|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance
1987
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 15:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
Gunnlogis and getting absolutely destroyed by armor tanks in pretty much every situation. It doesn't matter if you flank an Armor tank with Proto XT-201 Missiles and et half a clip into him, as soon as he hits hardeners everything is in his favor.
Blasters wreck hardened 6000 shields with boosters in under 10 seconds while I might be sitting there all day trying to kill an armor tank with missiles.
Rail Gunnlogi < Rail Madrugar Balster Gunnlogi < Blaster Madrugar Missile Gunnlogi < Missile Madrugar
Armor hardeners need a reduction to 35-30% Also= when armor hardeners are active, repair rates need to go down by the same amount that the hardener resists.
Literally, forget gunnlogis, I can be shooting an armor tank with my proto Min Commando with Wiki swarms with 2-3 clips and the armor tank will be at full armor due to the fact that, long lasting high resistance hardeners+high base eHP+Passive Armor reps= indestructable.
Armor hardener> shield hardener 1.) Armor Hardener lasts much longer. 6 whole seconds longer without skills (gap increases with skill)
2.) The fitting: The PG of Shield hardener and CPU of Armor hardener is proportionate. BUT... Complex Shield Hardener CPU cost vs Armor Hardener PG cost.
The CPU cost of a Complex Shield extender is 341 which is 1/4 or 26.6% of my CPU on a Gunnlogi The PG cost of a Complex Armor hardener is 400 PG which is like is approx 13% of the Madrugars PG
Gåæ That does not seem fair at all. Why does it take twice the fitting space to fit a shield hardener on a shield tank than a Armor Hardener on a Armor tank?
Fitting a Complex shield extender on Gunnlogi takes up 26.6% of CPU and 9% of the PG ON the other hand, a Armor Hardener on a Madrugar takes up 13% CPU and 13% PG.
So why is it so uneven for the Gunnlogi/why is it so advantageous to use Armor Hardener on Armor tank than a Shield Hardener on Shield tank?
"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance
1987
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 15:47:00 -
[2] - Quote
JUPA SACH wrote:Are you aware that all you do is complain about everything?
Are you aware that this game is unbalanced?
"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance
1987
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 16:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it.
I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor?
"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance
1988
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 20:03:00 -
[4] - Quote
Vesta Opalus wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:Vesta Opalus wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? Its not just 2-3 clips, you need to phrase this correctly. You can literally fire swarms at a double hardened madruger at full intensity and his armor hp will be capped at full until his hardeners run out, it doesn't matter how many clips you fire at him. One swarm launcher cannot do enough dps regardless of fitting to even scratch the repair of a hardened madruger. And that is exactly what should happen.If a single swarmed can still kill a double hardened tank, hardeners have absolutely no point in existing. It should take multiple people to kill a hardened tank. The problem is how quickly they can escape once it wears off. Tone down tank speed and greatly tone down tank acceleration, and we will finally have tanks in a close to balanced place. Why should it take multiple people to kill a double hardened tank? It was already hard before, unless the tanker was certifiably ********, but the way hardeners combine with reps and armor hp makes it literally impossible now to kill a madruger until their hardeners go down. Why is that ok? Maybe if infantry had modules that boosted their damage so they could overcome the hardeners, it would be fine, but they dont. There is no AV/V balance when you can simply choose to negate AV completely when you fit your tank. Its not even a matter of tactics or ambush, its just straight up impossible for a single person to kill a tank fitted with 2 repairs and 2 hardeners unless the tanker just does not react. Could you imagine how absurd it would be if infantry had fits like that? Heavies walking around, literally invincible to every weapon on the field, unkillable until their hardeners went down, is that something you are ok with? If not, then why is it ok for tanks?
truth be told, even multiple swarmers cannot harm them.
"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance
1993
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 23:34:00 -
[5] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:Vesta Opalus wrote:
Why should it take multiple people to kill a double hardened tank? It was already hard before, unless the tanker was certifiably ********, but the way hardeners combine with reps and armor hp makes it literally impossible now to kill a madruger until their hardeners go down. Why is that ok? Maybe if infantry had modules that boosted their damage so they could overcome the hardeners, it would be fine, but they dont. There is no AV/V balance when you can simply choose to negate AV completely when you fit your tank. Its not even a matter of tactics or ambush, its just straight up impossible for a single person to kill a tank fitted with 2 repairs and 2 hardeners unless the tanker just does not react.
Could you imagine how absurd it would be if infantry had fits like that? Heavies walking around, literally invincible to every weapon on the field, unkillable until their hardeners went down, is that something you are ok with? If not, then why is it ok for tanks?
I highlightd the relevant portion of your reply. Tanks are supposed to be about stand-and-deliver gameplay. They are supposed to be hard to kill when hardeners are up. The entire point of hardeners is to make them take multiple people to kill so they don't have to run away as soon as someone switches to an AV fit. If one person can kill a tank, even if it is hardened, then hardeners have no purpose in existing. Imagine if armor plates only gave 8/12/15 armor hp. What would be the point of running them? They would technically increase your health, but not by near enough to be worth it. The problem is, tanks have too much speed, meaning once those hardeners go down, they quickly zip off to safety to come back and do it again. By slowing them down, we make them rely on infantry to provide support in the form of mobility. Ideally, a tank with hardeners would take 3-4 people running AV to kill, but the tank would have to have gunners, either to hop out and flank the AV or use their small guns to engage and kill them before hardeners come down. As it is now, I can easily zip off when I have about 5 seconds left on my hardeners and be perfectly fine. That shouldn't be the case. I want my tank to be a citadel when my hardeners are up. We have that now. But I don't want my tank to be able to zip away at LAV speeds when things go south.
Listen, where do all tanks go when hardeners are down? How long does it take them to go there?
Here are the answers.
1. Redline 2. maybe 20 seconds.
"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance
1993
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 23:46:00 -
[6] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:
Listen, where do all tanks go when hardeners are down? How long does it take them to go there?
Here are the answers.
1. Redline 2. maybe 20 seconds.
That's very debatable. Some pilots do chose to return to the redline as their fits are completely based around hardeners and have low eHP without them active other's don't have to and are more durable but I think the universal choice is to seek cover which is the correct course of action. Pretending like you can sit out in the open without your hardeners and have a good time is going to lose you that HAV.
Tell you the truth, I don't always go to redline when I'm dominating the match but I do when I know there is AV and there is possibility of other tanks.
"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance
1994
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 13:30:00 -
[7] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:So as usual nerf the only useful vehicle and HAV there is to the point where it is useless and unusable like the other HAV and basically give AV another easy target to kill because you nerfed the only useful vehicle left.
While we are at it nerf hardeners because AV shouldn't have to deal with them because if you can't cause damage when 2 hardeners are on then obv your AV weapon is broken and that is unfair.
Roll on PS2
Wouldn't you think it would be unbalanced that if sentinels had hardeners and they put two of them on their fit and can be shot at by 5 assaults using proto weapons and sentinel HP doesn't even go down at all until their 40 seconds of hardening us up?
"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance
1994
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 13:33:00 -
[8] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: It wouldn't put an end to it... but it would make the mechanical arguments against it irrelevant
the consistency within the setting argument could then be made...but never really need to be implemented besides making people (such as myself) who like the way Eve's shield regen work happy...but I imagine we're a small portion of the community, and CCP doesn't need to pander to us as long as they balance things in the system they have
Well I've said this before but here is what I envision with Armor Repairers becoming active modules and shield boosters having a slightly higher HP/minute. Natural Armor Rep (~30 HP/s) (Constant, very slow, Supplementary HP regeneration) Natural Shield Recharge (~120 HP/s) (Delayed, slow, Supplementary HP regeneration) Active Armor Repairer (Moderate Duration, Moderate Rate, Primary HP regeneration) Active Shield Booster (Short Duration, High Rate, Primary HP regeneration) The recharge delay is of course a factor, but is the tradeoff for a much higher natural rate. Even so in both cases that is simply supplementary regen. Currently Shield Boosters are so terribad that shield pretty much has to rely on natural recharge....which I think will remain nearly impossible properly balance against armor repairers, ESPECIALLY Heavy Passive ones. Most of this **** started when CCP Blam moved us to the "Passive Regeneration is Primary Regeneration" model and it has been a mess ever since. Passive regeneration is fine if it is limited to supplementary regen, but the primary regen moves back to the Active model. NOTE: I think that currently, the issue with armor repairers lies in the HEAVY ones. I don't think the Light ones are problematic so those can probably be left as is, as not to totally mess up Dropships and LAVs for the sake of HAV balance. As for balancing within the system we already have....I think Rattati is willing to be aggressive in change if it is absolutely necessary. However if he can reach a balanced state by making few changes, he's going to be more likely to go that direction with it. Manpower is very limited on the Dust Dev side so he has to make very tough choices on how things are done, and if he can get the desired result (of balance) with less work, he's going to take that direction with it. And as I have mentioned before in keeping with the above ideals since I too feel the same way. I think the current repair rates for the armour modules are fine, sans the passive repair rate. From previous builds the highest possible tier repairer was the old Efficient Heavy Armour Repairer which repaired a total of 414 armour every three seconds. On a per second basis this amounts to 138 repairs per second which I feel is fine and keeps the vehicle competitive and durable. However as it is not constant and gives time between pulses I feel like it would be distinctly more balanced while keeping the modules functionality relatively fair and balanced. Considering we have a skill for the betterment of repair values I think if you set the Repair Rate on the Prototype Module to 330 armour repaired per pulse unmodified (every 3 seconds for a fifteen second duration) you would woukd amount to the current Prototype module we have now. With skills that is 412.5 repairs every 3 seconds for the exactly 137.5 we have now just active and over a maximum time of between 15 and 18.75 seconds (which means Level V in core skills only adds one additional pulse meaning that under this model the total armour repaired changes from 2062.5 every 15 seconds to to 2475 over 18 seconds). Those values I think are fair but not overly powerful. An indvidual repairer under this model functions with the exact same efficiency however its window of operation is now much lower. Couple that with an appropriate cool down time that allows shield to regenerate their HP at a faster rate per minute and I think you will see some changes to the vehicles themselves.
How about a look at hardeners? Clearly Armor hardeners are destroying shield hardeners. They have same % resistance, Armor hardeners cool faster and last longer. Armor hardeners are also much easier to fit.
"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance
1998
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 17:34:00 -
[9] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:So as usual nerf the only useful vehicle and HAV there is to the point where it is useless and unusable like the other HAV and basically give AV another easy target to kill because you nerfed the only useful vehicle left.
While we are at it nerf hardeners because AV shouldn't have to deal with them because if you can't cause damage when 2 hardeners are on then obv your AV weapon is broken and that is unfair.
Roll on PS2 Wouldn't you think it would be unbalanced that if sentinels had hardeners and they put two of them on their fit and can be shot at by 5 assaults using proto weapons and sentinel HP doesn't even go down at all until their 40 seconds of hardening us up? Infantry juggle active modules? LOL Thanks, that's better than going to a comedy club.
Lol, now we know that you don't know what analogies are.
"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance
1998
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 17:35:00 -
[10] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:So as usual nerf the only useful vehicle and HAV there is to the point where it is useless and unusable like the other HAV and basically give AV another easy target to kill because you nerfed the only useful vehicle left.
While we are at it nerf hardeners because AV shouldn't have to deal with them because if you can't cause damage when 2 hardeners are on then obv your AV weapon is broken and that is unfair.
Roll on PS2 Wouldn't you think it would be unbalanced that if sentinels had hardeners and they put two of them on their fit and can be shot at by 5 assaults using proto weapons and sentinel HP doesn't even go down at all until their 40 seconds of hardening us up? But that is a lie
But that is how tanks work. Turn on hardeners- be indestructible. Well, at least of Armor tanks.
"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
|
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance
2009
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 00:14:00 -
[11] - Quote
Cypher Nil wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? I can destroy a shield tank by myself in 4 seconds using the free anti-armor fit, thats not balanced at all
I would love for you to come meet my 6100 shield hardened, and boosted shield tank with an ion cannon.
"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance
2011
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 15:12:00 -
[12] - Quote
I request a reply rat.
"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance
2012
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 15:56:00 -
[13] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:Vesta Opalus wrote:Shamarskii Simon wrote:It's not even the tanks themselves... It's the hardeners... That's so easy to fix man.. Its hardeners combined with passive heavy repair modules. The hardeners boost the EHP of the tank quite a bit (x4 for double hardener I think?) which has the side effect of magnifying repair module strength by the same amount, this ends up allowing you to outrep a ludicrous amount of damage just by flipping a switch. This isnt a problem in the gunnlogi since the reps can generally be stopped by damage, but on the madruger the reps just keep going regardless, which results in massive imbalance. Stacking penalties mean double hardeners provide 61% resistance.
Or you can cycle hardeners and have them on for a total of 80-90 seconds with only 20 second cool down.
"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance
2015
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 17:57:00 -
[14] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Shamarskii Simon wrote:Doc DDD wrote:Gunlogis are garbage now compared to madrugars.
Anyone that says otherwise is sitting in the redline (where madrugars would still do the job better).
Gunlogis need a buff. Give shields 1.7 hardeners and it's fair :/ Cause that's what it looks like we should do... Knowing aHardeners are back to 1.7 level :/ If aHardeners are going to be the same resistance, then they need to be differentiated through uptime/cooldown. Currently, sHardeners are worse in uptime (PRO: 24/30 vs 36/45) 30 vs 45), cooldown (PRO: 60/45 vs 50/37.5) and fittings are somewhat wonky (PRO: 341CPU/253PG vs 133CPU/397PG - not entirely sure these are out of line, they just 'feel' a little odd.) Basically, Shields needs to have some aspect that's better, while the third element is neutral: so Shields have better downtime, Armour has better uptime and both are equal on resistance, for example.
Read OP, I explain why fitting cost's are out of line for shield hardeners.
"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
|
Sir Dukey
G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance
2015
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 18:06:00 -
[15] - Quote
SgtMajSquish MLBJ wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:JUPA SACH wrote:Are you aware that all you do is complain about everything? Are you aware that this game is unbalanced? no...... really?
Well then, what is wrong with complaining?
"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
|
|
|
|