|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 17 post(s) |
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
781
   |
Posted - 2015.01.26 11:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
A quick comment here, i am not a fan a reducing the Missile turret clip. Yes they are OP vs Armor, but extremley UP v other shields.
I don't want to be critical without giving a solution however, so i do want to also note that the missile turret has recieved a number of buffs. The most notable of which was when they got a -20% + 20% damage profile change. The main issue with this sort of profile damage is that a single Armor hardener (-25% damage resist) can only negate 5 percent of damage while a single shield hardener (-40%) can negate 60% missile damage
With your proposal, missiles would do per clip
10* 540 = 5,400 damage, 4320 vs shields and 6480 vs armor.
Vs 1 Active hardner
5,400 damage, (- 20% profile - 40% hardened = -60%) = 2160 vs shields (+20% - 25% hardned = -5%) 6156 armor.
Still keeps it OP vs armor and UP vs shields.
Proposal:
How about giving it back the old hybrid damage profile, and keeping it at 12 rounds per magazine.
12 missiles per clip 6480 -10% damage 5832 damage vs shield + 10% = 7128 vs armor
VS hardener active
6480 damage ( - 10% - 40% = -50%) vs shields = 3240 damage
6480 damage ( + 10% - 25% = -15%) vs armor = 5508 damage
We can keep the missile count at 12 and still do less damage vs a hardened armor tank than 10 missiles do against an un hardned tank.
3240 damage can be negated by two ADV heavy shield extenders (giving current gunlogis) 4664 shields
A light shield booster can knock the ehp back up to full in the 12 seconds it takes for a missile tank to reload.
A second hardner negates another 40% damage.
Cons: un hardend shield and armor tanks still will have a rough time of it.
Pros: better balance in the AV turrets that heavily favor anti armor weapons, gives hardened armor tanks a fighting chance, while still leaving shield vehicles the advantage when fighting a missile tanks, just not as large as an advatage they had before.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
781
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 12:04:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:
What if we just make armor hardeners worth fitting, then armor vehicles can choose that. I would rather stick with missiles being explosive damage and thus -20/+20
This has crossed my mind alot. It becomes a sort of house of cards. The current Missile meta vs Armor tanks is because of a lack of defense vs Missiles.
Armor tanks need a hardener tough enough to stand a chance vs Missiles, yet not so tough as to completely negate swarms. Knock on effects might make my incubus very difficult to take down, for mathematical reasons rather than pilot skill.
Missiles vs shields are UP at the moment and reducing the clip only adds to that.
I'd guess i'd would to see how a new armor hardener works and the new eHP of armor tanks before tweaks to the missile. the current stats seem okay for today's meta, but i can only speculateabout the future tank meta.
On paper, though a 12 second reload vs a new and improved blaster turret, coupled with a signifcant DPS reduction, as well as an armor hardner buff leaves me a bit worried for my missiles.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
781
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 13:10:00 -
[3] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:
actually id argue that maddy's are junk to begin with because they have crap fitting capacity. they cant field a competitive defense without giving up a competitive and practical offensive ability. most maddy's i see have between 4k and 6k armor hp. thats not enough to protect it. thats the problem. the missiles are actually fine.
youre nerfing missiles because maddy's are broken. the fix should simply be... fix the fitting on the maddy.
Don't worry, all tanks are going to get some fitting love, and rattati is trying it out himself just to see where the discreptencies lie.
CCP Rattati wrote:Guys
I am doing my homework here, with the loadouts. I started a brand new character and walked exactly through the steps of "what mighe each fit be with a given PG/CPU", without using PG/CPU mods. That means using suboptimal fits to experiment and get a fit under the cap.
To do a full PRO tank, and leaving the small turrets, we need way higher PG/CPU, and or some core PG/CPU skills, that I like actually.
!
I hink because turrets became a side issue in the other thread about the Hulls, we have an independent turret thread here. I think we should try to break down the current meta the best we can, point out both its strengths and weaknesses so that when the hull proposals are consolidated, it should be easier to adapt current turrets for new purposes.
Me, i'm just trying to adapt turret proposals against current meta as a baseline of what to expect from future tank builds.
eg. if the tweaks to missiles seem UP to current shield tank meta, then i can hypothesize they will be UP against superior future sheild tank meta.
If the opposite happened and missile tanks got (lets say a clip and damage buff to fight shields) to be twice as effective against armor tanks, i could hypothosize that it would be very difficult for future armor tank meta and drastically imapct the stats to propose for the future tank hulls.
I think thats the best way to contribute to this thread untill we know what the future hulls will be able to fit. Then we can really get dirty with it.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
787
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 05:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:
Missiles, can use the dispersion mod, I am still mixed whether Missiles should be 2 long bursts, instead of one hold the button.
In terms of personal control over how the missiles currently fire, its perfect already.
Sure in an HAV vs HAV fight i would fire off as many as I could. HAVs are not my only target. I don't necessarily want tho throw half a clip or an entire clip at a single proximity mine, or uplink. (TAKE THAT 5,400 DAMAGE YOU NANOHIVE!!)
Tagging LAVs and dropships requires placing each missile carefully and leading the taget. The same with the few infantry i manage to nail with it.
12 second reload delay everytime i see a target worth shooting at is crippling at worst, frustrating at best.
Perhaps you can point me in the right direction, but I'm struggling to see see any pros for this.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
791
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 05:01:00 -
[5] - Quote
^^^Shouldn't this conversation be in the HAV progression thread?
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
810
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 16:51:00 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling.
do you generally like the
dum dum dum dum dum (current)
or you prefer
dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss
or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss
;) vote now
I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think
also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now
Blaster ROF is fine the way it is. Most other tanks in FPS are trying to imitate life, and even then get it mixed up. Dust has its own style, that players already like.
Missile ROF is also fine as is.
Straight talk: These are two issues that I haven't seen brought up before from either tankers or infantry, so if your going to go with your feelings be prepared for a huge backlash if it doesn't quite work out.
My advice: If it aint broke dont fix it.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
812
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 18:09:00 -
[7] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Slower RoF. .25 -.5 seconds between shots range would be my preference.
With ratattis sheet thats between 2.5 to 5 seconds to fire a full clip, then another 12 seconds to reload. Kiss that missile tank good bye. Thats at 30 to 40 seconds to get off the 24 shots we have now in 12.8 seconds.
Besides this , I had another look at the spread sheet. If these were the numbers finalized for today:
Rails will be able to do 8,480 damage (+1,696) before overheat, 12 round clips (+3), and 108 (+45) ammo total.
Missiles wil be reduced to 5,400 (- 1074) damage before emptying the clip 10 (-2) round clips, 90 (-54) ammo total.
Blasters will 5760 damage, 5,700 (- 792) damage before overheat, 75 (-130) round clips, 675 (-145)ammo total.
I don't know how the future hull bonuses / SP sinks will affect the future meta. It looks like 10 skill books minimum are being b planned just for hulls( MBT, SHAV, 2 Faction SHAV, UHAV, DHAV, 2 Faction UHAV, 2 Faction DHAV). Everything may pan out, but i don't know all the details. That being said
Current meta:
This would certainly be the end of any tank that wasn't a rail. 20,352 damage per clip planned for rail tanks, massive ammo capacity mean the redline rails dont have to budge from their sniper nest the entire match. I can destroy installations without having to reload and still have enough ammo in the single clip to kill a tank.
Blaster are a good second place choice. Nerfed pretty hard as well, but heat managment is the easiest on a blaster tank, so dumping a lot of damage is still possible. Considering every massive advantage the rail would have, up close you might have a shot. One vs one i certainly would pick it over the missiles. More damage, short cool down (you'll over heat cool down and start firing before a missile tank reloads) a shield blaster would tear a missile tank to shreds.
Missile tanks, it was sweet knowing you but this is a nerf straight into the ground. Future meta or no, a proto missile tank simply wont do enough damage before either the rail or a blaster finishes it off. Its outclassed as AV rails and infantry AV by miles. Since its no good at being in the redline, mid range + long reloads + low damage, and soon to be low ROF there is very little incentive to use it at all anymore. Outclassed at every level.
Its useless to play the tanker card. From my experience however, rails are being buffed far too much, missiles being nerfed far too much, and blasters look to be nerfed to shreds vs rails but should slaughter missiles tanks with ease.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
820
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 16:54:00 -
[8] - Quote
Take into consideration the Hull bonuses, Missiles will do 25% more damaga on a Proto Caldari Destroyer HAV. Once you have the destroyer maxed you will have roughly the same damage output as current.
Until then, its hard to envion the future tank meta revolving around shield blaster tanks or shield rail UHAVs.
UHAVs will have a resistace bonus to hybrid weapons, and shields have a natural resistance to missile. With the huge amount of damage being afforded by equiping a large rail turret, only Blaster destroyers have a shot against you. Once of your crew jumps out with Pro swarms, its lights out Gal destroyer.
Your best bet would be a gunlogi with an Ion cannon/rail, or another rail UHAV.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
820
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 17:04:00 -
[9] - Quote
@ Sorry to double post, but i also noticed that you have current small rails listed as 12 shots to overheat.
Its only 12 shots to over heat on a double pilot stacked Rail incubus.
On a Tank its 7 - 8 shots to over heat. Will log in to double check. I'm used to firing 5 round bursts from my Inc when i use the small rail.
It certainly isn't 12 shots base.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
820
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 17:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:Take into consideration the Hull bonuses, Missiles will do 25% more damaga on a Proto Caldari Destroyer HAV. Once you have the destroyer maxed you will have roughly the same damage output as current.
Until then, its hard to envion the future tank meta revolving around shield blaster tanks or shield rail UHAVs.
UHAVs will have a resistace bonus to hybrid weapons, and shields have a natural resistance to missile. With the huge amount of damage being afforded by equiping a large rail turret, only Blaster destroyers have a shot against you. Once of your crew jumps out with Pro swarms, its lights out Gal destroyer.
Your best bet would be a gunlogi with an Ion cannon/rail, or another rail UHAV. But so will the large blaster benefit from a 25% damage bonus. Anyways, there's an entire discussion in the other thread about DHAVs and UHAVs and what needs to change from the current proposal. Turret balance should be independent from hull balance.
I agree that turret and tank balance need to be independent. Just deriving Rattaties ideas on turret balance seem to be directly tied to bonuses planed for the tanks. Thats the only reason i'm bringin the tanks discussion here.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
|
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
831
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 10:52:00 -
[11] - Quote
Harpya, can you make an extended chart that continues to show damage over longer periods of time? I would like too see how long each turret needs to hit a damage threshold. Lets just say how long will each tank need to empty the entire ammo supply, and chart that damage over time.
That way, we can see if several full clip bursts from missiles can out pace blaster damage. And how much blaster/rail damage can be done after each cooldown/reload?
A s in Time x axis, damage y axis and the line graph marking the total damage over time until each tank finishes ther ammo supply.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
|
|
| |
|