DUST Search - To Rattati: The case for hardener limits

Takahiro Kashuken wrote:

No

The bastion module is not a hardener, it is much much more, it also enhanced your offensive weapons and stops the majority of remote weapons too but at 1 big risk, you cannot move at all. For this to be applied to DUST then this hardener would have to offer 60% if not more to both shield and armor but if you are a gunlogi which cannot move and it gets down to armor you are screwed anyways because you have little armor and also your shield does not regen when you are getting hit so you are an easy target.

The hardener is the only thing which allows vehicles out of the redline, 1 will last 30seconds if you get hit by anything before you reach your target you either turn around or use your hardener and carry on but risk it being wasted by the time you get to where you need to go. Shield vehicles require 2 minimum due to poor regen which is not constant, armor vehicles can deal with 1 due to constant reps but the majority of AV is armor based.

Diversity? Well no because it is either HP or reps, if you do not have enough HP you will be taken out and if your reps are not good enough you will not survive. Again shield vehicles have terrible options in the low slots, armor doesn't suffer as much but due to both being gutted to the bone with HP values it is not wise to not fit on reps or HP. Variety in general is terrible due to not enough useful modules.

You should buff the shield hardener because it actually needs it, this entire patch has give a buff to armor and nerfed shield.

I think that the SL fixes like it not going around corners or firing while jumping about are acceptable limits on sandbox gameplay but CCP do not it seems yet pilots again have to deal with more nerfs which this idea is. Vehicles have been cut to the bone on modules/skills/turrets/hulls/skill bonuses etc This just compounds another problem on an already fragile playstyle which frankly has already been replaced by infantry and if removed tommorow i don't think anyone would notice it.

Disclaimer:

The above post is respectful, contains no ranting, contains no personal attacks, contains no trolling, contains no racism, contains no discrimination, contains no profanity, contains no spamming. This post is an opinion and is related to DUST514

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 2688	Posted - 2015.03.13 19:06:00 - [1] - Quote I want to make the case to limit hardeners to one per vehicle, not just to Rattati, but to the whole community. I think a single hardener will give us an easier time finding balance, it will stymie some complaints of OP tanks, and it could actually allow for a buff to shield. I will outline my case in several points. 1. Eve Precedent I understand that Eve is a sandbox game and we want players to build a variety of different fits, but a hardener limit has Eve precedence. Take a look at the Bastion Module. This module is very similar to Dust hardeners. Take note of the last miscellaneous stat is has. "Max Modules Of This Group Allowed: 1" Bastion would be ridiculously OP if you could stack multiples. But limiting it to one allows it to be powerful without breaking the game. Hardeners in Dust can follow this model very easily. Now, we can balance hardeners around the fact that only one can be used at a time. 2. It enforces the "waves of oppurtunity" concept of vehicles. The 1.7 vehicle concept gave us the idea of "waves of oppurtunity" Basically, a vehicle would be a powerhouse when it's modules are on, but very vulnerable while it's modules are on cooldown. A lot of mistakes were made, and I believe a lot of grief could have been avoided if we had had a hardener limit from the get-go. The tank to have back then was a triple-hardened Gunnlogi. You simply turned on one hardener at a time to have a perma-hardened tank. This meant that there was no "wave of oppurtunity." A hardener limit would have stifled this from the get-go. I understand people want to be able to build whatever they want, but some things should be a limiting factor. PG/CPU is a limiting factor. Slot layout is another. Sometimes limits are needed in order to make a fun game for everyone, and a hardener limit is one of those things. 3. It encourages fitting diversity. Counter-intuitive as it seems, a hardener limit also means we can se more fitting diversity. Back in 1.7, the meta was to stack as much hardening as you could, and either run one at a time for perma-hardening or run several at the same time to make you near impenetrable t everything. With a hardener limit of one, that is no longer an option. You now have to fit other things besides hardeners. Again, I understand the sandbox gaeplay of Dust, but this encourages module use beyond stacked hardeners, meaning I have to find a balance around plates, extenders, regulators, reppers, scanners, and all the other modules. Tanking will be more varied; Will you run a Maddie with lots of plates and a hardener to be the ultimate fortress, or will you run mainly reps to repair through the damage? Will you give you Gunnlogi lots of HP, or have scanners, fuel injectors, and other utility mods and rely on your hardener for protection? It's no longer "Throw on hardeners and become immortal." 4. It allows us to buff hardeners to an appropriate level. Make hardeners stronger, you encourage stacking which leads to the 1.7 problem we had. Nerf them, they become useless unless you stack them. With only one hardener to worry about, we can balance tuffing shield hardener resistance, for example, doesn't have catastrophic effects on balance because I cannot stack them into OP territory. Now tweaking is easier, because you only have one hardener on a vehicle to worry about. Balance becomes easier since there is no way to compound any given buff to hardeners by stacking them. 5. We can buff shield hardeners to be useful on Gunnlogis without breaking them. Currently, armor hardeners are completely superior to shield ones. Shields naturally have lower health, so the same 40% hardener gives less ehp overall than the same 40% hardener on armor. So with one hardener limit, we can buff the shield hardener to give more ehp than it does now. And because we only have to worry about one, we can buff it to a useful level without returning to perma-hardened Gunnlogis of 1.7. Conclusion For the reasons above, I think a hardener limit is an acceptable limit on sandbox gameplay for the benefits we gain. Vehicles should be strong when hardeners are on, but too many hardeners makes balance too difficult to achieve. Please keep commentary civil, we need to have a decent discussion on this idea. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4171	Posted - 2015.03.13 19:32:00 - [2] - Quote No The bastion module is not a hardener, it is much much more, it also enhanced your offensive weapons and stops the majority of remote weapons too but at 1 big risk, you cannot move at all. For this to be applied to DUST then this hardener would have to offer 60% if not more to both shield and armor but if you are a gunlogi which cannot move and it gets down to armor you are screwed anyways because you have little armor and also your shield does not regen when you are getting hit so you are an easy target. The hardener is the only thing which allows vehicles out of the redline, 1 will last 30seconds if you get hit by anything before you reach your target you either turn around or use your hardener and carry on but risk it being wasted by the time you get to where you need to go. Shield vehicles require 2 minimum due to poor regen which is not constant, armor vehicles can deal with 1 due to constant reps but the majority of AV is armor based. Diversity? Well no because it is either HP or reps, if you do not have enough HP you will be taken out and if your reps are not good enough you will not survive. Again shield vehicles have terrible options in the low slots, armor doesn't suffer as much but due to both being gutted to the bone with HP values it is not wise to not fit on reps or HP. Variety in general is terrible due to not enough useful modules. You should buff the shield hardener because it actually needs it, this entire patch has give a buff to armor and nerfed shield. I think that the SL fixes like it not going around corners or firing while jumping about are acceptable limits on sandbox gameplay but CCP do not it seems yet pilots again have to deal with more nerfs which this idea is. Vehicles have been cut to the bone on modules/skills/turrets/hulls/skill bonuses etc This just compounds another problem on an already fragile playstyle which frankly has already been replaced by infantry and if removed tommorow i don't think anyone would notice it. Disclaimer: The above post is respectful, contains no ranting, contains no personal attacks, contains no trolling, contains no racism, contains no discrimination, contains no profanity, contains no spamming. This post is an opinion and is related to DUST514 CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2343	Posted - 2015.03.13 22:09:00 - [3] - Quote How about just add capacitors to vehicles? It will seriously fix so many problems and balance issues. If you want to run three hardeners at once, great! But don't expect them to all last as long as they will consume three time as much capacitor. The current cooldown model is flawed because the duration of three hardeners is the same as the duration as a single hardener. Seriously, I think it's time to transfer vehicles to the capacitor model. You can stack powerful modules in exchange for shorter active run times, or use "lesser" modules for smaller benefits over longer periods of time. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 2692	Posted - 2015.03.13 22:14:00 - [4] - Quote Harpyja wrote: How about just add capacitors to vehicles? It will seriously fix so many problems and balance issues. If you want to run three hardeners at once, great! But don't expect them to all last as long as they will consume three time as much capacitor. The current cooldown model is flawed because the duration of three hardeners is the same as the duration as a single hardener. Seriously, I think it's time to transfer vehicles to the capacitor model. You can stack powerful modules in exchange for shorter active run times, or use "lesser" modules for smaller benefits over longer periods of time. I would love this, but I think my idea is more realistic. That would require such an extensive overhaul... Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1920	Posted - 2015.03.13 22:17:00 - [5] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: No The bastion module is not a hardener, it is much much more, it also enhanced your offensive weapons and stops the majority of remote weapons too but at 1 big risk, you cannot move at all. For this to be applied to DUST then this hardener would have to offer 60% if not more to both shield and armor but if you are a gunlogi which cannot move and it gets down to armor you are screwed anyways because you have little armor and also your shield does not regen when you are getting hit so you are an easy target. The hardener is the only thing which allows vehicles out of the redline, 1 will last 30seconds if you get hit by anything before you reach your target you either turn around or use your hardener and carry on but risk it being wasted by the time you get to where you need to go. Shield vehicles require 2 minimum due to poor regen which is not constant, armor vehicles can deal with 1 due to constant reps but the majority of AV is armor based. Diversity? Well no because it is either HP or reps, if you do not have enough HP you will be taken out and if your reps are not good enough you will not survive. Again shield vehicles have terrible options in the low slots, armor doesn't suffer as much but due to both being gutted to the bone with HP values it is not wise to not fit on reps or HP. Variety in general is terrible due to not enough useful modules. You should buff the shield hardener because it actually needs it, this entire patch has give a buff to armor and nerfed shield. I think that the SL fixes like it not going around corners or firing while jumping about are acceptable limits on sandbox gameplay but CCP do not it seems yet pilots again have to deal with more nerfs which this idea is. Vehicles have been cut to the bone on modules/skills/turrets/hulls/skill bonuses etc This just compounds another problem on an already fragile playstyle which frankly has already been replaced by infantry and if removed tommorow i don't think anyone would notice it. Disclaimer: The above post is respectful, contains no ranting, contains no personal attacks, contains no trolling, contains no racism, contains no discrimination, contains no profanity, contains no spamming. This post is an opinion and is related to DUST514 I am a tanker that runs one hardener, I have no problem with putting up with swarms or other AV. Also- I rather have the one hardener limit and hardener CPU PG reduced than what we have now. Hardeners are so fitting heavy. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4185	Posted - 2015.03.13 23:26:00 - [6] - Quote Harpyja wrote: How about just add capacitors to vehicles? It will seriously fix so many problems and balance issues. If you want to run three hardeners at once, great! But don't expect them to all last as long as they will consume three time as much capacitor. The current cooldown model is flawed because the duration of three hardeners is the same as the duration as a single hardener. Seriously, I think it's time to transfer vehicles to the capacitor model. You can stack powerful modules in exchange for shorter active run times, or use "lesser" modules for smaller benefits over longer periods of time. Until then have a look at this because capacitors will not be on PS3. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2675529#post2675529 Disclaimer: The above post is respectful, contains no ranting, contains no personal attacks, contains no trolling, contains no racism, contains no discrimination, contains no profanity, contains no spamming. This post is an opinion and is related to DUST514 CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 391	Posted - 2015.03.14 00:57:00 - [7] - Quote One hardener limit is not a good idea Great for AV infantry though! Can we have more AV infantry deciding how tanks should work?
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5391	Posted - 2015.03.14 01:42:00 - [8] - Quote The issue is that for whatever reason, we seem stuck on this "Must have massive resists for a long time with a long cooldown" which did indeed make quite a bit of sense when HAVs had 3 slots instead of the 5 they used to. You essentially needed that hardener to last a long time and resist a ton of damage because you simply didn't have enough slots to dedicate to multiple hardeners and you needed to be powerful while it was running, so its resistance was high. But that's not the case anymore. Back in the day hardeners were 25-30% resistance each and your typical fit would run 2-3 of them at a time. And while they typically had a shorter duration that current hardeners, they had a shorter cooldown as well. If memory serves you could cycle 3 armor hardeners for near constant 25% resistance, or you could pop multiples at once if you needed super high resistance for a short period of time. Having multiples was fine because you could stack them, but the base 25-30% + stacking penalties prevented the percentage from getting out of hand (unlike stacking 40% which kinda goes nutso with 2-3 running) Not to mention the benefit of having shorter duration/cooldown hardeners is that you can tailor your active modules to fit the situation better. Light AV? Only use one. Heavy AV? Pop both but vacate the area because it won't last very long. At the same time you also don't get screwed on long cooldowns. I think if anything shorter duration/cooldown promotes the "waves of opportunity" more than huge chunks of time while in super hardened mode followed by equally long downtime where you go hide behind a rock. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 904	Posted - 2015.03.14 10:16:00 - [9] - Quote I would suggest just lowering the timer on them, to make fitting extra hp the best way to survive longer, at the cost of regen (also armour hardener should effect armour rep, instead of movespeed.) If you couldn't get through a whole engagement with them active, they wouldn't be op at all, just great to use for blocking a few shots to try and turn the tables. Currently wouldn't bother with any of the new mods, as heat buildup and dispersion are both unnecessary for blasters and rails (sorry if you don't like 2 shots at a time, but it still gets the job done against the non OP Madruga builds.) Shield regulator is worthless unless you stack hp, which is still going to take too long to regen to be useful in a tank fight, so better off just adding more survivability for the short encounter.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 9088	Posted - 2015.03.14 16:18:00 - [10] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Harpyja wrote: How about just add capacitors to vehicles? It will seriously fix so many problems and balance issues. If you want to run three hardeners at once, great! But don't expect them to all last as long as they will consume three time as much capacitor. The current cooldown model is flawed because the duration of three hardeners is the same as the duration as a single hardener. Seriously, I think it's time to transfer vehicles to the capacitor model. You can stack powerful modules in exchange for shorter active run times, or use "lesser" modules for smaller benefits over longer periods of time. Until then have a look at this because capacitors will not be on PS3. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2675529#post2675529 Disclaimer: The above post is respectful, contains no ranting, contains no personal attacks, contains no trolling, contains no racism, contains no discrimination, contains no profanity, contains no spamming. This post is an opinion and is related to DUST514 The fact that you put that disclaimer at the end of every post really makes me question how seriously I should take your arguments.. Just throwing that out there. Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*



Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris