|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5775
   |
Posted - 2015.04.12 18:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
thomas mak wrote:when ppl started being able to fit more than 1 again.
Started? You realize that vehicles have *always* been able to fit more than one hardener, right?
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast & Blog
www.biomassed.net
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5782
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 22:12:00 -
[2] - Quote
Mary Sedillo wrote:Multi-hardeners are what allow a tank to actually engage in the open field for long-ish periods of time when under heavy AV fire. If one did not have them, well, many tanks would be grassed by focused AV far more often.
It's just a product of people who don't understand vehicles or the history behind them, insisting that hardeners are the problem, when hardeners at this point are not all that different from hardeners in the past. Previously hardeners were 25% for armor +10% for skills (~35% total) and shield hardeners were 30% with another 10% from skills (~40% total). We've always been able to fit multiple hardeners, and still can. If an issue with vehicle balance exists, it's not because of the hardeners.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast & Blog
www.biomassed.net
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5782
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 22:18:00 -
[3] - Quote
One Eyed King wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Mary Sedillo wrote:Multi-hardeners are what allow a tank to actually engage in the open field for long-ish periods of time when under heavy AV fire. If one did not have them, well, many tanks would be grassed by focused AV far more often. It's just a product of people who don't understand vehicles or the history behind them, insisting that hardeners are the problem, when hardeners at this point are not all that different from hardeners in the past. Previously hardeners were 25% for armor +10% for skills (~35% total) and shield hardeners were 30% with another 10% from skills (~40% total). We've always been able to fit multiple hardeners, and still can. If an issue with vehicle balance exists, it's not because of the hardeners. What is the issue then? Tanks vs AV is not even a thing right now. Not unless you have 4 or more people taking on just 1 tank with 1 pilot.
Passive regen being the primary means of HP regeneration. We need active modules.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast & Blog
www.biomassed.net
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5782
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 22:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
Mary Sedillo wrote:I think the Passive HP is just fine. Just need to adjust your tactics to attack us, just as we do when we notice certain AV set-ups.
Passive regen is fine, but not as a primary means of regen. I'm fine with low amounts of constant HP regeneration, but Armor Repairers are problematic, particularly the Heavy ones.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast & Blog
www.biomassed.net
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5784
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 22:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
The issue is that while hardened and repping constantly, it's effectively negating extremely large amounts of incoming DPS which in turn increases it's eHP. The problem is that at proto, dual hardener and dual repped Madrugars can pretty much mindlessly keep up with AV, even proto AV.
I have no issue with reppers being able to negate large amounts of incoming DPS, but by no means should it have zero downtime which is basically what we have now.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast & Blog
www.biomassed.net
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5784
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 01:09:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mary Sedillo wrote:It doesn't matter how many times we tell you our weaknesses, you guys will endlessly push for nerfs so even the dumbest mlt swarm launcher can solo-mode 1.4 mil ISK proto tank.
And when you say "us" you're also talking about me. Been using HAVs since closed beta, I know very well how they work, and use them to this day. And I'm telling you that I've been running the dual hardener, dual rep fit and I can tell you that it's stupid easy to play as, and I've yet to die in that fit. While that is anecdotal, the math also supports that the fit is simply too effective.
Is it possible to kill to kill that fit? Yes. But the conditions needed to make that happen are far too specific for it to be considered balanced. The fact remains that active reps have existed in the past and the gameplay itself was far more balanced at the time. And as Juno brought up, active reps cycled every 3 seconds instead of every 1 second like they current do.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast & Blog
www.biomassed.net
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5785
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 01:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
Mary Sedillo wrote:
But it doesn't. I've run the fit too. And I am tell you its WEAKNESSES.
It is NOT impossible to kill by any means.
It IS very tough, but not impossible to kill
if you use teamwork to down it.
It is also a Proto-level tank and should not
be easy mode for Advanced and lower.
And I'll say again, just because it is possible to kill something, does not innately mean it is balanced. The level of difficulty needed to do so is simply too high in my opinion. It is possible to kill, as you said, but the amount of skill needed to survive in that fit is too low.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast & Blog
www.biomassed.net
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5786
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 02:05:00 -
[8] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:
You haven't been using tanks, because everything you say says "I have no idea what I'm talking about."
"Why were tanks in Chrome better?"
That told me everything I needed to know about your "experience," and that is that you don't have any.
Because I wanted your personal opinion on why you felt they were better? Because I asked for your detailed feedback? Get over yourself kiddo.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast & Blog
www.biomassed.net
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5789
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 06:23:00 -
[9] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:
When I did my month of burnout-causing tanking in PC when I joined R*S, I was able to laugh off AV while taking on an enemy tank. That's how it should be, one tank tackling another in a battle of wits.
Tell me any reasons you can think of why that shouldn't be.
Hate to tell you, but a month of constant PC is not that impressive, nor uncommon. I've done stints of 10+ battles a day for over a month, it's not a big deal which is why I don't whip out my ePeen and brag about it.
And the reason it shouldn't be as you say is because never should the counter to something be itself. This isn't world of tanks, vehicles are not supposed to operate in a vacuum. They're supposed to fight and deal with multiple aspects of the game, vehicles and infantry included. Otherwise if infantry AV is supposed to be "only a deterrent" to vehicles, then should turrets be "only a deterrent" to infantry? Or do you feel you should be able to mostly ignore infantry but be able to easily kill both them and vehicles with an HAV?
Vehicles should be powerful, sure, but to me it seems like you want to be able to basically ignore infantry completely.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast & Blog
www.biomassed.net
|
|
|
| |
|