|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Heinrich Jagerblitzen
Onslaught Inc
RISE of LEGION
1837
   |
Posted - 2014.06.10 18:36:00 -
[1] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:you guys clearly don't understand what in the hell a tweak is lol
Actually, its about time we start migrating away from the ignorance that "tweak" must mean "small". This notion is arbitrary, misinformed, and if we categorically refuse to allow Rattati to adjust a value by more than 10% we're only going to shoot ourselves in the foot and slow down progress.
In fact - when balancing a game system, one of the fastest methods of arriving at a proper value is to either double or halve it, observe, and either double again, or split the difference between the doubled/halved value and the original. A small series of doubling or halving a value (with observation in between) is actually one of most efficient ways to arrive at the proper number in the least amount of adjustments.
Likewise, applying this methodology for every project is equally arbitrary. It at least illustrates that when an element of the game is dramatically underpowered or overpowered, tweaking by 5% or 10% only as a matter of dogma can actually interfere with a designers ability to quickly arrive at the best value, as they may end up performing twice the number of adjustments than if they had just been bold to begin with.
We have a major advantage here guys - a rapid patch framework and CCP staff willing to adjust constantly until a system is polished. There's no need to be so ridiculously conservative that we fail to recognize that 5% or 10% just isn't going to cut it for a lot of adjustments that need to be made.
|
Heinrich Jagerblitzen
Onslaught Inc
RISE of LEGION
1838
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 18:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
D3LTA iKidd'YuNOT wrote:We have a poor amount of cover available in most engagements. While away from cover we pretty much sustain constant fire which give our shield no time to even start healing. This coupled with the fact that you have alot less hp than the armor tankers makes us insta dead in seconds. Also even if we are lucky enough to get to cover... with the long wait to start recharging our shields the armor tankers always close the gap to finish us off while regenerating thier armor at the same time. I can see the model of the Caldari Sentinel being used more widely in Dust for shield tankers. But for it to work shield tankers a higher base to start from. But even then my Proto Caldari Sentinel dies far too quickly unless I am far away with cover and especially against other heavies.
I agree, and its why I'm rather bullish about quick recharge times on shield tanking setups. I see a lot of people nervous about several second recovery times, but realistically it just isn't that hard to finish off whatever armor is underneath once you've punched through (assuming we are willing to take on the fitting costs needed discourage dualtanking).
I think its perfectly fine to expect players to adjust their play to compensate, and learn that when fighting a shield-tanking opponent the emphasis needs to be on controlling both accuracy and the pace you empty your clip and ensure you can finish a job you've started. For the same reason, I really think that unilaterally buffing extenders across the board is folly - there needs to be a balance to this quick recovery time, and keeping shield buffers to reasonable levels is necessary.
If the map design were different, I'd feel different too of course. But there is still a lot of open ground , and I think its reasonable to shape shield tanking such that even short periods of broken line of sight can be valuable in self-defense against a superior-armored foe.
|
Heinrich Jagerblitzen
Onslaught Inc
RISE of LEGION
1839
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 19:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jacques Cayton II wrote:Shield extenders need lower cpu/PG and enhanced need to be up to 44.
( I personally think that shield extenders need a slight hp increase since a basic plate has a ton more then a complex extender).
Regulators are fine except complex needs to be brought up to 40 or 50 and with this change base enhanced off of the complex. Also lower the cpu/pg.
I'm very worried about lowering the fitting requirements, especially the powergrid on extenders. In fact, I'd argue the opposite instead. Granted, there's a lot of base fitting pools on the suits themselves that are still in need of adjustment (so I'm sure someone will point out how this breaks one fit or another) but I really think its about time we build more of a fitting bottleneck into both extenders and plates, as this is really the root cause of dualtanking.
People brick because they can. Without making the system excessively complex with more penalties on all sorts of modules, one of the few ways we can really end bricktanking is by creating a bottleneck.
Now especially since extenders are one of the few modules that takes up any powergrid at all, and they're the culprit when we're investigating extreme buffers, to me it makes the most sense to make their powergrid the value that competes directly with plating your suit as well. I'm sure I'll be crucified for suggesting this, but I really think that one of the best things we can do in revising tanking is to use the power of the fitting allowance to force more of a choice when deciding what approach to take when creating a fit.
|
|
|
| |
|