| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lorhak Gannarsein
Nos Nothi
4517
   |
Posted - 2015.04.01 12:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
Is it the sheer eHP in and of itself, or is it the fact that they can do it every thirty seconds (or whatever)?
Would current eHP levels be acceptable if they were coupled with a speed/acceleration nerf, and a change to hardeners making them not the be-all and end-all of HAVs?
Essentially, what I'm proposing is this: cut hardener bonuses and increase raw HP and plates/extenders to keep in line with the eHP loss, and cut speed and acceleration by... let's say... 20%; altogether HAVs would be punished for overextending by dint of being slow, so infantry ambushes would actually be effective short of applying force so overwhelming the HAV is dead inside three seconds, and if your ambush were unsuccessful that HAV would actually be driven away for a relevant period of time - or even be in a position where you could chase it down and complete the kill.
Let it be known that I rescind any complaints I may have had about single-hardener fitting restrictions, that Rattati was right, and that I/we were wrong.
**also I think Gunnlogi is mostly fine right now**
Nobody panic! My 'like' button is fixed!
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
4436
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 12:23:00 -
[2] - Quote
Cut hardeners and buff HP
Wow we are going in circles because once again someone mentions things we already had in Chrome/Uprising which means 1.7 and everything after was a huge ******* waste of time for everyone involved.
1 hardener is a bad idea and will continue to be so and gunnlogi sucks hard unless you are in the redline with a rail.
CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
|
TooMany Names AlreadyTaken
Going for the gold
1030
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 12:35:00 -
[3] - Quote
3 reps and a hardener... + fuel injetor = you ain't crackin' that shell open.
Found my favorite DJ - ATB
|
Hysanryu Brave
Random Gunz
Rise Of Legion.
49
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 13:22:00 -
[4] - Quote
Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Is it the sheer eHP in and of itself, or is it the fact that they can do it every thirty seconds (or whatever)?
Would current eHP levels be acceptable if they were coupled with a speed/acceleration nerf, and a change to hardeners making them not the be-all and end-all of HAVs?
Essentially, what I'm proposing is this: cut hardener bonuses and increase raw HP and plates/extenders to keep in line with the eHP loss, and cut speed and acceleration by... let's say... 20%; altogether HAVs would be punished for overextending by dint of being slow, so infantry ambushes would actually be effective short of applying force so overwhelming the HAV is dead inside three seconds, and if your ambush were unsuccessful that HAV would actually be driven away for a relevant period of time - or even be in a position where you could chase it down and complete the kill.
Let it be known that I rescind any complaints I may have had about single-hardener fitting restrictions, that Rattati was right, and that I/we were wrong.
**also I think Gunnlogi is mostly fine right now**
Its a bloody tank. if it were easy to kill it would be called infantry.
"NAH" - Quote Rosa Parks, 1955
|
duster 35000
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
462
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 13:26:00 -
[5] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Cut hardeners and buff HP
Wow we are going in circles because once again someone mentions things we already had in Chrome/Uprising which means 1.7 and everything after was a huge ******* waste of time for everyone involved.
1 hardener is a bad idea and will continue to be so and gunnlogi sucks hard unless you are in the redline with a rail.
*sees gunlogi*
I gotcha now!
*boom +150*
you like it?
Molestia approved
|
Jack McReady
DUST University
Ivy League
2066
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 13:38:00 -
[6] - Quote
What's wrong with HAVs taking forever to kill? too much effort required to kill a tank creates artificial number advantage for teams with less tanks. this is not rocket science and we had this discussion million of times already. you have no business in discussing balance if you do not understand this... it is really that simple.
Hysanryu Brave wrote:Its a bloody tank. if it were easy to kill it would be called infantry.
where did you get that from? fantasy channel?
jets and artillery do the heavy lifting, tanks are used to push against infantry while being immune to small arms fire. fire a huge HE shell into a building and you can be sure that those hiding inside are gone.
but tanks are left by the crew after a single hit, you leave it as bait so the crew can survive. getting experienced crew takes longer than building a tank. beside that you can call yourself lucky if you survive as a crew member after a single hit from proper AT weaponry. |
Drogan Reeth
Free Trade Corp
113
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 13:44:00 -
[7] - Quote
Hysanryu Brave wrote:Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Is it the sheer eHP in and of itself, or is it the fact that they can do it every thirty seconds (or whatever)?
Would current eHP levels be acceptable if they were coupled with a speed/acceleration nerf, and a change to hardeners making them not the be-all and end-all of HAVs?
Essentially, what I'm proposing is this: cut hardener bonuses and increase raw HP and plates/extenders to keep in line with the eHP loss, and cut speed and acceleration by... let's say... 20%; altogether HAVs would be punished for overextending by dint of being slow, so infantry ambushes would actually be effective short of applying force so overwhelming the HAV is dead inside three seconds, and if your ambush were unsuccessful that HAV would actually be driven away for a relevant period of time - or even be in a position where you could chase it down and complete the kill.
Let it be known that I rescind any complaints I may have had about single-hardener fitting restrictions, that Rattati was right, and that I/we were wrong.
**also I think Gunnlogi is mostly fine right now** Its a bloody tank. if it were easy to kill it would be called infantry.
Tanks are easy to kill. They are immune only to anti infantry weapons. Anti-vehicle weapons usually take them out in a single hit. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
5541
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 13:54:00 -
[8] - Quote
TooMany Names AlreadyTaken wrote:3 reps and a hardener... + fuel injetor = you ain't crackin' that shell open.
The moment the hardener drops, you're dead to any kind of spike dps.
Actually you're dead to pretty much any spike dps even with the hardener up.
Usually banned for being too awesome.
|
Hysanryu Brave
Random Gunz
Rise Of Legion.
49
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 14:09:00 -
[9] - Quote
Drogan Reeth wrote:Hysanryu Brave wrote:Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Is it the sheer eHP in and of itself, or is it the fact that they can do it every thirty seconds (or whatever)?
Would current eHP levels be acceptable if they were coupled with a speed/acceleration nerf, and a change to hardeners making them not the be-all and end-all of HAVs?
Essentially, what I'm proposing is this: cut hardener bonuses and increase raw HP and plates/extenders to keep in line with the eHP loss, and cut speed and acceleration by... let's say... 20%; altogether HAVs would be punished for overextending by dint of being slow, so infantry ambushes would actually be effective short of applying force so overwhelming the HAV is dead inside three seconds, and if your ambush were unsuccessful that HAV would actually be driven away for a relevant period of time - or even be in a position where you could chase it down and complete the kill.
Let it be known that I rescind any complaints I may have had about single-hardener fitting restrictions, that Rattati was right, and that I/we were wrong.
**also I think Gunnlogi is mostly fine right now** Its a bloody tank. if it were easy to kill it would be called infantry. Tanks are easy to kill. They are immune only to anti infantry weapons. Anti-vehicle weapons usually take them out in a single hit.
The point of the OP is that when hardeners are used, tanks a over powered againts AV. im assuming you missed the point of my post.
"NAH" - Quote Rosa Parks, 1955
|
Vell0cet
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
2880
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 14:11:00 -
[10] - Quote
There's noting wrong with it if we had capacitors and webs so we could "tackle" HAVs. The problem is that it's too easy to get away.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
|
|
Hysanryu Brave
Random Gunz
Rise Of Legion.
49
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 14:12:00 -
[11] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote:There's noting wrong with it if we had capacitors and webs so we could "tackle" HAVs. The problem is that it's too easy to get away.
 this is genius
"NAH" - Quote Rosa Parks, 1955
|
syzygiet
39
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 14:33:00 -
[12] - Quote
I think the current issue is HAV don't require any tactical thinking and goes something like this.
1)Pop hardeners
2) wade into infantry
3)laugh at av while laying waste to infantry
4)pop injectors to get out as the hardeners are about to go
5)recharge.
6)repeat
I think HAV should either 1)have a speed penalty when hardeners are active (that stack) or 2)be unable to use the injector when the hardeners are on as an escape.
I think this will promote more variation on how HAV are played, instead of just running in and running out. HAV can be fast at the cost of hardeners or be slow but be able to take up damage with hardeners but not have both. |
DUST Fiend
16233
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:21:00 -
[13] - Quote
Jack McReady wrote:What's wrong with HAVs taking forever to kill? too much effort required to kill a tank creates artificial number advantage for teams with less tanks. this is not rocket science and we had this discussion million of times already. you have no business in discussing balance if you do not understand this... it is really that simple. Hysanryu Brave wrote:Its a bloody tank. if it were easy to kill it would be called infantry. where did you get that from? fantasy channel? jets and artillery do the heavy lifting, tanks are used to push against infantry while being immune to small arms fire. fire a huge HE shell into a building and you can be sure that those hiding inside are gone. but tanks are left by the crew after a single hit, you leave it as bait so the crew can survive. getting experienced crew takes longer than building a tank. beside that you can call yourself lucky if you survive as a crew member after a single hit from proper AT weaponry.
Well I guess we'll just have to yield to reality.
Guess the military is going to pay for all my assets now, yay!!! FREE TOYS FOR EVERYONE!!!!!
Oh, wait, what's that? We have to pay? WHAT?!?!!?! Almost 10x the ISK cost for a proto AV suit? But....but they want it to be 1 to 1 ratio....I thought....wouldn't that mean I pay the same?...but...I invested more SP too? That doesn't matter either???
*joins military*
Contests, Sales, Writing etc
Fly Safe
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3155
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:37:00 -
[14] - Quote
Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Is it the sheer eHP in and of itself, or is it the fact that they can do it every thirty seconds (or whatever)?
Would current eHP levels be acceptable if they were coupled with a speed/acceleration nerf, and a change to hardeners making them not the be-all and end-all of HAVs?
Essentially, what I'm proposing is this: cut hardener bonuses and increase raw HP and plates/extenders to keep in line with the eHP loss, and cut speed and acceleration by... let's say... 20%; altogether HAVs would be punished for overextending by dint of being slow, so infantry ambushes would actually be effective short of applying force so overwhelming the HAV is dead inside three seconds, and if your ambush were unsuccessful that HAV would actually be driven away for a relevant period of time - or even be in a position where you could chase it down and complete the kill.
Let it be known that I rescind any complaints I may have had about single-hardener fitting restrictions, that Rattati was right, and that I/we were wrong.
**also I think Gunnlogi is mostly fine right now**
The answer is not to nerf vehicles. That's never the answer. Stop complaining about vehicles.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Outlaw OneZero
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1612
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:44:00 -
[15] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:
Well I guess we'll just have to yield to reality.
Guess the military is going to pay for all my assets now, yay!!! FREE TOYS FOR EVERYONE!!!!!
Oh, wait, what's that? We have to pay? WHAT?!?!!?! Almost 10x the ISK cost for a proto AV suit? But....but they want it to be 1 to 1 ratio....I thought....wouldn't that mean I pay the same?...but...I invested more SP too? That doesn't matter either???
*joins military*
Why not address the broken SP and ISK disparity instead of using it as justification why 1 player should be equal to 2 or more players? This is one of the biggest hurdles to balancing vehicles vs. AV. The situation was much better under the old vehicle skill tree before vehicles and vehicle mods were completely butchered. But the cost of DSs and HAVs was and still is too high to make game balance achievable.
Also can we please stop using comparisons to real world tanks?
No sane commander would commit tanks to the maps we fight on for any purpose other than installation destruction and long range interdiction of enemy vehicles. Redline railguns or missiles would be the only sane choice on these maps. Driving a tank within the effective engagement range of infantry AV on these maps would be nothing short of suicide.
These vehicles are meant for a different situation and role than current MBTs and real world comparisons serve no purpose.
Hello, is this thing on?
|
CommanderBolt
KILL-EM-QUICK
Rise Of Legion.
3291
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 18:36:00 -
[16] - Quote
I say this as Infantry, Tanks are fine for the most part. Shield tanks might even need help?
The only thing I find a little.... questionable is there ability to speed off so fast with the injectors when you engaging them. Having said that, I know how it is as a tanker and needing to GTFO of dodge quick so I probably wouldn't want to nerf them... humm.
Vitantur Nothus wrote: Why hide a solution under frothy pile of derpa?
SCV Ready!
|
Derpty Derp
Dead Man's Game
971
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 18:41:00 -
[17] - Quote
A tanks top speed, should not be slower than a scout... But that's what will happen. Pogo-AV will rule the field and leave all tanks in the redzone. |
Outlaw OneZero
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1618
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 19:02:00 -
[18] - Quote
To the OPs question, What's wrong with HAVs taking forever to kill? The same thing that is wrong with Sentinels taking forever to kill.
Here, how does this sound: "But its a heavy, it should take at least 2 people to kill. Oh and he's got a logi so it should take 3-4 people to kill."
Hello, is this thing on?
|
Edau Skir2
Corrosive Synergy
Rise Of Legion.
980
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 19:08:00 -
[19] - Quote
Tanks and AV are both fine. You just have to wait for the right opportunity to engage them. For example; Last night a rail-Maddy (Just asking to die, right?) got caught inbetween two boxes briefly, and that was it, solo'd it with an Allotek Plc.
Fact is, it's knowing what kind of av to engage with, or stay away from in tanker's cases. A well fitted dropship, should never be engaged with Swarms. Too weak, too unpredictable, engage with Forge or plc if you're a good enough shot.
A double hardened shield tanked Gunnlogi shouldn't be hit by swarms either, because the damage is so laughable. Again, plc or forge.
...this turned into a post hating swarm users. Swarm users GTFO. Your weapon of choice is rubbish, and you keep stealing my kills after I take them down solo to low armor 
Logistics mk.0 / Logibro's Modified Logistics mk.0
Scout gk.0/ Scotsman's Modified Scout gk.0
Commando gk.0
|
Cypher Nil
Fireteam Tempest
181
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 19:54:00 -
[20] - Quote
Jack McReady wrote:What's wrong with HAVs taking forever to kill? too much effort required to kill a tank creates artificial number advantage for teams with less tanks. this is not rocket science and we had this discussion million of times already. you have no business in discussing balance if you do not understand this... it is really that simple. Hysanryu Brave wrote:Its a bloody tank. if it were easy to kill it would be called infantry. where did you get that from? fantasy channel? jets and artillery do the heavy lifting, tanks are used to push against infantry while being immune to small arms fire. fire a huge HE shell into a building and you can be sure that those hiding inside are gone. but tanks are left by the crew after a single hit, you leave it as bait so the crew can survive. getting experienced crew takes longer than building a tank. beside that you can call yourself lucky if you survive as a crew member after a single hit from proper AT weaponry.
I can appreciate you explaining in detail the actual factual operations of modern tanks in the real world but it has little comparison to the tank role in video games.
A player invests in a large armoured tank on the battlefield they should "Feel" powerful and influential, being able to push into an area and hold it down as their team of infantry moves forward. its also the future and we have shields and self repairing hulls. it shouldn't be very easy to take out.
further more if I round a corner as infantry in this game and spot a tank I should "Feel" like diving into cover and evading its control area. If i'm scared of a heavy with a mini gun you can be sure I should be scared stiff of an armored tank with 3 mini guns.
That being said a team of tanks should not equal victory for a team, vehicles should complement and assist the infintry play in the game, not replace it
n++pâçGòÉS+Ç +23 Million SP Merc n++pâçGòÉS+Ç
Gû¼Gû¼+¦GòÉGòÉGòÉn¦ñ Caldari Loyalist Gû¼Gû¼+¦GòÉGòÉGòÉn¦ñ
Of course we won, now when do I get paid?
|
|
|
CLONE117
True Pros Forever
896
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 20:56:00 -
[21] - Quote
if tanks were as tough as crus. but couldnt regenerate hp or shields of any kind. and were very slow. and could dish out and reck everything save for other tanks which would turn into a long brawling match. how would that work out?
if only we could pilot the mcc.
id end the matches real quick.
|
Mary Sedillo
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
435
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:29:00 -
[22] - Quote
Hysanryu Brave wrote:Drogan Reeth wrote:Hysanryu Brave wrote:Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Is it the sheer eHP in and of itself, or is it the fact that they can do it every thirty seconds (or whatever)?
Would current eHP levels be acceptable if they were coupled with a speed/acceleration nerf, and a change to hardeners making them not the be-all and end-all of HAVs?
Essentially, what I'm proposing is this: cut hardener bonuses and increase raw HP and plates/extenders to keep in line with the eHP loss, and cut speed and acceleration by... let's say... 20%; altogether HAVs would be punished for overextending by dint of being slow, so infantry ambushes would actually be effective short of applying force so overwhelming the HAV is dead inside three seconds, and if your ambush were unsuccessful that HAV would actually be driven away for a relevant period of time - or even be in a position where you could chase it down and complete the kill.
Let it be known that I rescind any complaints I may have had about single-hardener fitting restrictions, that Rattati was right, and that I/we were wrong.
**also I think Gunnlogi is mostly fine right now** Its a bloody tank. if it were easy to kill it would be called infantry. Waves of opportunity mate. You are weak as **** when the Hardeners are down. They are really the only thing keeping us up. Tanks are easy to kill. They are immune only to anti infantry weapons. Anti-vehicle weapons usually take them out in a single hit. The point of the OP is that when hardeners are used, tanks a over powered againts AV. im assuming you missed the point of my post.
|
Ronin Merc
Defenders of the Helghast Dream
The Ditanian Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 02:17:00 -
[23] - Quote
They are op. Simple as that |
XxWarlordxX97
BurgezzE.T.F
4416
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 02:28:00 -
[24] - Quote
Outlaw OneZero wrote:To the OPs question, What's wrong with HAVs taking forever to kill? The same thing that is wrong with Sentinels taking forever to kill.
Here, how does this sound: "But its a heavy, it should take at least 2 people to kill. Oh and he's got a logi so it should take 3-4 people to kill."
You are my new best friend
I don't rage,I get even
Close beta Pro heavy
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17944
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 02:44:00 -
[25] - Quote
XxWarlordxX97 wrote:Outlaw OneZero wrote:To the OPs question, What's wrong with HAVs taking forever to kill? The same thing that is wrong with Sentinels taking forever to kill.
Here, how does this sound: "But its a heavy, it should take at least 2 people to kill. Oh and he's got a logi so it should take 3-4 people to kill."
You are my new best friend
It's not really about whether it should take one person to kill it. The question should be "what is wrong with it being difficult for one player to destroy a tank?"
GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥
-The Nameless City
|
XxWarlordxX97
BurgezzE.T.F
4416
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 02:48:00 -
[26] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:XxWarlordxX97 wrote:Outlaw OneZero wrote:To the OPs question, What's wrong with HAVs taking forever to kill? The same thing that is wrong with Sentinels taking forever to kill.
Here, how does this sound: "But its a heavy, it should take at least 2 people to kill. Oh and he's got a logi so it should take 3-4 people to kill."
You are my new best friend It's not really about whether it should take one person to kill it. The question should be "what is wrong with it being difficult for one player to destroy a tank?"
A heavy is a tank that should be able to fight 1 person and win every time, but not
at long range
I don't rage,I get even
Close beta Pro heavy
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17944
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 03:17:00 -
[27] - Quote
XxWarlordxX97 wrote:True Adamance wrote:XxWarlordxX97 wrote:Outlaw OneZero wrote:To the OPs question, What's wrong with HAVs taking forever to kill? The same thing that is wrong with Sentinels taking forever to kill.
Here, how does this sound: "But its a heavy, it should take at least 2 people to kill. Oh and he's got a logi so it should take 3-4 people to kill."
You are my new best friend It's not really about whether it should take one person to kill it. The question should be "what is wrong with it being difficult for one player to destroy a tank?" A heavy is a tank that should be able to fight 1 person and win every time, but not at long range
You do realise tank rounds fire further than the majority of hand held weaponry right?
GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥
-The Nameless City
|
XxWarlordxX97
BurgezzE.T.F
4416
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:29:00 -
[28] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:XxWarlordxX97 wrote:True Adamance wrote:XxWarlordxX97 wrote:Outlaw OneZero wrote:To the OPs question, What's wrong with HAVs taking forever to kill? The same thing that is wrong with Sentinels taking forever to kill.
Here, how does this sound: "But its a heavy, it should take at least 2 people to kill. Oh and he's got a logi so it should take 3-4 people to kill."
You are my new best friend It's not really about whether it should take one person to kill it. The question should be "what is wrong with it being difficult for one player to destroy a tank?" A heavy is a tank that should be able to fight 1 person and win every time, but not at long range You do realise tank rounds fire further than the majority of hand held weaponry right?
Maybe 
I don't rage,I get even
Close beta Pro heavy
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |