|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 66 post(s) |
Avallo Kantor
SHAKING BABIES
FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE
430
   |
Posted - 2015.01.22 18:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
Question about the UHAV vs DHAV vs AV infantry balance:
Is it possible to make these vehicles take different amounts of damage from infantry vs vehicle weapons?
If so the way I see a balance being set is like this:
UHAV: Resistant to Infantry AV, weak to Tank AV
HAV: (regular) No resistances / weaknesses to specific AV
DHAV: Weak to Infantry AV, Resistant to Tank AV (idea: And perhaps total immunity from small turrets?)
In this way regular HAVs still have a place on the battle field (being the all-rounder) while the UHAV and DHAV can both have their specific roles. This also allows the UHAV to go all out in being AI without risking it becoming some super tanked AV platform that kills other tanks on account of how hard it is to take down. |
Avallo Kantor
SHAKING BABIES
FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE
431
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:54:00 -
[2] - Quote
What do you think of giving DHAVs a lower scan profile than MBTs, and UHAVS a slightly higher scan profile?
(Or in case I got that wrong: DHAVs being harder to spot, UHAVS being easier)
The idea being that DHAVs are more hunters, and as such would want the lower scan profile to be more easily able to dictate when the grounds of an engagement, and UHAVs being more detectable in exchange for the fire power / armor.
Since Rattati has stated that DHAVs would not be rail-capable, we would not need to worry about Hidden snipers, and it would allow DHAVs to be a bit more "stealthy" (in terms of Tank vs Tank battles) which would give them an edge on trying to do ambush like tactics.
As for UHAVs it matters little about their scan profile, since they are AI, and will never really be able to "sneak" up on Infantry units.
Also, taking this idea further: Perhaps a module that reduces Scan Profile by a % to potentially allow "Scout Tank" gameplay? |
Avallo Kantor
SHAKING BABIES
FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE
431
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 20:32:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:
STUFF
More STUFF There will be no DHAV rail fit, I will make it so, whether through fitting bonuses or something even heavier handed.
Here is the quote in question.
I'm not too interested in any tanks being scanning platforms, just making it so that the DHAV and UHAV are slightly harder/easier (for a tank) to see.
|
Avallo Kantor
SHAKING BABIES
FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE
432
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:43:00 -
[4] - Quote
Perhaps instead have different Large Turrets have different weapon mod slots?
For example:
Rail should be a low slot (lore reason: Using more power, Game Reason: Paired with Shield Tanks)
Blaster should be high
Missile should be ... high / low? (Depending on Missile Type? AV vs AI)
Another idea would be to have separate weapon mods for the small turrets, with these providing larger benefits per mod (Let's say... 2 x as effective?) This way tanks, especially UHAVs, have a way of increasing the AI capability.
These mods for small turrets need not be straight damage, they could be heat, ammo, accuracy, etc |
Avallo Kantor
SHAKING BABIES
FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE
432
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 22:15:00 -
[5] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Avallo Kantor wrote:Perhaps instead have different Large Turrets have different weapon mod slots?
For example:
Rail should be a low slot (lore reason: Using more power, Game Reason: Paired with Shield Tanks)
Blaster should be high
Missile should be ... high / low? (Depending on Missile Type? AV vs AI)
Another idea would be to have separate weapon mods for the small turrets, with these providing larger benefits per mod (Let's say... 2 x as effective?) This way tanks, especially UHAVs, have a way of increasing the AI capability.
These mods for small turrets need not be straight damage, they could be heat, ammo, accuracy, etc Heavily disagree. Changes way to much.
Fair enough, I can agree on the point with the small turrets. (Just trying to spit ball ideas)
However, I would argue a bit more on the main damage mods.
Why do you feel that changing the slot layout for different types is too extreme? As I understand it, Rattati is already leaning toward splitting of damage mods to be different mods per weapon. With that in mind, I feel it would not be too extreme to split these mods off to be in different slots.
I agree with Pokey on that adding passive on top of active mods would be too much when combined, especially on DHAVs. I am of the opinion that TTK is currently fine as is (for the most part) between tanks. Adding additional damage would only drive that down.
|
Avallo Kantor
SHAKING BABIES
FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE
435
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 22:34:00 -
[6] - Quote
A spit-balled idea:
Is it possible to have some variant of UHAV that goes away with a "main turret" completely, and instead has the driver using 1 / 2 small turrets in lieu of it's main turret?
Basic Idea:
UHAV Variant: 2 small turrets (need gunners), and a top mounted 1/2-gun linked Small Turret
This way you could have a tank type that purely focuses on AI by giving up most if not all of it's AV capability. The smaller turrets having advantage of very quick tracking speed, and having the twin sponsors for a greater volume of fire. (trading quantity for quality to better handle infantry)
Think: Imperial Guard Leman Russ Annihilator (2x Lascannons mount) |
Avallo Kantor
SHAKING BABIES
FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE
435
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 17:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
Why not take a page from EVE modules and use something like this:
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Shield_Boost_Amplifier_I
In short: The module makes the Shield Recharger you do have more effective, without adding any more Active modules to what an operator has to worry about.
With the "waves of opportunity" mindset these kinds of modules would play in well, as it would improve the "powerful" part of the wave, without making the pilot stronger during the "opportunity" part of the wave. |
Avallo Kantor
SHAKING BABIES
FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE
435
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 21:17:00 -
[8] - Quote
A question I feel is also relevant when discussing HAV Progression:
Much like Dropsuits there is a tier of dropsuits that can be used even if you are ... less than skilled... and still go ISK positive.
My question is if there is a tier of Tank that will have a similar roll (easy to go ISK positive without being stupid)? Or will even the "low-end" tanks cause Tankers to go ISK negative with a "reasonable loss rate"
As a corollary to that question:
What do you feel is the Expected Loss Rate of tanks? By which I mean how often will the average tanker lose their tank per match. (With scores less than one indicating one loss every X matches)
The Expected Loss Rate is assuming average skilled tank operators in average games, where there will be expected to be at least one counter to you on the field during the course of the game.
Will prices of the fitted tanks be determined with that in mind? If so at what tier of tank can one be expected to go ISK positive with the Expected Loss Rate? Which tanks break even around half the time? Which are ISK Sinks?
My main thrust in asking this is to see what everyone thinks the "average" death rate of vehicles in matches should be, for average pilots. I feel that a part of the discussion on balance should include considerations for the rate Tankers are expected to die on the field, and be forced to either deploy a new tank, or switch to infantry. (Preferably having dedicated tankers always staying in their speciality)
|
Avallo Kantor
SHAKING BABIES
FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE
435
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 21:27:00 -
[9] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I'm going to be VERY honest with you, that's going to be impossible to predict until we start shooting at each other.
Fair enough, let me reword the question then: What, in your opinion, should that number be for engaging gameplay both for tankers and AV and infantry? Also, why do you feel that way?
[Sorry, I hope I am not being too much of a nuisance with my attempts to join the conversation]
|
|
|
| |
|