Tebu Gan
Capital Acquisitions LLC
1407
   |
Posted - 2015.05.04 19:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
And while I personally do hate Tankers who sit in the redline and nothing I cannot find fault with a player who has gone into cool down pulling back from combat. No different from how the good tankers play Battlefield, Planetside, etc.
However I must point out how boring I find the current Armour HAV meta since two Armour HAV on field pretty much invalidates most attempts to tankers to deal with them due to the length of engagements, can almost never be dealt with AV unless you catch one in cool down, and ADS don't even have a say any more.
I don't really think the repair values on HAV need to change only how they function. Transition them from Passives to Actives and a fair amount of time players will be engaging armour HAV which are hardeners but can only infrequently activate their reppers.
Yeah, pulling back to your redline to cooldown and recharge, while hated on, is a valid tactic. By doing so they give infantry being attacked by said tank breathing room. One problem with armor hardeners though is that constant cycle. With one I can eat one AV, maybe multiple if I have some sort of cover. As soon as my first one is down, I pop the other and start a continuous cycle of at least one hardener.
Increasing the cooldown time on hardeners (and adjusting uptime) I think will have a very large impact on tanks and work very favorably for AV.
And I'll agree with you true that strong active reps, over strong passive, will have a HUGE impact on tanks. Though there is is no reason to drop passive all together. Like I've said before, passive shouldn't be repping every second (as you aren't supposed to take alpha damage as well as active reps). Changing the rep rate then reducing the amount repped to a reasonable level to be determined would still make them viable to fit.
@Breakin
Agreed that tanks should have a role outside that of killing infantry. But I've yet to see a Dev response that that is even possible(and I and others have said this any times if tank are to kill other tanks, there must be reason). At this point, I just assume that it isn't exactly possible, or quite a ways down the road.
I imagine it would require quite a revamp to many things to become possible.
So thus we are stuck with making it so that tanks either are designed around killing other tanks (becoming useless in the process) or killing infantry, giving a reason to call tanks.
And honestly, right now I can't exactly say that tanks are insanely OP as AV make them out to be. It generally boils down to ONE singular fit that causes the problem for infantry AV, the infamous double rep - double hardened.
A double hardened - plate - rep fit, while strong, doesn't compare to the former as it is not possible to take sustained damage with hardeners up. As AV attack it, it slowly wears down, eventually getting to a critical point that takes a bit of time to recover from (say like 10 to 15 seconds or more).
So, imho, this should be the main focus of the balancing act, double rep - double hardened fits first and foremost. And I don't think that hardeners themselves are the biggest problem, but the nature of the passive reps. A return to active I think would have a very large impact.
And please be reasonable and respectful if you choose to reply. I've done nor said anything to elicit such negative and nasty comments that you generally leave for me. If you disagree, cool, but I don't need you bashing my intelligence because you find you are somehow more right.
And I also want to state, the state of AV to tanks isn't nearly as terrible as it's made out by some people. I myself have been running predominantly in an infantry capacity. Many maps just don't accommodate tanks, or severely limit the contribution they can make to a battle.
Often times, I simply ignore a tank when I know I'm in a position (map dependent) to do so. And if one does go about causing destruction, I and others make it a goal to down that tank. I run with some buddies, and one can generally solo tanks with swarms and AV nades. Throw in another form of AV and tanks won't be able to make much of a push at all.
Not to mention proxie traps (maybe look to buffing these sweet sweet babies) that on their own can blow a tank. Given that one particular fit is far to strong, this requires some very limited changes to fix. Buffing AV isn't a valid solution. First we must break one OP fit, lest we over do it as was the case with shield vehicles.
I've seen many tanks pop, and it didn't require a tank or army of tanks to make it happen. Just one or 2 guys playing it smart with AV. And how easy it is when those tankers don't run the dreaded double rep - double hardener fit.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Capital Acquisitions LLC
1407
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 19:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
No, I do not accept any premise that says any unit should be immune to destruction by it's counter under any circumstance.
If that's what you have an inherent problem, instead of trying to argue with me, walk away, because that is the one point I will give no ground on. Counters in DUST should be lethal.
You want me to be nice? Be honest with your intent and don't try to hide it from the word go, and quit dismissing the opinions of dissent, because bluntly your opinions on balance are no more valid than mine than mine are to yours. they're opinions.
No, I don't think an AV weapon should stand fully on it's own the way you think it should. Sorry don't agree with you there when you have other options readily available to you that work in tangent with your AV abilities.
Does this mean that I think an AV weapon should be ineffective against it's intended target, absolutely not. But if you are looking for a fast TTK, the weapon alone shouldn't give that to you. That is what I mean when I say other items available for AV should be taken into consideration.
A lot of my thinking revolves around range. If you want higher alpha and shorter TTK you must be in close, but the more we increase the distance TTK goes up. As a long range is a HUGE defense.Yet another thing though to be considered, is the difficulty to hit a target at range, which is the big case with the FG.
So at your max range, no, I don't think you should have a 15 second TTK with just your main weapon as you are basically untouchable for that tank(unless they have a rail, even then though it's tricky).
I have said the same of blasters before as well before they first tried to "fix" them. I liked the idea that they killed infantry, but I didn't like that they could do so at 150m with relative ease. Reducing their optimal to 75m means that any engagement with infantry would tip the scales to most of the AV weapons advantage as the tank would have a much shorter window to engage and get out safely.
And honestly, the big bad tank everyone should complain about is a blaster tank. That's the one mowing people down, driving people crazy. As it's the one that has the easiest time engaging and killing over the other two varieties. Given rails can be deadly to infantry, I don't see it very often, and rarely pull good numbers myself with it.
And as far as hull's go themselves, as I've said before, a simple change to hardener cooldown and uptime could have some very drastic affects for AV and maybe a small reduction from 40 to 35 percent in effectiveness. Like I've said, I can basically stay perma hardened with just 2 hardeners.
Couple this with a change to the rep rate from per second to per 5 seconds or strong active reps and I think you would see a major shift in power from the tank to AV.
There are many things here that can be done that can have a drastic affect on the AV and tank dynamics. Some are obvious and easily measurable like buffing AV damage and others not so obvious and hard to measure like changing cooldowns or adjusting ranges for primary weapons of both.
And honestly, I want to see these changes done in much smaller increments. If they are to buff AV damage in some way, then they don't need to go about nerfing hardener values. Much like they did with the armor hardener buff, coupled with a shield hardener nerf.
Observe first how changing one part of the equation affects the overall outcome first before making a determination that more must be done.
And if they are just opinions, why go off on a tantrum anytime anyone would disagree with you. The VERY first time I ever gave gave feedback in response to one of your posts, you immediately turned around and snapped as if you had been insulted. I'm sorry people have differing opinions than your own. It seemed that disagreeing with you was enough to set you off.
Never was it my intent or purpose, and never do I have a problem with others when I express an opinion that doesn't mesh with their ideology, but with you, it's your way or the highway. I understand well that these are opinions, and I treat them as such and make an attempt to keep my responses neutral. If you have a problem with something someone says, the very first response shouldn't be one of anger and frustration.
You're clearly a smart guy, but you honestly don't do well in having a discussion and focus more on turning it into an argument the moment someone says something that you "can't" agree with. A large part of critical thinking involves keeping an open mind, and by shutting out responses that you don't like, you stop thinking critically.
I've tried to engage in dialogue with you but you always turn it around like I'm somehow "attacking" you. Quite frankly, I do not and I'm tired of trying to be nice to you about it. If I ever do attack you for something, feel free to point it out, but thus far all I've done is disagree. And to me that does not give you grounds to attack.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|