|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance
989
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 18:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:We will be trying to make simple tweaks to make this game more fun and fair for everyone. Let me just kick of the discussion by paraphrasing a few common complaints.
1) Cheap glass cannons are too effective 2) Dmg modifiers need to be brought into the fold after hardener nerf 3) Madrugal triple reppers are too effective 4) Very high top speed allows many vehicles to blast into cover and rep to full health at very little risk 5) Shield tanking is less viable than armor right now
Let me also clarify, our stated design goals are for Large Blasters to be for a short range Anti-Vehicle role with Infantry suppression while Small Blasters are intended to be for an Anti-Infantry role.
The floor is open.
1) Cheap glass cannons, you have them because the modules are time based. Rather than scaling the effectiveness of mods, all you get is an increase in active time or shorter cooldowns. For instance, damage mods provide 30% ACROSS THE BOARD. When a battle last less than 5 seconds, what use is the extra cooldown time or any extra uptime?
I say, mods cooldown and uptime, SHOULD BE THE SAME ACROSS THE BOARD. In this way, the 2 skills that affect uptime and cooldown time can be utilized by real tankers then scale the mods from there. Maybe tweak those skills a little too eh.
For example:
Shield hardener Std - 20% at 25 seconds Adv - 25% at 25 seconds Pro - 30% at 25 seconds
Get the picture. Why use the proto version when all I need is the STD version, as it provides the exact same benefit at a MUCH reduced cost.
2) Damage mods, this is a no brainer. I can personally attest to how incredibly useless hardeners are when it comes to hunting other tanks. While a tank may stack as many hardeners as they please, it's STILL only 2 to 3 shots for my double damage modded setup, with all active. Additionally, while I may be weak on the shield side, using damage mods allows me to stack armor in the lows, meaning a triple hardened fit will need more shots to drop me in kind.
Honestly though, I really feel damage need to come down on turrets as a whole. Is dropping another tank in 5 shots NOT USING DEFENSES really too much to ask for? We need time to actually use SKILL in a tank battle.
3) I have a piece up on the forums that does mention this, that I imagine you have read already. Increase how often reps are applied, IE every 3 to 5 seconds or greater. It's very simple and easy, and I really feel that would have the largest impact with them.
It would place a bit less importance on having triple reps and more on a plate to mitigate the damage for reps to heal. And would also mean they have to disengage FAR more often from their enemies to survive.
4) As I've mentioned before as well, the speed is fine. It's the fact that you can go from 0 to 100 in the blink of the eye that poses the largest problem. Increasing the time it takes to reach max speed is the way to go here. A tank would have to react and back away from a dangerous situation much earlier, decreasing their total time in an engagement. Or be destroyed, like it used to be before these stupid tank "Improvements" came about.
5) What? Shield tanks are my babies, and always have been. Those noobs need to learn to drive, is all I have to say. But I can see a little truth to this.
-Shield booster don't work properly
-Turret depression makes a HUGE difference (A maddie can easily shoot from cover while a shield tank must position themselves at a downward angle. Fix this please so that only the blaster has that kind of turret depression)
-Incredibly low eHP in comparison to the maddie, and a pathetic one time use heal that just doesn't help with damage mitigation
I run a double damage mod, nitro fit, stacking armor in the lows. I have killed MANY shield and armor tanks. Armor tanks though ALWAYS require more shots than a shield tank to drop. Which leads me to believe that yes, they are a bit OP when compared to the gunnlogi, but not by a huge margin.
6) Large blasters are good AV weapons against shield tanks, but against armor they seem to fizzle out. This is part due to the fact that armor tanks are very tough to start with (without fittings) and those damned reps the possess. Now I personally have not had the chance to try the blaster after you fixed them (rocky mountain spotted fever is really taking a toll on my brain) so I can't comment on them much, nor have I seen many speak of their infantry effectiveness.
Or did you leave the large blaster changes out? Sorry, heads been very fuzzy of late, hope to get better soon and provide a more thorough analysis.
I will say though that anything you do is simply putting a bandaid on a gushing wound. Tanks were stripped to nothing, with the intention to rebuild them in future patches, and then forgotten with that pathetic thing they call "legion". Unless you address the fact that they are unfinished products, I really don't see much coming from tanks or even vehicles for that matter. They will still remain very easy, unskilled items in the game in comparison to what infantry is.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance
989
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 18:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ryme Intrinseca wrote:You realize that increasing vehicle-vehicle TTK is essentially a buff to vehicles and a nerf to infantry? At present the only realistic counters to high SP tanks and ADSes are burst damage (e.g. railgun tank with damage mods). If you remove these counters by increasing TTK, high SP vehicle users will be in full time infantry farming mode.
This is very untrue. The more time tanks spend dealing with one another, the less time they have to deal with infantry. Sides, only the blaster causes true devastation, while the other two types require much skill to properly counter infantry with.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance
989
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 18:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jaysyn Larrisen wrote: 3) Just curious...is is possible to tweak the reticle for small turrets?
That reticle makes a bigger difference than most think!
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance
989
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 18:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:Stacking pilot skills in ADS to get 100% RoF instead of 50% makes vehicle TTK too low. You can kill basically every vehicle in the game in a single pass that way. Please remove pilot stacking from ADS and only use the highest skill of the pilot or gunner, not both
This **** seriously needs to be addressed. There is no reason skills should every stack like this.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance
990
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 13:46:00 -
[5] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:manboar thunder fist wrote: Does billybob bobbybill's 41 million SP in dropsuits make him unkillable to infantry? HELL NAW
That is not a productive statement, but it is awesome. +1
Umm, more often then not, a MLT dropsuit doesn't hardly stand a chance against a proto suit one vs one. So you are saying that MLT tanks need to stand up one vs one to a proto tank?
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance
990
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 13:49:00 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:We propose the following: 1) Stacking penalties on Armor Repairers 2) Reduction and progression to Damage Amplifiers 3) Reduction of Large rail damage and ROF, increase of Heat Cost We won't change shield modules for tanks this time around, but with these changes Shield tanked vehicles should be more viable and Armor tanked a little less, such as the Madrugar and ADS. Here are the numbers: Numbers
I don't really like most of what is suggested here. I'll go into more detail later this afternoon. Damage, ROF AND heat cost. Are you crazy?
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance
993
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 19:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:We propose the following: 1) Stacking penalties on Armor Repairers 2) Reduction and progression to Damage Amplifiers 3) Reduction of Large rail damage and ROF, increase of Heat Cost We won't change shield modules for tanks this time around, but with these changes Shield tanked vehicles should be more viable and Armor tanked a little less, such as the Madrugar and ADS. Here are the numbers: Numbers I don't really like most of what is suggested here. I'll go into more detail later this afternoon. Damage, ROF AND heat cost. Are you crazy? It's all needed to bring them back to 1.6 levels. No railgun in 1.6 had everything like it does now. Railguns just can't have negligible heat costs, high RoF, AND high damage.
So all THREE variables need tweaked? I didn't have time to look at the numbers this morning, but now that I have seen them, it might not be all bad. But do all three really need to be changed?
Look, the biggest problem with rails that I have seen stem from the damage mods (and the fact there was no stacking penalty) and not the rail damage itself so much. I have run a double hardened / triple hardened fit against other fits similar to my own.
Without a damage mod, battles with other tanks (defense oriented tanks) take enough shots to reach overheat, or close to it, depending on driver skill. Which is why I think that changing all three variables is overkill. Let's just think about this for a moment.
When we change just one variable, the damage, you inadvertently affect the other two variables. Lower damage means more shots required to kill. Which means more shots to come closer to reaching the overheat. That's what we are talking about right, how a rail tanker must juggle his overheat to overcome it's adversary. (Keep in mind, pre 1.6 we had heatsinks to help us manage overheat)
So while changing all three variables might outright seem small, I believe they are far larger than they appear, given one affects the other 2. Rail damage seems rather large atm, but damage mods cloud the reality of the situation. That rails really are not as powerful as many make them out to be. Agreed that damage needs to come down, but changing so much outright seems overkill.
And there are other factors that need to be considered, namely how these changes would affect the tanks they are attached to. I feel that that an armor tank with a rail would greatly benefit from these changes while a gunnlogi would go back to being an underdog in comparison. Outright, a armor tank would beat the shield tank hands down as it is MUCH better at taking the damage, better turret depression for shooting behind cover, ect.
Then there comes the blaster, which already shreds unhardened shield tanks, and has a noticeable impact against hardeners. I see them being very effective against shield tanks, when an armor tank uses them. Even if said shield tank is using the rail.
I'm just worried that it is too much, and doesn't take enough consideration to the tank types. While maddies may not be as effective at triple reping, I've never had much problem with a rail on my gunnlogi against them in the first place. It's the maddies that use plates that stack high defenses in the form of HP that give me the most trouble, when I don't use damage mods.
I feel a lot of this would very much favor the maddie over the gunnlogi, even with a stacking penalty on reps.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance
993
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 22:21:00 -
[8] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:Harpyja wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:We propose the following: 1) Stacking penalties on Armor Repairers 2) Reduction and progression to Damage Amplifiers 3) Reduction of Large rail damage and ROF, increase of Heat Cost We won't change shield modules for tanks this time around, but with these changes Shield tanked vehicles should be more viable and Armor tanked a little less, such as the Madrugar and ADS. Here are the numbers: Numbers Yes, thank you! No more 0 SP Sicas two-shotting me And damage amps had no stacking penalties before, really? Well that was just dumb. No wonder those damned Gunnlogis could wipe out my extended hardened Gunnlogi shields in one shot, or insta kill my 4000 EHP Python. nerf to damage mod = nerf to missiles, no more killing shield tanks...
Oo, this is also something that needs consideration. Missiles are going to need a change to compensate, like faster reload. And why oh WHY do these things take the MOST skill points to use. They are a novelty and hardly one you want to show to your mother.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance
993
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 22:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:jaksol JAK darnson wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:We will be trying to make simple tweaks to make this game more fun and fair for everyone. Let me just kick of the discussion by paraphrasing a few common complaints.
1) Cheap glass cannons are too effective 2) Dmg modifiers need to be brought into the fold after hardener nerf 3) Madrugal triple reppers are too effective 4) Very high top speed allows many vehicles to blast into cover and rep to full health at very little risk 5) Shield tanking is less viable than armor right now
Let me also clarify, our stated design goals are for Large Blasters to be for a short range Anti-Vehicle role with Infantry suppression while Small Blasters are intended to be for an Anti-Infantry role.
The floor is open. also rails on armor tanks are 2 effective maby a bonus for using all caldary turrents on shield tanks, and all gallente turrents one armor tanks? Gallente made railguns................ no.
But caldari are long range snipers, duh.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance
993
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 02:21:00 -
[10] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:jaksol JAK darnson wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:We will be trying to make simple tweaks to make this game more fun and fair for everyone. Let me just kick of the discussion by paraphrasing a few common complaints.
1) Cheap glass cannons are too effective 2) Dmg modifiers need to be brought into the fold after hardener nerf 3) Madrugal triple reppers are too effective 4) Very high top speed allows many vehicles to blast into cover and rep to full health at very little risk 5) Shield tanking is less viable than armor right now
Let me also clarify, our stated design goals are for Large Blasters to be for a short range Anti-Vehicle role with Infantry suppression while Small Blasters are intended to be for an Anti-Infantry role.
The floor is open. also rails on armor tanks are 2 effective maby a bonus for using all caldary turrents on shield tanks, and all gallente turrents one armor tanks? Gallente made railguns................ no. But caldari are long range snipers, duh. 1: this exists2: rockets and torpedos exists. Yea, I call bullshit.
You missed my sarcasm, clearly. I'm aware of this, but consider also that caldari have crap missiles, so **** lore, lol.
Are you saying caldari get missiles and gallente get rails AND blasters. Not fair sir, not fair.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance
998
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 21:57:00 -
[11] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:Remove all railgun nerfs proposed for bravo.
The glass cannon fits are too powerful because of how effective damage mods are. Tweak those, then test out everything else. Even then, by itself it's still way too strong. This brings it back to 1.6 levels. Deal with it.
That's not entirely true. I know tankers keep asking for pre 1.6 stats, but we no longer have the stuff from 1.6. This thought process is backwards and illogical. It's a different time and place, dreaming of how things USED to be isn't productive.
While I agree that damage needs to come down, ROF and Heat should be untouched in the first go around just to see how things pan out. Ever actually TRY a railgun without a damage mod against a defense oriented tanker? Just last night, as I ran my double dam modded fit, my mods were down and I was forced to engage basically in a bare gunnlogi.
I won of course, but it took upwards to 5 shots (or more, good tankers are a rarity though) to drop the maddie / gunnlogis without the mods. So I really don't think that changing all of those variables are necessary. I would like a bit more proof, Godin, and less trolling from you.
Would bringing the rails back to 1.6 values REALLY be the best thing for rails. And have you stopped to consider a gunnlogi vs a maddie using a rail? Taking into consideration, plates, hardeners, PG/CPU, ect.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance
998
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 22:02:00 -
[12] - Quote
Joseph Ridgeson wrote:I find it curious how harshly Repairers were hit when stacking was seen as the biggest problem:
100 -> 80 (20%) 120 -> 90 (25%) 145 -> 110 (24.14%)
CCP has a tendency of nerfing too many things at once. "Tanks are too powerful so lets lower their PG, remove Vehicle Engineering, and increase the damage of AV weapons." "Wow, Tanks are too weak so lets remake them completely and lower the damage of AV weapons." "Wow, Tanks are repairing too much damage when they stack Armor Repairers so lets add a Stacking Penalty and nerf the amount that is repaired." This has the potential of causing them same thing as before. Why not do the Stacking Penalty and if Repairers are still too powerful then drop the amount? If it has already been proposed, is there harm in saying "we may do this but we want to see how the first rounds of balance adjustments go; if they are still too effective we will reduce the amount"?
It is kind of funny how you are going about it. "We want to see different styles of Madrugars. At the moment, Double or Triple Repairer is too powerful and to common so we are lowering the Repair rate." Which will have the opposite result to an extent on the people that ran 1 Repairer because they will want to run another to get back to what they were Repairing before.
I dunno.
I don't understand their thought process sometimes. Nerf repair modules to a point of uselessness, so you are forced to either use a nearly useless hardener, or stack plates.
What happend to damage mitigation, a combination of heals, HP values, and resistances??? I mean come on, we only have 3 slots to work with, what variety could possibly come of THREE slots.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance
999
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 00:25:00 -
[13] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Joseph Ridgeson wrote:I find it curious how harshly Repairers were hit when stacking was seen as the biggest problem:
100 -> 80 (20%) 120 -> 90 (25%) 145 -> 110 (24.14%)
CCP has a tendency of nerfing too many things at once. "Tanks are too powerful so lets lower their PG, remove Vehicle Engineering, and increase the damage of AV weapons." "Wow, Tanks are too weak so lets remake them completely and lower the damage of AV weapons." "Wow, Tanks are repairing too much damage when they stack Armor Repairers so lets add a Stacking Penalty and nerf the amount that is repaired." This has the potential of causing them same thing as before. Why not do the Stacking Penalty and if Repairers are still too powerful then drop the amount? If it has already been proposed, is there harm in saying "we may do this but we want to see how the first rounds of balance adjustments go; if they are still too effective we will reduce the amount"?
It is kind of funny how you are going about it. "We want to see different styles of Madrugars. At the moment, Double or Triple Repairer is too powerful and to common so we are lowering the Repair rate." Which will have the opposite result to an extent on the people that ran 1 Repairer because they will want to run another to get back to what they were Repairing before.
I dunno. I don't understand their thought process sometimes. Nerf repair modules to a point of uselessness, so you are forced to either use a nearly useless hardener, or stack plates. What happend to damage mitigation, a combination of heals, HP values, and resistances??? I mean come on, we only have 3 slots to work with, what variety could possibly come of THREE slots. I've been saying that we should go back to 1.6 fitting style. It wasn't perfect, but it was a hell of a lot better imo.
Agreed it was more fun, but I do not see that as a possibility with CCP. I'm more about working with what we got, not what we had. Things are a LOT different now, and not just the HP values. Things work differently, and shield hardeners provide a LOT more resistances than they used to.
And logic would dictate we adjust just ONE variable and observe the changes. 20% reduction to damage (proposed is 10% I think), that way with a damage mod, you have values similar to what we have now at proto level. I don't think that is all that bad.
The glass cannon stacking damage would STILL be very easy to drop, and at the same time wouldn't 2 shot you from behind. Maybe adjust the PG/CPU values a bit of damage mods (seem very cheap atm) to stop the use of armor in the lows for gunnlogis, and make them MUCH harder to fit on a maddie.
But with a change to damage like this, a single shield hardener will cancel out 2 damage mods. While an armor tank, with a single hardener can cancel 1 damage mod, and stack armor or reps to further mitigate the damage.
My point is, the current value (on proto rails) present a decent TTK. Factor in stacking penalties with damage mods, a 20% nerf to damage greatly prolongs the TTK when coupled with the damage mod changes. Glass cannons would still be glass cannons, and defense oriented tanks would become viable again.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
|
|
|