|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 66 post(s) |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance
1258
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 17:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Vell0cet wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Vell0cet wrote:All kinds of EVE things My opinion is that active and passive fitting is perfect for vehicle combat in an FPS. Don't forget, EVE does not have WASD movement, it is inherently less dependent on user input, and that's why it has more point and click combat, managing heat, capacity, ammo, ewar etc. Capacitors are just one thing that could be done, needs balancing and design like any other system. Another layer of complexity does not seem like what we need when there are so many low hanging fruit. Just going through the misery of starting to go into vehicles has opened my eyes to the HAV plight of fitting and skilling. On the other hand, in battle it's been a breeze, as in I'm having fun. I also think that a Maddie Blaster fit should be the first tank new players skill into as the turret speed is more forgiving and the charge-up of the rail makes it so much less easy to use than one might think coming from BF, for instance. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. While I'm disappointed that capacitors aren't on the short or medium-term horizon, I appreciate that you're at least communicating that to us. I don't really see capacitors as another layer of complexity. I see it as unifying the complexity of multiple cooldowns that we currently have. It's actually a simplification of the current system. You're right that not everything in EVE should transfer to DUST/Legion. They ARE different styles of games, and managing lots of systems is a big part of EVE's combat experience that wouldn't translate well to DUST--I agree with you there. For one thing, I don't think overheating would make sense in an FPS. It requires too much micromanagement. But with the ability to configure your HAV to your taste, you would have the option to build cap-stable fits that require LESS management than what we have now. It gives the player freedom and flexibility. I also see it as a major balancing tool for you guys. Right now you can really only tweak things that directly increase or decrease survivability. This would give you other variables to tweak that would affect survivability only indirectly. I feel like it would probably be useful to have those balancing options in your toolkit. I know you're not a huge EVE player, but there is a lot of manual piloting in EVE, trying to maintain transversal against your opponent and position properly (If you're clicking "orbit" or "approach" in PvP, you're doing it wrong). Honestly I don't see much changing from a module-management standpoint with the addition of capacitors. You may have to turn a few things off more often to conserve cap, but it would be unwise for a player to fit more active modules than he can manage on his HAV. I'm sure there's a sweet-spot of module count that's reasonable to manage while still engaging in visceral FPS vehicle combat (a repper, prop mod, maybe a hardener or two, it's really not that crazy). I hope this has been at least somewhat helpful in terms of maybe influencing your thinking of how/when capacitors might fit into a longer-term roadmap. In my opinion it would be a mistake to write capacitors off as adding complexity to an already complex game. I don't want to derail any progress. It seems like the train is already too far past the station at this point, so I'll respectfully bow out. As always, thanks for your hard work. o7 Now, could you send me on [email protected] your thoughts/designs so I can truly see how it could pan out. Really don't like closing doors, but sometimes it's necessary. Definitely read his proposal, and maybe pass it to someone on the Legion team. It is worth consideration for the long term. Agreed
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance
1258
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 17:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:
5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets
6) New skills - Faction DHAV (Destroyer Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Very fast, lightly armored with bonuses to Missiles and Blasters, turret specialization is essential here, no small turrets.
Is it just me, or does anyone see a problem with having an HAV designed around dealing infantry also being the toughest out there while the one that is to deal with other tanks and not infantry the weakest in terms of eHP?
Let me just provide an example of our current "UHAV". Yes they are already in game and they go by the name of a gunnlogi:
Fit: Highs -Double proto shield extenders --- Single hardener Lows - Cpu and Pg mods Turrets - Large proto rail with 2 small proto rails
This is my go to fit, and works incredible with GOOD gunners. I'm already able to withstand a fairly large amount of AV fire. But throw in 2 gunners laying waste to the AV out trying to get me and my eHP skyrockets into the realm of being indestructible. Not only to Infantry AV but tank AV as well!
I ran this with some pretty good gunners and between the 3 of us we racked up close to 60 kills. And no type of armor could touch it, as the small rails reduce the TTK against other vehicles to levels of ridiculousness. We did this for several matches, and I just laughed. It was quite ridiculous and funny to watch the vain efforts of those out on the field that meant us harm.
So do you really consider it a good idea that an UHAV that is more or less designed for killing infantry to be so much stronger than one deigned to kill them.
Just skimming the numbers, I see a UHAV to be just about the only tank to use. dHAV seem more novelties that are not going to fill the intended role to a large enough extent. And forgive me if I'm missing something here, I'm just now jumping into the conversation.
I honestly thought that an AV tank would be stronger against infantry AV as they aren't designed around killing them, where a AI tank would be weaker in comparison but able to effectively deal with infantry AV to counter for the weaker defenses. Am I missing something here??
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance
1260
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 18:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
Harpyja wrote: I don't see how people are missing this. My support goes to a weaker UHAV and stronger DHAV in terms of defenses. The UHAV will have to rely on its infantry fighting capabilities to defend itself from infantry AV, whereas the DHAV will be better suited against other vehicles and hence needs a better defense against infantry AV.
Also, if a UHAV has twice the EHP of a DHAV, then the DHAV will need at least twice the damage output from the large turret in order to beat the UHAV, without having the UHAV use its superior defense to win. But then you got the problem of DHAVs dealing too much damage and will wipe each other out in a fraction of a second. This is not a fun setup where DHAVs will be insta-ganking UHAVs and other DHAVs.
What I've been trying to propose is more fun and geared towards having more skill. A weaker UHAV means that the pilot will need to have skill to effectively fight off infantry AV. A stronger DHAV means that it needs only a minimal, if any, damage bonus and will result in prolonged DHAV vs DHAV fights where fitting and pilot skill will come into play, instead of the "shoot first to win" scenario that's currently proposed.
Agreed, I don't understand the line of thinking going on or how people think it's a wonderful idea. I honestly think a few people need a bit more experience with tanks and their current usage to comment. Don't want to come off like a **** but it really seems like everything is being view from the POV of the paper (spreadsheet) and not how things actually pan out in usage.
I think we have done plenty of, "oh looks great on paper" but in practice it under performs or it over performs. There is never any balance because people are simply assuming that this is how it's going to work.
I'm just going to say oh well, you guys win. I'm certainly not going to mind the proposed OP tanks one way or another. Be it using a UHAV, with a large rail and small rails for tank hunting and AI suppression (like I do NOW), or using a DHAV to 3 shot tanks like we had not that long ago.
Here I come double damage mods and nitro, armor tanking over shield. I don't mind going back to something like tanks were after 1.6 dropped. I'll be here to say, told ya so (**** move I know)! I sure do love me some AV tears! Best of all, they will have had a hand in it!
Enjoy your spreadsheets boys, I look forward to the crying I'm going to cause!!!!
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance
1261
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 22:02:00 -
[4] - Quote
Lot of interesting conversation going around.
I like harpyj idea, as it was the very first thought that came to mind when I first read of the proposals. I am just a little confused on why some assume that it HAS to have higher defenses to deal with infantry.
There are instances now, where I have no gunners running with me where yes a high defense (which is offered by the gunnlogi) is essential in surviving infantry AV. But when I run a good set of gunners (which is the idea surrounding the UHAV), defenses are of lesser concern. AV can't do their work if they can't live long enough to see it through to the end.
This is how this plays out now, and I run a very tough tank WITH the gunners. I liken my current tank setup with gunners to the proposed UHAV. Ridiculously OP in the right hands against infantry. I honestly just don't see these proposed changes panning out how people expect. Back to tank spammin!
A tank built around the idea of slaughtering infantry honestly doesn't need defenses above and beyond what AV can handle. They don't NEED this to get the job done. It's over kill and puts infantry AV at a disadvantage that doesn't need to be there in the first place. I see us going back to the idea that the best way to deal with a tank is another tank, and I thought we were agreed that this isn't right.
I personally don't think that we need such separation between tanks. I do say that yes a tank not built for AI should have the best time against infantry AV while a tank built around AI should be more on par with the enemy infantry they are designed to fight, not above and beyond them.
But I also wonder why we need such a large separation between the two tank types to begin with. What happens when we
Make their base HP more or less equal, and emphasize the differences through role bonuses
Your UHAV is slower, but has bonuses to small turrets and makes better use of modules that help the large turret kill infantry. Base Hp could sit around 2500, still tough but not over the top.
On the other hand your DHAV is slightly faster, with bonuses to their large turrets, and unable to use small guns. Base HP sits around 3000, current proposed for the UHAV. They are slightly tougher than their counterpart, able to more easily survive AV they will struggle to kill.
In this way the 2 tank types will still be distinctively different but stat wise there won't be a huge outright difference. Differences come from skills ( as it should be ) and bonuses associated with those skills.
Imagine a UHAV versus a DHAV.
The DHAV is faster, slightly more HP, and bonuses to their large main turret. The UHAV is slower, slightly less HP, and bonuses to their small turrets.
DHAV has an outright advantage over the UHAV when the main gun is considered, but small rails or missiles can play a HUGE part to keeping the UHAV on more even ground against the DHAV. Sure the DHAV seems to have an advantage, but I think it will more or less struggle against a UHAV running rails or missiles, not to mention if it runs anything other than a blaster for the main gun.
I think this is something else people don't seem to notice, what happens when you have a UHAV with double the base HP of the counterpart designed to kill it, with small guns that can effectively double DPS against them.
I wonder, why run a DHAV? UHAV would actually be a better tank killer if fit with all rails AND be extremely effective against infantry. Unless of course DHAV are one shot wonders (exaggerating here), but in that case it just wouldn't be fun.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance
1261
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 22:07:00 -
[5] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:
However, I'm in a Gallente UHAV. I'm slow, my defenses suck, and my blaster has limited range. Someone engages me from up high with a swarm launcher. Well out of my range so I can't retaliate, my defenses are weak so I have to run, and Im too slow to get away before I get blown up.
I don't exactly see how that's going to be fun for the tanker?
It's not, and unless the damage profile of a swarm launcher is addressed or the lack of an AV weapon as effective as swarms with the same profile against shields, it's not going to change.
Even with proposed numbers for the gallente hull, it won't be even close to as durable as the shield version will. You are going to experience a LOT of this, even if it goes on as proposed. There's a reason why the gunnlogi is so much stronger of a choice atm than the madrudger. And unless that get's addressed, your above scenario is going to still happen.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance
1262
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 22:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:I wonder, why run a DHAV? UHAV would actually be a better tank killer if fit with all rails AND be extremely effective against infantry. Unless of course DHAV are one shot wonders (exaggerating here), but in that case it just wouldn't be fun. Exactly what I'm thinking. If the update is released as it is currently, I'm just going with a Sagaris (Caldari UHAV), slap on two small railguns and a large missile launcher (if it is still effective and not nerfed into the ground), and watch the tears flow as my gunners kill infantry and I destroy most vehicles out there, even DHAVs.
And I'll be sure to gun with you, running proto swarms and AV nades to even further the imbalances presented. Glad I'm not the only one to question the changes.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance
1262
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 00:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Harpyja wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:I wonder, why run a DHAV? UHAV would actually be a better tank killer if fit with all rails AND be extremely effective against infantry. Unless of course DHAV are one shot wonders (exaggerating here), but in that case it just wouldn't be fun. Exactly what I'm thinking. If the update is released as it is currently, I'm just going with a Sagaris (Caldari UHAV), slap on two small railguns and a large missile launcher (if it is still effective and not nerfed into the ground), and watch the tears flow as my gunners kill infantry and I destroy most vehicles out there, even DHAVs. And I'll be sure to gun with you, running proto swarms and AV nades to even further the imbalances presented. Glad I'm not the only one to question the changes. Numbers do need to be played with some more to come to a good, balanced system also, I almost had you, but I screwed up and didn't commit...dammit all, so close just trying to get my daily challenges done XD...still need to blow up 3 installations...stupid challenge making me farm points off turrets...
Me or harpy, I know I've screwed up a couple times today already!
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention
1262
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 03:34:00 -
[8] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Doc DDD wrote:As for the proper damage to defense ratio between the two, they should nearly offset each other. The DHAV is goingto be driving circles around the UHAV unleashing insane damage while the UHAV will have a difficult time tracking and retreating for cover.
Rattati already posted that rails will not get DHAV damage bonus. So the DHAV will have say a 25% increase to DPS, and a 25% decrease in HP. the UHAV will have roughly 50% more HP and normal DPS. So lets use 1000 base HP and 100 DPS DHAV would have 750 HP and 125DPS UHAV would have 1500 HP and 100 DPS. At 100 DPS, the UHAV will kill the DHAV in 7.5 seconds At 125 DPS, the DHAVE will kill the UHAV in 12 seconds So in a direct encounter, the DHAV will lose to the UHAV. That being the case, why would I want to use a DHAV when the UHAV is able to kill the DHAV faster? So, if you want to "nearly offset each other" the DHAV would have to be able to kill the UHAV in 7.5 seconds or less. In order to do that, it would need to do at a minimum 200DPS. That being said, are yous saying that the DHAV should get double damage bonus to its main turret?
Did you factor in small turret damage as well?
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention
1262
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 17:38:00 -
[9] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:making them not crap is the first step.
shaping the battlefield so they have more utility than "Wp farming engine" or "Warpoint pinata" should be the next step.
If we can figure out how to shape the battlefields so that HAVs are necessary and USEFUL then we're in business. If we have the stats filled out and actually balanced when we get this thing going? Better still.
You know, honestly they aren't total "crap" like many view them as. I think people need to get the assumption out of their head that right now they are in such an awful place, they don't have any place on the battlefield.
Yes the madrudger is in a poor place right now. It doesn't have much function on the battlefield. And yes a blaster is failing to a gunnlogi that double hardens, as I myself have witnessed a few times last night as I ran my blaster maddie. But these are issues that HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED FIRST AND FOREMOST. Else this grand plan will not do what you intend it to do. Or go way over the top require another cycle of over the top nerfs. Leaving us back where we started.
The issues right now with tanks don't require some huge complicated fix. I'm all for adding new hulls. And I think we have a good baseline right now to balance from. Though only if we address a few issues of WHY things are underperforming first. Many of your own personal thoughts and suggestions honestly just don't jive with me because you are missing a lot of fundamental things going on with tanks right now.
My gunnlogi right now, IS , what I imagine a UHAV will be like. I have for a very long time now ran double smalls on my tanks, and with the right team manning it, the thing can win battles on it's own. When I pull out my tank with just a single competent gunner (component gunners are in very short supply), I swear half the team goes AV (only slightly exaggerating here).
I become surrounded by swarms, forge guns, plasma cannons and other tanks. And I remember why I loved tanking so much. In the right hands, a gunnlogi will remind players why tanks were so feared at one time. They shape the behaviors of everything on the field, adapt or die.
Of course, this can be very map dependent as there are several right now I can think of that are absolutely garbage for a tank. That's why I always keep a logi on hand as many need to accept that many maps are not built around the idea of accommodating tanks.
So are tanks "crap" right now. No, they are not. Many just can't wrap it around their heads that they need to run a team to return back to the glory days. I will say they are unbalanced and skewed to the gunnlogi. So fixing that issue first before adding MORE STUFF should be a priority.
So what I'm saying here is that we have an excellent baseline for what a UHAV should look like, and more or less how it should perform. Why can't we stop and acknowledge that rather than pulling numbers from our asses, attempting to come up with some new grand plan because the current system "isn't working".
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention
1262
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 14:13:00 -
[10] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:MINA Longstrike wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:wordswordswords and more combatitiveness and arguing Watching spkr try to interact with more reasonable vehicle usersFyi, repeatedly screaming that someone doesn't play this game isn't attacking their ideas, it's attacking them through their characteristics - You are going "They don't have enough EXPERIENCE to even be QUALIFIED to have an opinion on this" which is your standard modus operandi. According to you only you are qualified to have an opinion on vehicles or av. So who do you consider users on here? There's obviously Doc, Harp and Godin. Anybody else.... not so sure. And again............... I can't say the Cal scout is a great suit because I don't have it. All the same as people can't say tanks are easy to use if they don't use them.
Umm, me. Probably the best of them all
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
|
|
|
|