DUST Search - [FEEDBACK] AV Damage Profile Addendum

Godin Thekiller wrote:

Templar XIII wrote:

Godin Thekiller wrote:

1: That armor list can be shortened, as a lot of those don't make sense as AV (locus grenades? Really?)

First of all, locus grenade is not an AV grenade, merely a grenade with higher armor centric effect on AV opposite to flux grenades, contrary to, say, AR, Scr, RR which's effect on AV is negligible low. Same grenade rationale counts for AssHMG, FlayLock, Massdriver. Therefore in the list, therefore it makes sense. To clarify, AV does mean HAV here, not LAV which can be downed by even a SMG now (done that...ridiculous).

Godin Thekiller wrote:

2: Nope, adding in new weapons would suffice.

Nope adding new weapons is way more work for similar effect and puts more strain on system, where de-straining the existing appears a bit more important and reasonable to me as a first approach. New weapons can be implemented after, but I already mentioned that, didn't I?

1: Can you reasonably and reliably kill a HAV, DS, or LAV with a Locus grnade, FL, MD? Hell no. That's why they don't make any sense. By that Logic, NK's should be on that list. Hell, every small turret should be on that list before those things.

2:: No, it's not a similar effect, it would be giving them a damage profile they were not meant to have, changing the balance of them. No.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Templar XIII 153	Posted - 2015.04.16 02:30:00 - [1] - Quote I know, I come a bit late to the party, but having read the thread posts, I'd still like to add my 0.02 ISK: As it is now, we have imbalance between more armor than shield-centric weaponry AV-wise, which makes balancing out tanks a pain in the ass. ARMOR CENTRIC: (- Flaylock) - MassDriver - SwarmLauncher - ForgeGun - Assault HMG - Remote Explosive - Proximity Explosives (?) - Locus Grenades - AV Grenade - RailTurret [Tank] - MissileLauncher [Tank] SHIELD-CENTRIC: - PlasmaCannon - Flux Grenade - BlasterTurret [Tank] MY PROPOSAL: Why not make some armor-centric weapons hybrids to even out the playing field and make balancing easier, instead of doing away with damage profiles altogether? NEW HYBRID-CENTRIC AV ( +0/-0 ): - SwarmLauncher - MissileTurret [Tank] - AV Grenade +0/-0 - Proximity Explosives - Remote Explosives EFFECT: - almost as many anti-shield as anti-armor weaponry on the battlefield - RemoteExplosives, AV grenades get no bonus from suits GåÆ no excessive imbalances vs. Infantry or tanks - Swarm Launcher can profit partly from Minmando/Calmando or Galmando/Ammando bonus: hybrid damage gets shield damage buffed from plasma and laser/thermal bonusses, armor damage component profits from explosive/plasma-rail bonuses. Swarm launcher damage will need to be toned down marginally as a consequence, and its basic damage profile changed to +0/-0, but as the dumb fire weapon it is, this seems only fair. - in case the hybrid damage bonuses from suits are too complex already, SwarmLauncher could be taken out of suit damage bonus rule altogether, only benefitting from damage modules anymore, which is easier than balancing slot allocation plus Minmando/Calmando suit bonuses against this weapon. PROS: - easier AV balancing - easier tank balancing (tank eHP balancing as well) - more meaningful missile tanks (I don't drive them, but forums suggest there still is an issue of sorts) - no massive breach of complexity by having neutral weapons for AV, some still are armor- or shield-centric (see ForgeGun and PlasmaCannon) - no effect on infantry killing save RemoteExplosives that now kill armor and shields without prejudic, as it does thermal AND explosive damage. CONS: - lore (a bit, but I guess we will survive this...) - AV lobby cry-outs in forums, mostly Minmando aficionados (business as usual) OK, please be civil and post any critique, or even better: post a better alternative. Preferably one that does not break damage profile complexity altogether. Furthermore, apologies for by english, Iam no native to this language.
Templar XIII 153	Posted - 2015.04.16 09:04:00 - [2] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: 1: That armor list can be shortened, as a lot of those don't make sense as AV (locus grenades? Really?) First of all, locus grenade is not an AV grenade, merely a grenade with higher armor centric effect on AV opposite to flux grenades, contrary to, say, AR, Scr, RR which's effect on AV is negligible low. Same grenade rationale counts for AssHMG, FlayLock, Massdriver. Therefore in the list, therefore it makes sense. To clarify, AV does mean HAV here, not LAV which can be downed by even a SMG now (done that...ridiculous). Godin Thekiller wrote: 2: Nope, adding in new weapons would suffice. Nope adding new weapons is way more work for similar effect and puts more strain on system, where de-straining the existing seems a bit more important and logic an approach first.
Templar XIII 153	Posted - 2015.04.16 10:02:00 - [3] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Any time you make a weapon "neutral damage" you INCREASE it's overall efficiency rather than reducing it. And adding new weapons can be done without overstraining the game. Heavy lasers can use the forge gun model and largely steal mechanics from scrambler rifles or laser rifles. How so, when, as I wrote already, you tone its damage down to compensate for damage meta neutrality? Please, read first. Concerning adding weapons: do you really, really really think that the players want just another quasi paint job solution as we are getting it with tanks ('quasi' due to the fact Rattati wrote the slot layout is still open for...adjustments)? Previous threads about racial weapon parity do suggest otherwise, absolutely otherwise. And yes, I know, what the players think they want, what they write they think they want, what CCP assumes they think to want and what the players get in the end are ten different things altogether.
Templar XIII 153	Posted - 2015.04.16 18:22:00 - [4] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Templar XIII wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: 1: That armor list can be shortened, as a lot of those don't make sense as AV (locus grenades? Really?) First of all, locus grenade is not an AV grenade, merely a grenade with higher armor centric effect on AV opposite to flux grenades, contrary to, say, AR, Scr, RR which's effect on AV is negligible low. Same grenade rationale counts for AssHMG, FlayLock, Massdriver. Therefore in the list, therefore it makes sense. To clarify, AV does mean HAV here, not LAV which can be downed by even a SMG now (done that...ridiculous). Godin Thekiller wrote: 2: Nope, adding in new weapons would suffice. Nope adding new weapons is way more work for similar effect and puts more strain on system, where de-straining the existing appears a bit more important and reasonable to me as a first approach. New weapons can be implemented after, but I already mentioned that, didn't I? 1: Can you reasonably and reliably kill a HAV, DS, or LAV with a Locus grnade, FL, MD? Hell no. That's why they don't make any sense. By that Logic, NK's should be on that list. Hell, every small turret should be on that list before those things. 2:: No, it's not a similar effect, it would be giving them a damage profile they were not meant to have, changing the balance of them. No. Please, I implore you, read first, before you move. I did nowhere talk about reasonably and reliably killing AV, I was talking about inflicting reasonably much damage, more than the scratches the AR or RR do. Yes, I could have listed NK as well, but did not yet know where to place it, and small turrets were left out due to redundancy. Moreover, the weapons I mainly mentioned for hybridization were AV Grenades, Swarm launcher, Missile turret. ForgeGun and PlasmaCannon, Blaster Turret and Rail Turret were still untouched, and the first mentioned ones do have greater impact on AV than infantry wherefore they kinda qualified for hybridization in the first place. RE was the exception here, as it does kill infantry as good. Giving it damage profile neutrality was an idea because no clear shield centric RE exists as a counterweight atm and I did not want to suggest flooding the market with more weapon specializations to chose between when fitting. "The damage profile they were meant to have", what is that supposed to be: an argument for everything to forever be untouched and unchanging, as it was "meant to be" this way? Safe the balance? This is nonsense and I think you know it. Every patch or hotfix had changes of some sort for our existing balances as a result, and things meant to be does not exist in this context. We discuss here, because balance is missing or off, and making balancing and standardization easier what I was aiming for when proposing to roughly mirror the amount of anti-armor weaponry to anti-shield AV, not by making some anti-armor weapons anti-shield or adding new variations to the anti-armor arsenal, but by placing some anti-armor weapons in-between the metas: +0/-0
Templar XIII 153	Posted - 2015.04.16 18:31:00 - [5] - Quote Text Grant wrote: No thanks. This idea is not in the interest of a strategic game Why not? Please elaborate.
Templar XIII 153	Posted - 2015.04.16 18:33:00 - [6] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: Idk... But normalization takes away the super effective, and makes it effective in both cases. If it's normalized, it got to have a damage reduction. IMHO I agree 100%.
Templar XIII 153	Posted - 2015.04.16 18:38:00 - [7] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Or we can just add more Anti-Shield AV weapons and problem solved? Adding new and more weapons and content in general is always welcome, to everyone I guess. I only wonder what will be faster to implement and balance: new weapons or old weapon tweaking?
Templar XIII 153	Posted - 2015.04.16 21:36:00 - [8] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Templar XIII wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Or we can just add more Anti-Shield AV weapons and problem solved? Adding new and more weapons and content in general is always welcome, to everyone I guess. I only wonder what will be faster to implement and balance: new weapons or old weapon tweaking? in this case everyone but a small minority will fight the idea like rabid dogs. because it's a bad idea. And you are allowed to believe that. Unfortunately it says nothing about the rest of the community, which is why this post is welcome to everyone else who likes to contribute and exchange ideas, preferably in a constructive manner.