| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
153
   |
Posted - 2015.01.14 12:31:00 -
[31] - Quote
Jack McReady wrote:dont you think this effort is futile without racial parity in terms of AV options?
Check his AV theorycrafting page, proposing a number of Racially themed AV weapons...which this post may or may not be asking permission to borrow the stats for
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
shaman oga
Dead Man's Game
3687
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 12:41:00 -
[32] - Quote
I'm not the best with numbers all toghether, my suggestion is to work before on vehicles only and then balance AV on them, since AV primary function is to counter vehicles and when we have fixed vehicles number it will be rather easy to balance AV on them.
I will look at them and try to give a more proper feedback, but general feeling was that TTK of V vs V was ok, a buff was needed on shield hardeners duration, a slight nerf on proto large missile turret.
Also current rail range is fine for me, old 600 meters were too much, allowing rail tank to lock certain maps.
You imagined skill tree to be the same old skill tree?
After 1.7 changes are not all bad, vehicle maneuverability, isk cost and ammo count/ reload mechanic are actually a good thing imo.
Situational awareness also known as passive scan.
Minmatar omni-merc
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6403
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 12:46:00 -
[33] - Quote
shaman oga wrote:I'm not the best with numbers all toghether, my suggestion is to work before on vehicles only and then balance AV on them, since AV primary function is to counter vehicles and when we have fixed vehicles number it will be rather easy to balance AV on them.
I will look at them and try to give a more proper feedback, but general feeling was that TTK of V vs V was ok, a buff was needed on shield hardeners duration, a slight nerf on proto large missile turret.
Also current rail range is fine for me, old 600 meters were too much, allowing rail tank to lock certain maps.
You imagined skill tree to be the same old skill tree?
After 1.7 changes are not all bad, vehicle maneuverability, isk cost and ammo count/ reload mechanic are actually a good thing imo.
all the AV numbers are based on chrome DPS rates and TTK.
I'm probably going to nerfhammer the plates because the difference between 120mm and 180mm is more than a 2x multiplier, which accounts for the Surya's Ungodly ability to soak fire.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6404
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 12:54:00 -
[34] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:
Anyway...for helping out the Derpships...expand their PG/CPU to be near HAV levels, this will allow them to fit heavy eHP mods no problem, and largely address their survivabiltiy problems (their slot layout should be fine) as is. (maybe too drastic of a change, but through their PG especially...should help)
this is actually in line with my thoughts on the matter.
I'm not leaving our dropship buddies to freeze in the cold.
On that note I think I have figured out how to add in the ADS.
will be giving the standard (troop transport) similar fitting to the madrugar and gunnlogi
ADS will get slightly less but that's because it's a bit more fragile. However, it shouldn't lose too much, or enough to drop it's TTK much
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
shaman oga
Dead Man's Game
3687
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 13:07:00 -
[35] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:shaman oga wrote:I'm not the best with numbers all toghether, my suggestion is to work before on vehicles only and then balance AV on them, since AV primary function is to counter vehicles and when we have fixed vehicles number it will be rather easy to balance AV on them.
I will look at them and try to give a more proper feedback, but general feeling was that TTK of V vs V was ok, a buff was needed on shield hardeners duration, a slight nerf on proto large missile turret.
Also current rail range is fine for me, old 600 meters were too much, allowing rail tank to lock certain maps.
You imagined skill tree to be the same old skill tree?
After 1.7 changes are not all bad, vehicle maneuverability, isk cost and ammo count/ reload mechanic are actually a good thing imo.
all the AV numbers are based on chrome DPS rates and TTK. I'm probably going to nerfhammer the plates because the difference between 120mm and 180mm is more than a 2x multiplier, which accounts for the Surya's Ungodly ability to soak fire. Further I can translate those AV gun numbers over to easily slot right into the meta we have now, pokey's meta or even thaddeus' meta. Once you figure out how to do it the conversions are easy
A note on plates: i would give movement penalties based on weight and not on level, this would allow light armored vehicles to suffer less of movement penalty, at the same time people will be encouraged to skill better plates to have more HP for the same penalty.
Situational awareness also known as passive scan.
Minmatar omni-merc
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6405
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 13:15:00 -
[36] - Quote
shaman oga wrote:
A note on plates: i would give movement penalties based on weight and not on level, this would allow light armored vehicles to suffer less of movement penalty, at the same time people will be encouraged to skill better plates to have more HP for the same penalty.
would love to, but... the idea is increasing HP means increasing slowdown. it's a tradeoff thing.
You give me a fair way to do it, and I'll listen to it.
But the day I post numbers that allow marauders to move as fast as the current tanks will be a cold day in hell.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
duster 35000
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
153
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 14:11:00 -
[37] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I am working on a proposal involving re-introduction of V/AV balance from chromosome and modify what has frequently been referred to as too short of a TTK in HAV vs. HAV engagements You can find the numbers here.Since I have asked for vehicle driver input repeatedly for advice on numbers so that HAV vs HAV engagements are not too short, and have gotten none.. And since no one has provided numbers and input pertaining to dropship balance... If no one steps up to help me run these numbers for flaws, and to insure that HAV vs. HAV engagements are fun and there are meaningful fights with HAVs and dropships on the field I am setting a deadline. If I have received no meaningful input by 9:00 AM Pacific standard time on thursday the 15th of January, I will take it as your (the vehicle community) blessing to adjust the numbers as I see fit. I need actual numbers and math, not vague suggestions like "it needs to work kinda like..." The HAV bring back initiative is something I want, and it's something that will benefit the game as a whole. But I want pilot input on how this proposal should go. Any suggestion that AV needs to be marginalized will be summarily dismissed, V/AV values are being set at the chromosome build level for the purposes of this propopsal. oh there's theoretical heavy weapon proposals for you sentinel parity spergs.
The passive shield regen needs to be brought up greatly.
Choo Choo
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6408
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 14:27:00 -
[38] - Quote
passive regen will not be buffed to current numbers.
The 20 second recovery from on fire needs to go away.
the AV theorycrafting section actually has the swarm numbers I would use. I.E. the ones we have now.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
155
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 14:40:00 -
[39] - Quote
Any chance you would be in favor of adding shield regen to the extenders (not a whole lot, just divide the hp by the regen time on the base hulls) just enough to maintain a shield recharge time, to provide a resemblance to eve's shield recharge?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6411
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 15:01:00 -
[40] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Any chance you would be in favor of adding shield regen to the extenders (not a whole lot, just divide the hp by the regen time on the base hulls) just enough to maintain a shield recharge time, to provide a resemblance to eve's shield recharge?
the only thing I'm going to do in that vein is adapt the current passive modules to these numbers.
they will not be remotely as short-term efficient as actual reps and boosters. Nor will they approach current regen values.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
|
|
duster 35000
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
154
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 15:38:00 -
[41] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:passive regen will not be buffed to current numbers.
The 20 second recovery from on fire needs to go away.
the AV theorycrafting section actually has the swarm numbers I would use. I.E. the ones we have now.
24 is still too low.
try 45.
Choo Choo
|
shaman oga
Dead Man's Game
3720
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 12:32:00 -
[42] - Quote
I will start with shields:
Shield Regen: old regen was too slow, if you didn't fit a shield booster, it was better to recall the tank and call a new one.
I suggest to mimic infantry shield regen in %, with a penalty for the possibility to fit shield boosters.
EG.
Caldari medium - shield 210 - recharge 25 HP/s =8.4 seconds from 0 to 100%
Gunnlogi - shield 2600 - recharge 22 HP/s = 118,2 seconds from 0 to 100%
Proposed - shield 2600 - recharge 175 HP/s = 14,8 seconds from 0 to 100%
Shield Booster: the main problem with it, is that is only reliable if you are not uder attack, unlinke armor rep, shield is blocked by incoming fire, i have yet to find a balanced solution.
The only thing i've thought is to add a resistance to each pulse of the shield booster, which immediatly wear off, something between 50% and 75%.
continue.....
Situational awareness also known as passive scan.
Minmatar omni-merc
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6540
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 12:44:00 -
[43] - Quote
Shaman I appreciate the input but the only way any vehicle will be going from near dead to almost or completely repped in under 45 seconds will be with active reps and external rep assistance.
The 20 seconds in hiding to full recovery meta is utter BS.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
shaman oga
Dead Man's Game
3720
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 12:45:00 -
[44] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Shaman I appreciate the input but the only way any vehicle will be going from near dead to almost or completely repped in under 45 seconds will be with active reps and external rep assistance.
The 20 seconds in hiding to full recovery meta is utter BS.
Yes, i've noticed now that i'm looking in game stats, i'm going to edit.
Situational awareness also known as passive scan.
Minmatar omni-merc
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6540
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 12:51:00 -
[45] - Quote
I have no issue with escaping to recover.
Vehicles should not easily recover in less time than it takes an AV Gunner to travel to a supply depot, repair and reload.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16645
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 12:51:00 -
[46] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Shaman I appreciate the input but the only way any vehicle will be going from near dead to almost or completely repped in under 45 seconds will be with active reps and external rep assistance.
The 20 seconds in hiding to full recovery meta is utter BS.
Indeed. It's been a load of crap for a while.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
shaman oga
Dead Man's Game
3720
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 13:13:00 -
[47] - Quote
Ok i've finished with edititng, please note that i've not calculated everything, i'm more for feelings and personal experience, if you find something horribly wrong, just tell me why it's wrong for you, just like you did with shield recharge a couple of posts ago.
Situational awareness also known as passive scan.
Minmatar omni-merc
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6540
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 14:14:00 -
[48] - Quote
That looks a lot more reasonable.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
H0riz0n Unlimit
Dead Man's Game
322
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 16:46:00 -
[49] - Quote
No blue tags make me sad
The KTM DuKe lives here, send a message after the "beep".One of the few vehiculist remained in dust 514
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6555
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 16:49:00 -
[50] - Quote
shaman oga wrote:Ok i've finished with edititng, please note that i've not calculated everything, i'm more for feelings and personal experience, if you find something horribly wrong, just tell me why it's wrong for you, just like you did with shield recharge a couple of posts ago.
Shaman your shield regen #s I'm more than willing to try out. I can see a bit under a minute to recover. That's about how long it takes for me to refit and re-arm.
Plugging in higher base shield numbers for the vehicles now. Gallente will, of course, lag sharply. Their shields exist to give them a moment to activate armor modules.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
|
|
shaman oga
Dead Man's Game
3720
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 19:39:00 -
[51] - Quote
I tend to choose arguments and make single post about them.
This is about armor and shield transport modules, i see you have imagined something like a reptool, honestly i prefer the old style transporters and i would treat them as modules and not turrets.
Armor and shield transport
Lock is something i would not like to see again, unless CCP manage to let us re-lock if we lose it.
I would prefer something like a moving nanohive, when you enter the AOE you are automatically healed.
I don't remember old numbers, but i remember shield transport being very good and armor transport being almost useless, shield transporte was good on both armor and shield vehicles, probably better on armor vehicles.
Armor transporter was quite useless due to very good armor repper with little cooldown and for not being coupled with native reps.
[off post]
Regarding passive reps, i'm not totally against them, but the heaviest passive armor rep module, should rep something between 20 and 40 HP/s, allowing both vehicle to choose between active or passive tank.
Another solution for passive tanking is this, reactive plates for vehicles and shield energizer for vehicle (even with shield energizers there would be the need to buff a little shield recharge rate from old base stats, but less).
Situational awareness also known as passive scan.
Minmatar omni-merc
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6559
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 19:56:00 -
[52] - Quote
shaman oga wrote:I tend to choose arguments and make single post about them. This is about armor and shield transport modules, i see you have imagined something like a reptool, honestly i prefer the old style transporters and i would treat them as modules and not turrets. Armor and shield transportLock is something i would not like to see again, unless CCP manage to let us re-lock if we lose it. I would prefer something like a moving nanohive, when you enter the AOE you are automatically healed. I don't remember old numbers, but i remember shield transport being very good and armor transport being almost useless, shield transporte was good on both armor and shield vehicles, probably better on armor vehicles. Armor transporter was quite useless due to very good armor repper with little cooldown and for not being coupled with native reps. [off post] Regarding passive reps, i'm not totally against them, but the heaviest passive armor rep module, should rep something between 20 and 40 HP/s, allowing both vehicle to choose between active or passive tank. Another solution for passive tanking is this, reactive plates for vehicles and shield energizer for vehicle (even with shield energizers there would be the need to buff a little shield recharge rate from old base stats, but less).
keeping the turrets.
Simple reason is to make it harder to have 4 HAVs spider tanking. As a module doing it is entirely too easy.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2783
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 20:25:00 -
[53] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I am working on a proposal involving re-introduction of V/AV balance from chromosome and modify what has frequently been referred to as too short of a TTK in HAV vs. HAV engagements
Of course, more damage for AV. Rattati told me he's not touching AV right now, so the damage is staying the same.
Since I have asked for vehicle driver input repeatedly for advice on numbers so that HAV vs HAV engagements are not too short, and have gotten none..
We keep giving it, and people keep ignoring it, but I'll say it again: Chromosome balance was the best as far as AV/V went, because they were a deterrent, as they should be, and tanks beat the hell out of each other. I agree with everybody that the damage for that build was too high, and it was far better when Uprising 1.0 was deployed, but the PG skill nerf was the start of the 80-¦ down slope towards vehicles becoming next to useless.
And since no one has provided numbers and input pertaining to dropship balance...
Numerous current and former ADS pilots (Taka and myself) have provided ideas, but again, nobody listens. I put in my vehicle hull thread that the ADS will be the fastest ship in the game, upping flight speed to 55m/s to give them a greater chance to outrun or outmaneuver swarms.
If no one steps up to help me run these numbers for flaws, and to insure that HAV vs. HAV engagements are fun and there are meaningful fights with HAVs and dropships on the field I am setting a deadline.
Tank v tank is terrible; armor gets shafted and shield is the master race. You need a lot of experience to not get melted in armor in 3 seconds. ADS isn't bad, but once they get right above you and you're far away from overhead cover, you're dead.
If I have received no meaningful input by 9:00 AM Pacific standard time on thursday the 15th of January, I will take it as your (the vehicle community) blessing to adjust the numbers as I see fit.
Of course you want more AV damage.
I need actual numbers and math, not vague suggestions like "it needs to work kinda like..."
History: pilots provided the math on how much damage AV put out, and infantry always said "working as intended," "that's fair" and "HTFU." Pilots even proved that when the PRO TAR was OP, it was on par with a large blaster turret. Infantry of course said that was fine.
The HAV bring back initiative is something I want, and it's something that will benefit the game as a whole.
Of course it will benefit the game, but only if vehicles are worth the SP and ISK required to get the PRO turrets and modules, and the hulls to level for the maximum bonus.
But I want pilot input on how this proposal should go.
See above
Any suggestion that AV needs to be marginalized will be summarily dismissed, V/AV values are being set at the chromosome build level for the purposes of this propopsal.
We've never said marginalized or made useless, we just said it should be a deterrent. The lock on range nerf is the only nerf the swarms have suffered that was needed. Obvious damage reduction was needed because the HP potential for tanks was reduced by quite a lot.
Of course you're going to poo-poo all over this.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2784
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 20:30:00 -
[54] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:Isn't Chromosone considered the Dark Age?
Glorious age, when tanks melted tanks and many millions of ISK was lost between pilots, per match.
When tanks roamed the map near unkillable?
If you're talking about MLT AV, then yeah, unkillable. If another tank was on the field, that bothersome blaster was as good as dead.
If you want to balance vehicles you need to,
1) Designate an actual role to each vehicle
Designed around skirmish 1.0.
2) Increase player count so vehicles become useful
Larger map areas would be better because of the limits of PS3 hardware.
I would prefer not to have to be in a vehicle to enjoy this game afterall their is a vehicle limit and I don't want to race to get mine in first lest I end up cannon fodder to 6 enemy madrugars.
You don't like vehicles, nobody is forcing you to be in a vehicle, you have an irrational fear and hatred of vehicles so all pilots already know you hate them and want them to be removed; there's objectives indoors where you don't have to worry about vehicles.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
shaman oga
Dead Man's Game
3720
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 20:35:00 -
[55] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
keeping the turrets.
Simple reason is to make it harder to have 4 HAVs spider tanking. As a module doing it is entirely too easy.
Spider tanking was legit imho, but probably blocking large turret while module is active could be the best solution, it would not let people have too much firepower while being repped, meanwhile you have the freedom to move your vehicle as you wish.
With transport turret you only need one or two players as logi/gunner, one if hopping from a tank to the other, defeating your purpose.
Situational awareness also known as passive scan.
Minmatar omni-merc
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2784
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 20:35:00 -
[56] - Quote
Toobar Zoobar wrote:Not the 3 AV grenades.
3 packed Lai Dai = dead tank.
I can't accept that.
None of us can.
They were OP before okay.
2 Packed Lai Dai against an armor tank with its shields down is still almost enough to destroy it outright.
So much so that they gave me cancer.
They gave me AIDS.
And what, you want the breach forge gun to 1 shot every ADS from the sky?
Of course, because they all always want AV to have enough alpha and DoT to obliterate vehicles in 2 seconds flat. It's fair, and just need to bend over and take it.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6560
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 20:38:00 -
[57] - Quote
Spkr why do you bother talking when you know I think your attitude is toxic to the game.
I'd accept input from a two hour newbie before asking for your opinion. At least most other people have made an effort to be constructive. You don't and you never have.
So please fell free to go be bitter and butthurt elsewhere.
I'll listen to the input of any other vehicle driver over yours, because all you do is mewl and whine about how everyone else is out to ruin the game for you.
I bluntly don't care at this point.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6560
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 20:39:00 -
[58] - Quote
shaman oga wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
keeping the turrets.
Simple reason is to make it harder to have 4 HAVs spider tanking. As a module doing it is entirely too easy.
Spider tanking was legit imho, but probably blocking large turret while module is active could be the best solution, it would not let people have too much firepower while being repped, meanwhile you have the freedom to move your vehicle as you wish. With transport turret you only need one or two players as logi/gunner, one if hopping from a tank to the other, defeating your purpose.
Also made the fitting cost a buttload more than a blaster. Logi vehicles get a fitting break.
HAVs do not.
You can do it. You just have to make a sacrifice to do so.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2787
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 20:42:00 -
[59] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I will be altering passive mods to be viable but less efficient.
That's how the vehicle modules were until 1.7, when they were all removed.
3 AV grenades stays.
Of course you want those to stay.
If I'm proposing chrome tanks you get to suffer chrome AV.
Chrome tanks were much more than strong enough to shrug off AV while fighting another tank.
1.7 taught the playerbase the importance of AV weapons.
1.7 was Ragnarok for vehicles.
I don't think hav dominance will have the same bite.
Tanks have never been dominant.
I used to be able to solo chrome marauders.
With a glass cannon tank, yeah. AV? No
I can teach newbies to do the same.
Not the noobs I've seen.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
shaman oga
Dead Man's Game
3720
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 20:42:00 -
[60] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:shaman oga wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
keeping the turrets.
Simple reason is to make it harder to have 4 HAVs spider tanking. As a module doing it is entirely too easy.
Spider tanking was legit imho, but probably blocking large turret while module is active could be the best solution, it would not let people have too much firepower while being repped, meanwhile you have the freedom to move your vehicle as you wish. With transport turret you only need one or two players as logi/gunner, one if hopping from a tank to the other, defeating your purpose. Also made the fitting cost a buttload more than a blaster. Logi vehicles get a fitting break. HAVs do not. You can do it. You just have to make a sacrifice to do so.
I saw, but that would require a logi vehicle to have crew too, one would drive and chase the target, the other stay in turret and heal the vehicle.
Situational awareness also known as passive scan.
Minmatar omni-merc
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |