|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aeon Amadi
Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 00:11:00 -
[1] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:General Mosquito wrote: Where is the data you presented?
Balance boils down to Kill / Spawn Efficiency. I've assumed (and I've said as much) that Madrugar Kill / Spawn Efficiency is disproportionately high. If the data isn't on my side, then my balance complaints are baseless and I'll stand corrected. If the data is on my side, however, then your excuses and what ifs -- while colorful and entertaining -- will fall on deaf ears while Rattati swings that hammer. I think it more probable than not kill/spawn efficiency data is on my side. I imagine you do as well. If you didn't, why would you be so frothy?
I think Kill / Spawn Efficiency doesn't tell the whole story though. Match Making has been a royal pain, we all know this, so I'm curious as to how much factors and variables like that - not necessarily exclusively that - tie into the whole data read out.
If a veteran with a prototype amarr assault ran with a scrambler rifle against a bunch of academy bros, obviously his kill/spawn is going to skew results. I think there's a lot more that colors a situation than simply how many times someone makes a kill compared to how many times they die.
This isn't to say I'm disagreeing with the data so much as saying that I think there needs to be some serious consideration before we start swinging the nerf hammer around. I've always preferred the scalpel.
EDIT: To better reflect my thinking here: Is it truly that Madrugars are over-powered or is that Gunnlogis are under-powered? Is it that players often refuse to run AV because it is a very risky platform? Is it that many times HAVs with hardeners were literally designed to be forced to disengage as opposed to always be killed?
Volunteer For The PSD!
Design A SKIN 2
|
Aeon Amadi
Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 00:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote: If a veteran with a prototype amarr assault ran with a scrambler rifle against a bunch of academy bros, obviously his kill/spawn is going to skew results.
The larger the dataset, the less anomalies like this will have the potential to "skew" it. Madrugars have been OP for a long time now, and there certainly are no shortage of them in game. I imagine Rattati has quite the robust sample to evaluate.
Again, how can you 100% be certain that they are, without a shadow of a doubt, the problem here? Dust 514 players have a repitoire for not wanting to run AV, even when they're getting hammered by Tanks, because it is a very high-risky playstyle and there have -always- been faults in the AV vs Vehicle logic; that it should take a team of people [AV] to deal with one person [a tank].
But, if it was on a one-to-one basis, vehicle users would immediately say that HAVs are a coffin. If it were up to me I'd have the damn hardeners built into the HAVs, be stupid powerful, but paper-thin without the hardener on, forcing Tankers into attacks of opportunity (which was the original intent behind Hardeners if anyone remembers). Trouble is that you can force a tank to disengage when his hardeners turn off but the chances of you killing them are sometimes very low because HAVs are simply faster than infantry.
So, the AV vs HAV situation aside, instead of looking at how we can nerf Madrugars what can we do to bring the Gunnlogi up? I think that is where we should start, and if Madrugars and Gunnlogis are on par with one another but excessively over-powering infantry than we can bring them BOTH back down a bit.
Let's explore our options before we immediately jump to castrating Madrugars.
Volunteer For The PSD!
Design A SKIN 2
|
Aeon Amadi
Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 01:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote: If a veteran with a prototype amarr assault ran with a scrambler rifle against a bunch of academy bros, obviously his kill/spawn is going to skew results.
The larger the dataset, the less anomalies like this will have the potential to "skew" it. Madrugars have been OP for a long time now, and there certainly are no shortage of them in game. I imagine Rattati has quite the robust sample to evaluate. Again, how can you 100% be certain that they are, without a shadow of a doubt, the problem here? Dust 514 players have a repitoire for not wanting to run AV, even when they're getting hammered by Tanks, because it is a very high-risky playstyle and there have -always- been faults in the AV vs Vehicle logic; that it should take a team of people [AV] to deal with one person [a tank]. But, if it was on a one-to-one basis, vehicle users would immediately say that HAVs are a coffin. If it were up to me I'd have the damn hardeners built into the HAVs, be stupid powerful, but paper-thin without the hardener on, forcing Tankers into attacks of opportunity (which was the original intent behind Hardeners if anyone remembers). Trouble is that you can force a tank to disengage when his hardeners turn off but the chances of you killing them are sometimes very low because HAVs are simply faster than infantry. So, the AV vs HAV situation aside, instead of looking at how we can nerf Madrugars what can we do to bring the Gunnlogi up? I think that is where we should start, and if Madrugars and Gunnlogis are on par with one another but excessively over-powering infantry than we can bring them BOTH back down a bit. Let's explore our options before we immediately jump to castrating Madrugars. I'm not 100% certain that Madrugars are overpowered, but I do think it more probable than not. If performance data says they are in fact OP, then I say we do something about rather than make excuses for it. What's been proposed is that we limit hardeners to 1 per loadout. Is it your opinion that such a change would "castrate Madrugars"? If so, why? And what alternative adjustment would you propose?
Armor Hardeners are, to my knowledge, more powerful innately than shield hardeners and shields are harmed by the inadequacies and technicalities of shield boosters being difficult and unreliable. If we limited hardeners to one per, would that really solve anything or would it just fundamentally nerf -both- HAVs while not addressing the core problem? Would it be limiting player choice to address a problem that could have been addressed differently from the start?
I don't run vehicles. I don't know these issues first hand, but I know the complaints of HAV users rather intimately given that I run with them frequently in NF. Railguns ghost firing being the reason that Missiles are preferred (reliability), Shield Boosters being unreliable to begin with, railguns simply not having enough damage to punch through a hardener+repairer combo.
If we looked at anything, I'd look at shields being addressed, starting with technical issues. Then look at bringing them up in their own unique way so that they're viable rather than homogenizing hardeners. If that doesn't work, instead of hitting the hardeners, make Armor Repairers active rather than passive as it offers nothing to the opportunistic playstyle and is just a bonus for fitting it. You should have to make the choice between using your repairers to last longer in a fight or using them to recover post-fight, IMO (a little like Boosters only without the crippling issue of the boosters not working under fire xD)
Just my thoughts. Like I said, I don't run vehicles though, so take it as a grain of salt.
Volunteer For The PSD!
Design A SKIN 2
|
Aeon Amadi
Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 01:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Devadander wrote:A one hardener limit would doom shield HAV. This is wholeheartedly agree with. With Shield regen able to be halted, Shield tanks need that extra resistance, especially considering that their hardeners are also both shorter lasting and longer cooling down.
Thanks for confirming this.
Volunteer For The PSD!
Design A SKIN 2
|
Aeon Amadi
Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 01:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
Which, come to think of what Kallas was saying, if Shield Hardeners are less powerful, have shorter durations, and longer cool-downs than it can be assumed that Shield Tanking is intended to work better with Boosters and regen as a whole, rather than resistance.
Maybe we should take a good hard look at the Armor Repairer, rather than the Armor Hardener, and let the Armor Hardener be Armor Tanking's "thing"? Like I said earlier, if we made Armor Repairers active than we force Armor Tankers to make the choice of when to use it. We could go beyond that though and give them long cool-down times to focus on the aspects of armor tanking: Buffer and Resistance, and encourage them to use that. After all, they do have passive armor regeneration as it is, so it isn't like we're forcing them to fit armor repairers or be hamstrung.
This way, the Madrugar retains it's power-house nature with Hardeners but is more likely to go down when their modules are turned off. They'd have to choose to use the repairer during the hardener duration, which makes them vulnerable when they all turn off, or to use the repairer to recover from the damage, which makes them less resistant to taking -more- damage.
Thoughts, guys?
Volunteer For The PSD!
Design A SKIN 2
|
Aeon Amadi
Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 01:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote: So, the AV vs HAV situation aside, instead of looking at how we can nerf Madrugars what can we do to bring the Gunnlogi up? I think that is where we should start..
I don't think we should bring Shield HAV up to a competitive level alongside armor HAV while we have two modules breaking tanks on a fundamental level. These being Armour Repairers and Hardener Modules. With the modules so broken what value would there be in bringing Shield HAV up to match?
Right right, I cover that in my previous post. I'm starting to think that the problem isn't Hardeners so much as the Armor Repairers, honestly.
But Shields -do- need to have their technical issues ironed out, don't you think? How is it fair that boosters are intended for a quick recovery but don't work while under fire whereas Armor Repairers work regardless?
Volunteer For The PSD!
Design A SKIN 2
|
Aeon Amadi
Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 01:28:00 -
[7] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:True Adamance wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote: So, the AV vs HAV situation aside, instead of looking at how we can nerf Madrugars what can we do to bring the Gunnlogi up? I think that is where we should start..
I don't think we should bring Shield HAV up to a competitive level alongside armor HAV while we have two modules breaking tanks on a fundamental level. These being Armour Repairers and Hardener Modules. With the modules so broken what value would there be in bringing Shield HAV up to match? Right right, I cover that in my previous post. I'm starting to think that the problem isn't Hardeners so much as the Armor Repairers, honestly. But Shields -do- need to have their technical issues ironed out, don't you think? How is it fair that boosters are intended for a quick recovery but don't work while under fire whereas Armor Repairers work regardless? Yes and its good that you are seeing this. They're the greatest part of the problem however it extends further than and into the Hardeners that as I see it. In this case I'd argue we need tanks less reliant on those modules as they are killing tank fit diversity by being too useful. Rather than have low raw HP and massive eHP I'd argue we'd need higher raw HP values with less prolific eHP buffers.
I understand your concerns but I feel we need to take this slowly, as with all things, and figure out what needs to be hit first: Hardeners or Armor Repairers, rather than both. I don't like pendulum balancing (over-buffing, over-nerfing, until you finally land on something that works).
So, given that in mind, would you like to discuss balancing Hardeners or Repairers?
Volunteer For The PSD!
Design A SKIN 2
|
Aeon Amadi
Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 01:46:00 -
[8] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Devadander wrote:A one hardener limit would doom shield HAV. This is wholeheartedly agree with. With Shield regen able to be halted, Shield tanks need that extra resistance, especially considering that their hardeners are also both shorter lasting and longer cooling down. Thanks for confirming this. The biggest reason Madrugars are considered overpowered (by those that do feel that way) is now they are able to remain highly resistant for long periods of time without needing to retreat for longer periods. Simply put, they repair too quickly. I, personally, feel that they both move too quickly (able to retreat out of harm's way) and can take too much punishment without flinching. Basically, one repair under one hardener grants too much effective resilience. Look at the following example. A PRO Forge Gun (1400 damage per shot), Prof 5 (1656) and Profile (1822.) A Madrugar with one PRO Plate, one PRO Rep, two aHardeners: 1200 Shields/4585 Armour One PRO Rep repairs 137.5/sec with L5 Skill. This is roughly equivalent to 1/13th of each FG shot. Given a charge/fire rate of, let's give a rough time of five seconds per shot (charge time plus lining it up) that means that the FG is 'winning' by 8/13ths per shot. If you understand what I mean? Essentially it's out damaging the repairs by 8/13ths. Vs one Hardener each FG shot will deal 1822*.6= 1094 Now, each second of repair is equivalent to 1/8th. Now the FG is 'winning' by only 3/8ths per shot. We also have to consider that the FG only gets four shots before it reloads (6 seconds with Max RR.) ((1094*4)-(137.5*15)= 2314. The Madrugar is roughly at half armour. Now the FG has to reload (6 seconds) which grants another 825 (2314-825= 1489) meaning that the FG damages the Madrugar at only 1489 damage to armour per clip: it will take four clips of that FG to kill this Madrugar. That's roughly 84+ seconds of continuous, accurate fire. Against a single Hardener and a single Rep (Well the Hardener only lasts for 48 seconds: which is where a second one comes in, I guess...) (*15 is 15 seconds of repair, as the first shot will have done no repairable damage during the charge, unlike the follow up shots) If a second Hardener is added, that damage is now 1094*.656= 718 The repairs are now equivalent to 1/5th. Now the FG is actually neutral with the repair rate: no damage is actually 'sticking' to the Madrugar. Factoring reload time, the FG has no possibility of killing the Madrugar, even if it make no attempt to evade. Essentially, the high resistance granted by the armour hardeners combined with the incredible and unstoppable repair rate of heat armour repairers makes Madrugars essentially unkillable unless attacked by three or more players.
Is my proposal on making Armor Repairers active again acceptable?
Volunteer For The PSD!
Design A SKIN 2
|
Aeon Amadi
Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 02:14:00 -
[9] - Quote
Cool cool. I'm not really interested in discussed hardcore numbers - that part CCP and the community at large can handle when it comes to it, but having a core concept down is a good start:
- Active Armor Repairers that have a sane active duration (maybe something that coincides with hardeners) and cooldown (nothing too crazy for obvious reasons). - Shield Boosters need to be made viable and work -THROUGH- incoming damage to hallmark on their ability to recover quickly but be vulnerable when the booster(s) and regen are not working.
I think that is a great start :D
Volunteer For The PSD!
Design A SKIN 2
|
Aeon Amadi
Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 04:26:00 -
[10] - Quote
Quasar Storm wrote:And most of you AVers don't know the half of being seriously OP.
Most of you don't even know what the Sagaris or Surya was. They were super OP at the time. Mainly because AV amongst the general population of players was almost absent. But, They were total nightmares for infantry for the most part.
If my Sagaris is never coming back, I at least want it's paint. Damn did it look so good on that Caldari hull.
Went 72/1 with a Railgun Surya back in closed beta. You know, when tanks were impossible to kill but the RDVs went down with one shot?
Hahaha, man, those were the days.
Volunteer For The PSD!
Design A SKIN 2
|
|
|
|
|