DUST Search - Nerf impenetrable Madrugars already

Cesar Geronimo wrote:

Ghost Kaisar wrote:

Mina Longstrike wrote:

Varoth Drac wrote:

Madrugars don't need nerfing (except for large blaster dispersion). Instead buff Gunlogis and maybe missile turrets.

They do need some adjusting. Without their hardeners they're far too weak. With them they're practically invincible (-60.86% incoming damage)

They go from ~5k ehp & ~150ish reps to ~11.5k ehp (presuming the plate, dual hardener & single rep) with roughly ~400 effective reps once both hardeners get activated. Their reps outpace incoming DPS unless you can find some *massive* burst or have way, way too many people shooting at target. Their effective reps get even wilder if they drop the plate for a second rep.

Or something like that, I'm tired and not mathing well.

The problem is largely that this is all done in effective hitpoints, which means that the damage reduction is *insane*. If tanks were to have higher raw hitpoints, and lower hardened values alongside lower proportional reps... people wouldn't be as upset, as tanks would take damage that actually sticks for a bit.

The large other portion of the problem is that vehicles have isk costs that treat them like they're temporary powerups (and yes, isk IS used as a balancing feature in this game, like it or not) so when someone calls out a 1m isk tank they feel like it should 'buy' them a lot of power, because risk vs reward. Another issue is that vehicles take up an absolutely massive amount of SP to be any real good which really messes with their design, as it treats them more as a role than a temporary powerup anyone could purchase... so there's a second hurdle there. Thirdly vehicles lack a very well defined role other than 'roam around and kill whatever you encounter' which further adds to frustrations - If they had a clearly defined role, people would be less likely to pull them out in situations where they're not needed.

If isk costs remain so absurdly high, SP costs should go down, and survivability should probably be retained.
If sp costs remain so absurdly high, isk costs should go down and survivability should be lowered (no one likes dying, but I care less about dying in something that costs 20k than something that costs 2mil).

Vehicles need clear and frequently useful roles, without people getting upset when they perform well in the roles they have (currently people get really upset that some tanks are good at slaying... because well, that's the only identifiable role they have, and then vehicles get nerfed into uselessness... which causes a set of buffs later down the line that breaks everything because they still don't have a role).

CCP has been trying to balance tanks for awhile. They pretty much flip between "Expensive Butterflies" and "Invincible Death Machines"

My problem is that Tanks fill a very odd role in Combined arms. To Infantry, Tanks are SUPPOSED to be OP as F*CK. They are immune to small arms fire, have insanely more range, and far more firepower.

In exchange, they need to be weak to something. I've always been of the opinion that AV is supposed to be DETERRENT in the hands of Infantry. More of a "Engage and you might die", not "CHASE AND KILL THE TANK".

Tanks need to be on equal ground with other tanks in terms of fighting. Then what are tanks weak against?

Tanks need to be weak to AIR. Dropships need heavier ordnance specifically for taking down tanks. Personally, I think that the main guns on ADS's need to be redone. Make an actual "Missile Launcher" for the ADS, just like the main turret on tank. Would be used for anti-tank/anti-infantry. Blaster would be akin to a mounted Plasma cannon with a larger clip for popping tanks. Rail would be where its at now, with a damage boost.

With all this anti-tank abilities, dropships would still need to be weak to Infantry AV, with their fire and forget AA weapons, they will be able to terrorize dropships and keep them away from their armor.

Now the Weapons Triangle is complete. Tanks > Infantry > Dropships > Tanks.

Combined arms then boils down to this: Tanks protect the infantry, and the infantry protect the Dropships. Dropships then work as both infantry and vehicular support, much like the standard attack helicopter of today.

Since Infantry still hard counter dropships, you can't stick a dropship into enemy territory, as swarms will quickly kill or dissuade attack. They also dissuade Armor from engaging due to damage. With enough AV, infantry can buy enough time to deploy their own ground or air power.

Combined arms is always the way to go, and engagments are won from the Air down. Air Superiority is king.

Just my thoughts on how Vehicles should work in Dust. I'm fully aware that this probably won't happen.

^^^^^^^^ This guy gets it...

"Dying with your rep tool out - the logi-flasher!" Who hasn't been caught by a cute little female scout doing this?


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Balistyc Farshot MONSTER SYNERGY 297	Posted - 2015.07.15 15:24:00 - [1] - Quote Bradric Banewolf wrote: nicholas73 wrote: Options: 1. Make repairers active with a cool down time 2. Limit armour hardeners to 1 per tank. 3. Reduce hardener efficiency to 25% again Also, I think armour hardener needs to have a higher CPU/PG cost, they're awfully low for the benefit they provide and differ hugely from their shield counterparts. Respeccing out of tanks the minute they do I think everyone knows dual hardners is too easy to achieve. What they should do is either give it a stacking penalty or make the PG/CPU much larger so that there is sacrifice for the dual hardners. The issue is that as a Maddie, you can't fight another Maddie unless you have the dual hardner layout. That defines imbalanced. To balance this, I personally like where stacking them has way less benefit. Then you aren't seeing tanks focused on a single hardened time frame or perma hardened. I also miss Logi LAVs but that is a different problem. "Dying with your rep tool out - the logi-flasher!" Who hasn't been caught by a cute little female scout doing this?
Balistyc Farshot MONSTER SYNERGY 298	Posted - 2015.07.15 17:59:00 - [2] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Assuming Armor HAV efficiency rates are above acceptable bounds and Shield HAVs are below: * Limit all vehicle fittings to 1 hardener * Decrease chassis and turret costs by 25% (all vehicles, all turrets) * Decrease speed and acceleration of Armor HAVs * Increase speed and acceleration of Shield HAVs * Increase Large Missile Turret Reload Speed * Increase Packed RE blast radius and damage If afterwards, HAV efficiency rates remain out of balance: * Decrease Large Blaster Turret Accuracy * Decrease Large Blaster Turret Range BTW - Just throwing out an idea and seeing if it gets traction. Who else feels we should buff small turrets? I think we could see more gunner filled tanks if the small turrets packed a wallup. I mean big time buff the turrets. Make the small blaster hose down infantry. Make the small rail gun actually hurt tanks, DS, and LAV. If a light hand weapon can outdo the small turrets, people will never use them. Then we can nerf the hardners and make tanks what I want them to be. They should roll in and layout dmg as well as sop it up. "Dying with your rep tool out - the logi-flasher!" Who hasn't been caught by a cute little female scout doing this?
Balistyc Farshot MONSTER SYNERGY 299	Posted - 2015.07.15 22:21:00 - [3] - Quote SgtNONECK WASSSUP wrote: nicholas73 wrote: Options: 1. Make repairers active with a cool down time 2. Limit armour hardeners to 1 per tank. 3. Reduce hardener efficiency to 25% again Also, I think armour hardener needs to have a higher CPU/PG cost, they're awfully low for the benefit they provide and differ hugely from their shield counterparts. Active repairers should be active. 1 hardner per tank is idiotic do this tanks are useless there is no argument. Tanks should be hard to kill if u have 25mill sp into them simple truth 1 forge or swarm should not shutdown all vehicles. Hey. First thing tankers on this thread - You're doing it wrong! Just eat the fact that you still don't know what you are doing because you talk about tank spam or one man army which is stupid! You need to load a tank with 2 effective partners, one with AV to help when another vehicle challenges and one with AI for pesky AV. There is a guaranteed win, I do it with friends as an AHMG front gunner. Second, AV - I use forge guns regularly, they need a buff for all they sacrifice - give them back splash damage is my request, but otherwise AV is fine. Stop complaining please. If just the maddies double hardened are causing issues, then don't call for them to be nerfed, call for a way around the issue. CCP does not nerf well and we don't need that here. Swarms being barely useful on tanks is ok. Just stay away from tanks, there are so few points that can be directly fired on without jamming a tank into a hard to maneuver location. Use your swarms for smaller vehicles or get some real AV with a PLC, AV Nades, or other weapons that still work well without relegating yourself to strictly AV as a role. I don't like double hardners, I want that to be a more risk fit, making fits that focus say on damage mods, speed, or repping mods, but that is just me enforcing my opnion which is bias to my play style. "Dying with your rep tool out - the logi-flasher!" Who hasn't been caught by a cute little female scout doing this?
Balistyc Farshot MONSTER SYNERGY 299	Posted - 2015.07.16 14:30:00 - [4] - Quote Cesar Geronimo wrote: Ghost Kaisar wrote: Mina Longstrike wrote: Varoth Drac wrote: Madrugars don't need nerfing (except for large blaster dispersion). Instead buff Gunlogis and maybe missile turrets. They do need some adjusting. Without their hardeners they're far too weak. With them they're practically invincible (-60.86% incoming damage) They go from ~5k ehp & ~150ish reps to ~11.5k ehp (presuming the plate, dual hardener & single rep) with roughly ~400 effective reps once both hardeners get activated. Their reps outpace incoming DPS unless you can find some massive burst or have way, way too many people shooting at target. Their effective reps get even wilder if they drop the plate for a second rep. Or something like that, I'm tired and not mathing well. The problem is largely that this is all done in effective hitpoints, which means that the damage reduction is insane. If tanks were to have higher raw hitpoints, and lower hardened values alongside lower proportional reps... people wouldn't be as upset, as tanks would take damage that actually sticks for a bit. The large other portion of the problem is that vehicles have isk costs that treat them like they're temporary powerups (and yes, isk IS used as a balancing feature in this game, like it or not) so when someone calls out a 1m isk tank they feel like it should 'buy' them a lot of power, because risk vs reward. Another issue is that vehicles take up an absolutely massive amount of SP to be any real good which really messes with their design, as it treats them more as a role than a temporary powerup anyone could purchase... so there's a second hurdle there. Thirdly vehicles lack a very well defined role other than 'roam around and kill whatever you encounter' which further adds to frustrations - If they had a clearly defined role, people would be less likely to pull them out in situations where they're not needed. If isk costs remain so absurdly high, SP costs should go down, and survivability should probably be retained. If sp costs remain so absurdly high, isk costs should go down and survivability should be lowered (no one likes dying, but I care less about dying in something that costs 20k than something that costs 2mil). Vehicles need clear and frequently useful roles, without people getting upset when they perform well in the roles they have (currently people get really upset that some tanks are good at slaying... because well, that's the only identifiable role they have, and then vehicles get nerfed into uselessness... which causes a set of buffs later down the line that breaks everything because they still don't have a role). CCP has been trying to balance tanks for awhile. They pretty much flip between "Expensive Butterflies" and "Invincible Death Machines" My problem is that Tanks fill a very odd role in Combined arms. To Infantry, Tanks are SUPPOSED to be OP as F*CK. They are immune to small arms fire, have insanely more range, and far more firepower. In exchange, they need to be weak to something. I've always been of the opinion that AV is supposed to be DETERRENT in the hands of Infantry. More of a "Engage and you might die", not "CHASE AND KILL THE TANK". Tanks need to be on equal ground with other tanks in terms of fighting. Then what are tanks weak against? Tanks need to be weak to AIR. Dropships need heavier ordnance specifically for taking down tanks. Personally, I think that the main guns on ADS's need to be redone. Make an actual "Missile Launcher" for the ADS, just like the main turret on tank. Would be used for anti-tank/anti-infantry. Blaster would be akin to a mounted Plasma cannon with a larger clip for popping tanks. Rail would be where its at now, with a damage boost. With all this anti-tank abilities, dropships would still need to be weak to Infantry AV, with their fire and forget AA weapons, they will be able to terrorize dropships and keep them away from their armor. Now the Weapons Triangle is complete. Tanks > Infantry > Dropships > Tanks. Combined arms then boils down to this: Tanks protect the infantry, and the infantry protect the Dropships. Dropships then work as both infantry and vehicular support, much like the standard attack helicopter of today. Since Infantry still hard counter dropships, you can't stick a dropship into enemy territory, as swarms will quickly kill or dissuade attack. They also dissuade Armor from engaging due to damage. With enough AV, infantry can buy enough time to deploy their own ground or air power. Combined arms is always the way to go, and engagments are won from the Air down. Air Superiority is king. Just my thoughts on how Vehicles should work in Dust. I'm fully aware that this probably won't happen. ^^^^^^^^ This guy gets it... I agree with most of the proposal above. I made a similiar proposal but it involved giving the DS lock on anti-tank missiles and maintaining their current guns to keep them from being gunships. Having a tank style missile launcher would decimate infantry. The other piece I threw in as well is that the LAV should be anti DS, but I like your simple layout better. Vehicle Version: Tanks > Infantry > Dropships > Tanks Infantry Version: Heavies > Assaults > Scouts > Heavies CCP needs to understand that formula and build around it. They just are so scared of archetypes. "Dying with your rep tool out - the logi-flasher!" Who hasn't been caught by a cute little female scout doing this?