why I think a whole numerical balance pass should be conducted on HAV turrets and some modules.
Delta 749 wrote:So after crying for a year against infantry AV tankers now turn on each other in their quest to be invulnerable
Um, do you actually know how to read?
Because I'm really wondering.
Consider yourself blocked.
Assault Swarm Launcher wrote:Sadly, that is the sadistic nature of the cannibalistic Pilot community.
Yes, because I'm trying to be invulnerable.
That is exactly why I'm suggesting all vehicle weapons get nerfed, and our most effective countermeasure be reduced.
Makes perfect sense.
Did you fail your elementary reading comprehension tests?
Enjoy current irrelevance and future removal, ASL.
BlowoutForCPM
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
3396
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 18:39:00 -
[7] - Quote
calisk galern wrote:Delta 749 wrote:So after crying for a year against infantry AV tankers now turn on each other in their quest to be invulnerable some tankers like myself only tank to blow tanks up. it's not uncommon for true tankers and AV tankers to come to a head. killing infantry is just the mini-game I play while the other side calls in more tanks or jihad lav's I'm pretty sure most people with swarm launchers are just trying to farm points off of damaging my tank....but then I wonder why they bother bringing proto suits and proto swarms.....
Most tankers only tank to blow up other tanks.
You're not special in that respect.
The issue is that once you do that there's nothing else to kill except infantry.
And to utilise your SP you need to kill them.
Which means optimising a fitting for AI, or the 'mini game' as you put it.
The only tankers I can think of that tank to kill infantry are the stat padders like duna or those Nyain guys who run ion Maddies in ambush all day erry day.
Killing infantry is dull. That's what my rifle is for.
BlowoutForCPM
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
3401
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 03:17:00 -
[8] - Quote
Eko Sol wrote:Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Pretty much no-one disputes that the railgun is the king of HAV combat, and those that do are a bit confused.
I don't think anyone feels this is a sensible state of affairs.
What I propose is this, in general terms. Nerf railguns by 20% DPS (for example). Nerf blasters by 30% (for example). Nerf missiles by 20% (or some number that will make it exceedingly difficult to instagib HAVs, cut their reload time by some enormous number (like 50%) and increase their ammunition capacity by a number proportionate to the reload time decrease.
This would hopefully lead to longer tank battles that offer a variety of tactics to achieve victory, and also allow room for things like the nerfing of passive repair modules; at the moment the state of the turrets means that any lesser repair quantity is practically pointless.
Hopefully longer battles would allow lower rep amounts to be relevant.
Or perhaps you disagree? This is nuts. I can't believe you basically insulted every skilled vehicle user in the game. You basically state that if vehicles did less damage then there would be more variety of tactics to winning vehicle vs vehicle battles. You are implying that just anyone can get in a tank and beat other tankers because the tactics pool is limited.
I actually didn't 'basically' state that at all.
That was pretty explicit, I thought.
I was in a match against a couple of PC-experienced veteran tankers the other week; I had swapped my Particle Gunnlogi with a squad-mate's double damage Sica. When we realised those two were on the other side he hung out in the redline and spotted a bit, and covered home-point a bit more.
I wrapped around and destroyed both of their particle cannon tanks. Then I killed another one of their tanks when they called a new one in.
Then I called in my own tank (as in my particle cannon) and proceeded to top the board with 8-0. I would never suggest that I'm 'better' than one of those guys, and definitely not better than two, but it pretty clearly shows that there is little benefit save versatility to investing in higher tiered modules.
Numnutz and Sinboto wrote:
Honestly if you had to charge before every shot with a rail tank the entire vehicle world would change for the better.
I actually don't see what that would fix. All that's doing is cutting the DPS really awkwardly. I have a nasty feeling that doing that would just emphasise the multitude of railgun bugs; they seem to be more pronounced when you have to press the trigger repeatedly.
BlowoutForCPM
|
|
|
| |
|