|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
   |
Posted - 2015.07.15 21:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
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.
Don't need to limit to 1 per tank as a hard limit. Fitting requirement increases to allow double hardeners fits at the cost of those modules might work better in favour both Tankers and AV alike.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 21:50:00 -
[2] - Quote
Nothing Certain wrote: one player should never be able to replace 2 or 3 players merely by virtue of their fit.
By virtue of skill though any vehicle pilot should be able to match a slayer type player who can themselves by virtue of their own skill replace 2-3 players.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 04:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
Squagga wrote:First of all. Tankers are bitches. Second of all it's really not impossible to take down tanks. It's just expensive, and as usual, annoying to get shot in the back. You just gotta be smarter than the tanker
Only met one of you who can throw a good roundhouse worth a damn and he was a bloody halfbreed. Learn to brawl.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 13:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Daddrobit wrote:maybe deadcatz wrote:hails8n wrote:Theres nothing like having a Madrigar survive your 3 boundless packed res, then your 3 Lai Dai packed nades, then your wyrikomi swarms consecutively and still have 75% armor, then 100% a second later. A pack of them together is HELL . You ever think of the price and sp you have to invest to get a tank like that? A SH!T TON. Just get 3 dudes with swarms and a PLC or two and tanker dies ISK should never buy invulnerability. <--- Made numerous threads about separate driver and gunner seats, and vehicle capacitors for modules that can be drained by infantry-carried grenades. Was shouted down every time for "forcing teamplay".
Again we've had this discussion and the issue is not about 'forcing team play' as you put it but instead taking a role that can be accessible to an individual player and telling them they are not allowed to play that role unless they can guarantee themselves something they know is online or someone they can trust to achieve the role well.
Otherwise you consign them to blue berry gunners and you know as well as anyone how awful that it.
More to the point it seems an unnecessary step when other games that arguably portray tanks better than Dust can achieve a state in which tanks can be operated by solo players in an accessible manner, with a fair degree of potency, and can be supplemented by an additional anti infantry gunner as opposed forced to divide the enjoyable roles of being a tanker between two individuals.
HAV can achieve a level of team play without having to divide the driver and main gunner roles however for a long time they have been treated by players, led on by CCP, to believe that tanks are primarily anti-infantry assault assets when they should not be.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 00:09:00 -
[5] - 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, 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, you wouldn't be so frothy.
Can you guys quit this bickering. Adipem you are preaching to the choir. We already know how unbalanced Madrugar's are but fixing them is not about nerfing what we currently have it is fundamentally altering the design of HAV.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 00:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote: And when I'm told "everything is fine" by a room full of tankers, well, I gain mucho confidence in my position.
I think that most tankers are pretty much of the opinion the current status quo is beyond broken and not a particularly good system.
Can you two just quit bickering on a subject neither of you are able to or willing to change your own or your opponents opinions.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 01:20:00 -
[7] - Quote
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?
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 01:25:00 -
[8] - Quote
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.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 04:03:00 -
[9] - Quote
Quasar Storm wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Quasar Storm wrote:
Do you know what a compressed blaster is?
I don't play many single player games these days. Is that the best gun to use against the bosses? Nope but CCP chose it because it kills infantry better than any other Blaster variant. :D
I miss the Compressed Blaster and its animations.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 04:14:00 -
[10] - Quote
Darken-Sol wrote:Quasar Storm wrote:On the blaster note, I think CCP should just make them AI. They've tried making them AV and we still don't use em' to that full extent. CCP ain't never gonna make an IFV for this game, So why not make the blaster what we tankers always used it for - Killing infantry.
Besides, When CCP turned the Blaster into a more Compressed AV version, It chews through shields like nothing. Even double hardened shields. Its all swiss cheese to an Ion Cannon. Again, I say one of the main problems here is lack of turret availability for variants and race.
Also I don't think the XT-201s needed to be messed with. Blasters=best av
Blasters in the form they are now shouldn't exist as HAV turrets end of story. They are not appropriate for the vehicles at all.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 05:04:00 -
[11] - Quote
Darken-Sol wrote:True Adamance wrote:Darken-Sol wrote:Quasar Storm wrote:On the blaster note, I think CCP should just make them AI. They've tried making them AV and we still don't use em' to that full extent. CCP ain't never gonna make an IFV for this game, So why not make the blaster what we tankers always used it for - Killing infantry.
Besides, When CCP turned the Blaster into a more Compressed AV version, It chews through shields like nothing. Even double hardened shields. Its all swiss cheese to an Ion Cannon. Again, I say one of the main problems here is lack of turret availability for variants and race.
Also I don't think the XT-201s needed to be messed with. Blasters=best av Blasters in the form they are now shouldn't exist as HAV turrets end of story. They are not appropriate for the vehicles at all. You wish it to fire larger balls of plasma slower? What ever. Its the pilot that makes the tank.
Indeed but its not a tank unless it adheres to specific design tenets. Nor is it balanced if its capabilities overrule the efforts of others.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 22:58:00 -
[12] - Quote
Nothing Certain wrote:True Adamance wrote:Nothing Certain wrote: one player should never be able to replace 2 or 3 players merely by virtue of their fit. By virtue of skill though any vehicle pilot should be able to match a slayer type player who can themselves by virtue of their own skill replace 2-3 players. I don't disagree, vehicles should be viable but the ability to just sit there and absorb damage is not skill. Duna still does pretty good, so do other tankers.
Depends really..... I mean managing incoming damage is a skill in its own right. Using hull down positions to your advantage to avoid swarm and forge gun damage entirely, hull orientating so as not to present rear armour, judging incoming damage against your module durations, against your repair values, against your ability to kill your target, etc.
Having played more intensive MMO as a damage mitigation Tank type character I can tell you that absorbing damage IS a skill. Though in order to make that a real skill in Dust these functions of tanking need to be relatively low value active armour cool downs not passives and supplement high raw HP values not account for massive effective values.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
|
|
| |
|