|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Quasar Storm
Capital Acquisitions LLC
General Tso's Alliance
368
   |
Posted - 2014.12.14 17:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
Couldn't have said it better myself. You have my full support & if you ever need an extra opinion, All you gotta do is ask friend.
ADS & Tank pilot.
Drifting on Stormy Seas.
The "Eh" Team
|
Quasar Storm
Capital Acquisitions LLC
General Tso's Alliance
370
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 18:03:00 -
[2] - Quote
I've always said pilots are the minority in this game. Our words are almost never heard. We used to be one of the pinnacle roles in changing the flow in a match. I think its time we get that role back.
The part that saddens me most, Is the fact that all my friends who I either trained or fought along side with -- Have left the game or no longer pilot, Because its no longer needed. It can become an extreme ISK sink.
I am currently in the works of rebooting PD301 with Imperious & hopefully by the time vehicles get a change for the better, PD301 can be teaching newer players who want to become future pilots. We made monsters back then. We can again.
ADS & Tank pilot.
Drifting on Stormy Seas.
The "Eh" Team
|
Quasar Storm
Capital Acquisitions LLC
General Tso's Alliance
371
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 19:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
The problem with vehicles, Is that there really has never been a true discussion that doesn't end up going the complete wrong way. Kind of like the way this post is turning out. Speaker does say some important things in his OP. He is expressing his opinions based on what he sees, experiences & shares with others. So, Of course, What he says will be tailored to his experiences.
You should all focus on the core of the issue: Vehicles being sub-par.
Not the physics of the game. Not whether or not Speaker has his lore right. Not past nerfs.
What can be done now? I will say vehicles have had their fair share of nerfs. So, No more nerfs.
I know the LRG Turrets need work before CCP decides to release our old tanks.
Also, People need to remember, The AV vehicles face now are going to be OP due to the fact all the vehicles only have up to STD hulls. That's PRO Tier Vs. STD Tier. So, Of course it isn't going to be easy anyways.
I do think ADSs got WAYYYY too much of a nerf. I think the afterburner is the only thing CCP should have nerfed. The turrets skill stacking, To me, Wasn't that big of a deal because the pilots who could do that were incredibly small in the community. Plus, To even effectively stack in the first place both the pilot & gunner had to have millions of SP specialized into Cal ADS/Gal ADS skills & small turret skills. Even if stacking was a major concern, CCP should have removed just the stacking & not nerf the RoF for the pilot.
Shields still need work. Collisions & uneven terrain can remove your shields almost better than AV. I still think every Caldari vehicle should get more passive resistances to Caldari Rails, Because its Caldari tech. I mean, Duh. Come on. Same should go for the Gallante & their blaster tech. But, I suppose this will have to wait until CCP reintroduce the Gal rail & whatnot.
Tanks. Okay, I can make fits to take on AV, But they suck Vs. other tanks. I can make Destroyers which are spiked. Sponge tanks. I can make tanks that have two mini cannons plus one LRG PRO Turret. That's basically it for fits.
It does feel like AV is overpowered, But I really feel like its cause I'm in a STD Hull while I'm being swarmed by PRO AV.
Now, If this continues when I get my Sagaris rollin', Then there will be a problem.
The only major issue I could even think that is broken, Is Jihads. I mean that crap can cause your Ps3 to freeze. Not cool.
For LAVs, I mean, I don't use them very much. Would like to see LLAVs about giving support to other tanks, But I feel like there just isn't enough players in one game to do that. It takes one noob army to compete against 1 squad of organized effort. So, I think the more I see them in pubs, The more chances our team has at losing if the other team has good players.
I miss my Eryx. :( & my Sagaris.... :(((((
ADS & Tank pilot.
Drifting on Stormy Seas.
The "Eh" Team
|
Quasar Storm
Capital Acquisitions LLC
General Tso's Alliance
372
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 20:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Traditionally you do not make a technology that is designed to protect against your own weaponry..... you make one to protect yourself against your enemies technology.
Regardless he does say some valuable things even if a few are coloured by the bitterness of an old vet....but what both of you need to remember most of all is that any prospective vehicles we may have reintroduced must be balanced around the current PRO AV, and currently at this time there are some very obvious issues with the interplay between the two.
- Shield HAV are statistically superior in every respect to armour HAV
- Shield Hardeners are 15% more efficient than Armour Hardeners for no good reason, allowing for stacking abuse.
- Shield Passive Regeneration if far too effective for not having to fit a module allowing Shield HAV to fully regen in a matter of 20-30 seconds.
- Lack of Modules
- Explosive and Kinetic Heavy AV meta renders Armour HAV ineffective but means Shield HAV can ignore lesser AV.
- Fitting disparities between Shield and Armour HAV
- Shield HAV @ MLT and STD level have too much potential eHP for their tier.
Nerfing Shielded HAVs in not a solution. I think what should be better is buff armor HAVs.
I know you play with armor. So, I know you want armor to be good. I play with shields, So of course, I want them to be effective. I know how you feel.
The only issue I have with shields is the boosters don't work very well for HAVs in PC. The slightest nudge can dud them out.
The uneven terrain can rip your shields to nothing sometimes. That's not very nice. I can still even get armor damage sometimes if hit with something that has heavy Alpha. Shields have depleted recharge & recharge rates that take a moment to engage. Armor has passive all-around repair & shield recharge. Armor tanks also don't have to sacrifice most of their survival abilities to put on other modules like DMG mods, CRU, Scanners or Fuel Injectors. That's why armor was always the popular blaster. Don't have to trade all of your health for other things. I do think Armor HAVs could use some PG.
The LRG Blaster needs a skill for dispersion. It really is a circle of prayers after the first two shots. Plus, In PC, One of the things that was so enjoyable & fulfilling was when there was an enemy blaster covering an objective. What did your team do? Dial 911 for your Rail tank. The escalation was great.
Also, I just thought that Cal & Gal could get resistances to their own tech, Because when & if CCP reintroduces more of the Race variant turrets, You would come up with some specialized fits for targets. You wouldn't go try to remove a Caldari Rail tank off the field with Caldari Rail. You'd get a Gal Rail. Just thinking about more ways to put the "Special" back into Vehicle Specialist. Of course, This wouldn't even need to be remotely considered until those turrets were out. Wouldn't be fair, For the selection we have now already favors Caldari.
ADS & Tank pilot.
Drifting on Stormy Seas.
The "Eh" Team
|
Quasar Storm
Capital Acquisitions LLC
General Tso's Alliance
372
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 20:36:00 -
[5] - Quote
I think if a pilot post is ever going to taken seriously, It needs to be moderated away from the forums.
There needs to be sessions for each individual class of vehicle.
For example:
IF there was a session where tankers were to come together, It can't be on the forums. There's too many people who get tunnel vision while reading OP's & get way off topic. There are trolls to consider as well. There needs to be CPM's & maybe even a DEV or two for community security. Meaning, They are there to ensure the community the players who talk about tanks, are not conjuring up garbage trying to make tanks overpowered. The idea is that, We talk about how to makes effective, How to make them have a defined role in the game & not screw up balancing in the process.
The same would go for all other vehicles. Heck, I'm sure maybe infantry could get down on this idea.
ADS & Tank pilot.
Drifting on Stormy Seas.
The "Eh" Team
|
Quasar Storm
Capital Acquisitions LLC
General Tso's Alliance
372
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 20:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Yes nerfing Shield HAV is a valid means of bringing balance to HAV battles. No HAV should have powerful regenerative capacity AND high eHP.
That is neither fair nor a good vehicle design.
Either an HAV should have a high eHP and sacrifice is repping power or have powerful reps and comparatively lower static eHP.
No I don't play with armour tanks. They are ineffective, statistically inferior in every role, and lack the incredibly powerful passive reps that don't even require modules to carry.
I acknowledge that Shield HAV in their current form are comparatively over powered. They can stack Extenders and effectually abuse a 15% more effective Hardener that they currently have for no reason contributing more EHP than a comprable Armour Tank.
Moreover they has a naturally high 168 passive shield regeneration per second that is stronger than a Complex Heavy Armour Repairer and have module fitting values far in excess of Armour HAV, abusable by fitting modules, allowing them to armour tank as well.
Look all I am suggesting is a standardisation of all Active Shield and Armour Hardener Modules @ 30%. Under a proposed model by Pokey Dravon both tanks can roughly have equivalent eHP values when all is said and done while armour has no passive reps and shields can buff their passive reps up to constant values per second of between 45-60.
The Last thing I want is Shield HAV to be under powered again like the were pre-1.7 but I feel with the current Boosters and old modules we had they certainly wouldn't be if there stats were correctly designed. Nor do I want the Armour HAV to be over powered, and though I would like to get back into armour tanking again, there's no value in piloting and over powered tool.....and that's genuinely how I feel about the Shield HAV.
I am able to get away with too much in my Gunnlogi.
Then why wouldn't you agree to buff armor HAVs if they feel even more underpowered against shields? They wouldn't be OP verses everything. Both HAVs would be equal & still be challenged by AV.
Shields have to be strong or there is no point in them being in the game. They don't have passive or active reps & they only have a first level of health security. Second being armor, Which it has none. Plus, Of course, Other modules nerf Shield fits because most useful modules go into high slots. I've seen really good armor fits take on shield tanks. The problem I see a lot is AV does a lot of damage to armor & Armor HAVs have a nerfed recovery system. I think CCP should buff armor hardeners or a higher repair that is active, Not passive. Like I said, Armor tanks are useful because you don't have to sacrifice Low slots to add on high slot modules. They can still tend to their second layer of health while having extra damage, Speed or scans. I think armor HAVs could use a PG buff.
This is all from what I've seen & heard. I'm not an armor master. I can put together decent armor tanks & I do have them -- However, I've always sided with shield, Regardless of any buffs/nerfs.
ADS & Tank pilot.
Drifting on Stormy Seas.
The "Eh" Team
|
Quasar Storm
Capital Acquisitions LLC
General Tso's Alliance
372
|
Posted - 2014.12.14 21:19:00 -
[7] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Quasar Storm wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Yes nerfing Shield HAV is a valid means of bringing balance to HAV battles. No HAV should have powerful regenerative capacity AND high eHP.
That is neither fair nor a good vehicle design.
Either an HAV should have a high eHP and sacrifice is repping power or have powerful reps and comparatively lower static eHP.
No I don't play with armour tanks. They are ineffective, statistically inferior in every role, and lack the incredibly powerful passive reps that don't even require modules to carry.
I acknowledge that Shield HAV in their current form are comparatively over powered. They can stack Extenders and effectually abuse a 15% more effective Hardener that they currently have for no reason contributing more EHP than a comprable Armour Tank.
Moreover they has a naturally high 168 passive shield regeneration per second that is stronger than a Complex Heavy Armour Repairer and have module fitting values far in excess of Armour HAV, abusable by fitting modules, allowing them to armour tank as well.
Look all I am suggesting is a standardisation of all Active Shield and Armour Hardener Modules @ 30%. Under a proposed model by Pokey Dravon both tanks can roughly have equivalent eHP values when all is said and done while armour has no passive reps and shields can buff their passive reps up to constant values per second of between 45-60.
The Last thing I want is Shield HAV to be under powered again like the were pre-1.7 but I feel with the current Boosters and old modules we had they certainly wouldn't be if there stats were correctly designed. Nor do I want the Armour HAV to be over powered, and though I would like to get back into armour tanking again, there's no value in piloting and over powered tool.....and that's genuinely how I feel about the Shield HAV.
I am able to get away with too much in my Gunnlogi.
Then why wouldn't you agree to buff armor HAVs if they feel even more underpowered against shields? They wouldn't be OP verses everything. Both HAVs would be equal & still be challenged by AV. Shields have to be strong or there is no point in them being in the game. They don't have passive or active reps & they only have a first level of health security. Second being armor, Which it has none. Plus, Of course, Other modules nerf Shield fits because most useful modules go into high slots. I've seen really good armor fits take on shield tanks. The problem I see a lot is AV does a lot of damage to armor & Armor HAVs have a nerfed recovery system. I think CCP should buff armor hardeners or a higher repair that is active, Not passive. Like I said, Armor tanks are useful because you don't have to sacrifice Low slots to add on high slot modules. They can still tend to their second layer of health while having extra damage, Speed or scans. I think armor HAVs could use a PG buff. This is all from what I've seen & heard. I'm not an armor master. I can put together decent armor tanks & I do have them -- However, I've always sided with shield, Regardless of any buffs/nerfs. I do not necessarily feel any buffs besides fitting capacity is required for the standard Madrugar. Otherwise it just comes down to a rebalancing of modules. - 180mm Reinforced Armour Plating - Active Armour Reps - Standardised Armour Hardeners @ 30% - Damage Controls - Heat SInks All of those are essentially armour buffs. But even assuming they returned...... Armour HAV cannot be allowed to retain 1200 Shields and 4000 base armour EHP. That would then make them too powerful as well. Hell even the old values of 3625 are a little much. But 3400 isn't far off for armour values. As to your assertion that Shields would be weak under my model..... no they would not be. They would resist the same amount of damage, they can regenerate the same amount, they can still be fit out well......BUT they cannot have all of these things at once. A Passive Tanked Gunnlogi could have armour 8.5-9.5 K EHP BUT would not have powerful regenerative capacity. Instead they would forsake than for a constant regeneration of between 45-60 per second......whereas an active Tanked Gunnlogi would have prolific Shield Regen based around the use of Boosters and most likely have a constant passive regen of 30-40 per second but access to multiple shield booster modules. The same would be true of Armour HAV. They would have comparatively more eHP on a passive tank but no reps, and on an active tank access to multiple repppers but less static eHP as they must fit 120mm plates. In Vehicle use there have to be checks and balances. We cannot have everything, we must give something up for the power we gain in one area over others. Moreover if Rattati is serious about vehicle rebalances then I can forsee a great value in having these two school of vehicle use. Passive would be better in squadrons backed up by Logi and Actives would be better for solo use and more skilled tankers.
I get the math, But without those Passive/Active modules being released, Its not going to work. CCP would have to go back in re-do everything for HAVs & plus they still have to re-do LRG Turrets. I'm just trying to come up with things that they can implement without drastically changing base models. I agree with you, That there must be balance. I agree with you that a shield tank would still be effective under your model -- Presuming CCP fixed the booster bugs & terrain bugs & made it where not all of 90% of our useful modules are not for high slot use.
Also, I think we need to see what the reintroduction of modules we will get will effect the vehicle meta. Some worries me, Some sounds great.
ADS & Tank pilot.
Drifting on Stormy Seas.
The "Eh" Team
|
Quasar Storm
0uter.Heaven
383
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 15:57:00 -
[8] - Quote
I have little problems with AV when normal scenarios are running. However when full squads hunt me down cause my team is redlined -- I'm locked out. Which to me, Is a good thing. That's what is supposed to happen. Heck, I can't blame them. Here I am lookin' like a sweet & spicy 400 WP.
Although, I have been running into a lot of AV personnel who I think go after me just for spite. People that know me. They throw their match away, Just for me. I guess the lulz are far too great to resist. A lot of people love killing me. :(
ADS & Tank pilot.
Drifting on Stormy Seas.
The "Eh" Team
|
|
|
| |
|