|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
34
   |
Posted - 2014.10.21 03:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
Have you used small blasters in any way, shape, or form? Because the only limitation on their murderliciousness against infantry is the HMG-style dispersion... and even then, the sheer deeps that it puts out....
Well. I know that I certainly don't want to be on the receiving end of a small blaster.
Unfortunately Za'ki, you again prove that you have no idea what you're talking about. Small blasters have an ~44% efficiency against vehicles- and that's against vehicle shields too, so it's even less useful against vehicle armor. So no, small blasters are NOT the glorious anti-air weapon that you are passing them off as. Furthermore, a regular dropship more than fills the role of "Blackhawk with two miniguns". Just season with blasters.
An ADS, on the other hand, cannot carry a full squad (thus, is absolutely not equivalent to a Blackhawk), and fits a nose-mounted, pilot controlled weapon station. As I've said before, the ADS is in concept very similar to the Mi-24 Hind gunship.
Now, as far as ADS AV functionality, I have two thoughts: first off, rebuild vehicles from the ground up... again. The initial Uprising 1.7 proposal was that vehicles would be weak, flimsy hulls and that the fit would determine really what its role was. A requirement for this would have been low-eHP hulls with lots of module slots.
What we got was high-eHP hulls with an incredible restrictive fitting capability that ultimately led to a very small number of useful fits. Moreover, it's my opinion that this has led to vehicle fitting being overly generic, since even outside the small number of viable vehicle fits, most vehicle fits end up looking pretty identical.
By having an increased number of module slots, with an appropriate tweak to PG/CPU, and a reduction in base hull HP values, we can then have players choose what their vehicle roles are by how they fit it. As an example, if the Incubus had even a second high slot, the amount of versatility that that suddenly allows is a pretty impressive change; you can have damage for AV, scans for support, even an MCRU if you need mobile spawns.
So yeah, that's my opinion. If you need a TL;DR (I don't really blame you), then it's this: tear apart vehicles, rebuild them from the ground up, and actually stick to the original mission statement of "weak hulls, lots of mod slots, lots of customization".
Also, please do not ever add Logi LAVs again. They are impossible to balance for their intended purpose. |
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 03:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
Apothecary Za'ki wrote:fact is blasters suck hard at any useable range while being in an ads that is why most all ads pilots use missile or rail, simple as that i have yet to see one ads with blasters in a game.
however i do liek the idea of a base vehicle which will perform how you fit it.. and i do want the logi lav back but something like "owner =/= recive reps" so it dosnt become murdertaxi again..
as i see vehicles atm we have MLT Basic and Standard(ads assault)
as for tanks we have MLT and Basic.. iirc wasnt the maurauder the standard version?
As far as blasters being terrible in dropships, the only issue they really suffer from is that the firepower of the small blasters just severely drops with increasing range due to dispersion. It's the same problem that the HMG suffers from really. That being said, very-low-hovering derpships can easily take advantage of the sheer deeps of the small blaster.
But again, what I was pointing out is that the small blaster is pretty beast against infantry if your in range- just today I used a Sica with a small blaster atop the large rail turret to defend myself against infantry (yay for seat swapping... sort of). That's really the thing though, is that small blasters generally lack effectiveness when used at altitude by any kind of derpship.
The other thing is that missiles are just so amazingly awesomesauce from any kind of derpship, that they almost totally outclass small blasters. Small rails are simply not in a good place as far as airpower goes right now- or at least that's the general feeling I have from seeing what those who are more versed in the small rail/ADS combination have to say.
Now, as to the vehicles being the sum of their mods, rather than their hulls... well, get in line, since that's what Uprising 1.7 and the enormous vehicle rebalance it included was supposed to bring, and instead we got the mess we're dealing with right now.
As far as Logi LAVs, I explain why they are a fundamentally flawed in their very concept here: LINKY. If you can't be bothered to read that, then I'm not going to bother repeating myself on the matter.
For vehicle variants, the closest we ever really had to non-STD level vehicles were Marauders and Enforcers. Marauders were removed post-Chrome... like a few other things in fact (camera sights, awesome AR sound, awesome AR effects, general ambiance, sprint animations for AR/scrambler pistol*). Enforcers were the replacement, and ended up being dropped in Uprising 1.7.
Overall, vehicles with weaker base health, more module slots, more vehicle mods in general, and greater turret variation will be a more difficult but ultimately more balanced route to take- it might take a lot more up-front work, but in terms of nailing down the balance it will be well worth it and will absolutely be easier to maintain than the mess we have now. |
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
39
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 23:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Victor Moody Stahl wrote:
Overall, vehicles with weaker base health, more module slots, more vehicle mods in general, and greater turret variation will be a more difficult but ultimately more balanced route to take- it might take a lot more up-front work, but in terms of nailing down the balance it will be well worth it and will absolutely be easier to maintain than the mess we have now.
Debatable.
I'd like to know what you consider debatable and why you consider it to be debatable. Since I'm not a serious tanker, and am a bad (and also poor) ADS/derpship pilot, I'd like to get your thoughts on that.
I'll admit to being good at theorycrafting (until someone smarter than I am comes along, of course), but my practical experience- as far as vehicle go- is generally limited to "I'm new and bad at xyz". |
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
40
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 23:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Those certainly are solid suggestions but I do not see the fundamentals of HAV being resolve through variation of content.
Personally as I see it a re-designation of roles and turret types will be required to shape the hull, I won't deny that the customisability of the old HAV needs to return and that modules will need to all contribute/ determine the HAV's capabilities...but in terms of "fixing" the class it need to have its design philosophy set out and that philosophy needs to be kept to.
Okay, I see. In all honesty, the vehicles do need to have more solidly defined roles... but as odd as it seems, I almost feel like the player-per-match numbers need to be increased in order for us to really get vehicles nailed down.
I'm sure that many people almost feel like previous balance iterations were built around certain mechanics or items being in-game that... well, weren't in-game. One of those mechanics, is, IMO, a higher player count. Even just increasing from 32 to 48 (from 16v16 to 24v24) seems like it would represent a fairly simple change, and an enormous effect on how matches play out.
Of course, as IWS commented, increased players/match is pretty much off the table for now. Which makes me sad. |
|
|
| |
|