| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
DRT 99
RAT PATROL INC.
The Empire of New Eden
522
   |
Posted - 2015.08.13 03:11:00 -
[1] - Quote
First off i forgot if its Windows of Opportunity or Waves of Opportunity, but im referring to CCPs goal of vehicles being strong for a little while and then vulnerable for a little while. Whatever its called it isnt working.
Now before anyone burns me at the steak for attempting to touch vehicle balance, let me state i have some basic experience using vehicles and extensive experience shooting them. I know im going to be accused of bias by people who dont even read the whole OP. Regardless of that, as someone who would like to get into using vehicles, there is no bias here - these are simply my observations as someone who has shot at vehicles and my frustrations as someone attempting to learn how to use vehicles.
Now with that out of the way, im going to cut to the chase - most active modules are fine, and the Windows or Waves or whatever it is works tolerably. Hardners, on the other hand, are working too well and throwing everything else out of whack.
So at this point i figure many people have already stopped reading and have started replying, those of you still with me, let me explain.
Im going to be using tanks in this example but much of this applies to DS as well, tanks are simpler to type than vehicles.
Currently, with hardners active, tanks are increadibly difficult to destroy with a reasonable ammount of infantry AV. That being said, without hardners, tanks are increadibly easy to destroy with just a single person. The current state of hardners makes vehicles incredibly difficult to balance as they are both overpowered and underpowered at the same time - it all depends wholly on whether the hardners are on or off.
Am i the only one who sees an issue with this?
From an infantry perspective, since tanks are so fast and can easily outrun infantry AV, tanks can simply make their 'vulnerable' period completely irrelevant by either using 2 hardners or returning to the redline and waiting for the cooldown. Either way, the only time they will be getting shot is when they have their hardners on.
From a tank's perspective, it basically forces you to fit 2 hardners, or spend time in the redline waiting for cooldowns.
What im getting at is the current 'Windows of Opportunity' system isnt fun for both tankers (do nothing in redline and wait to get hard again) and infantry (can only ever shoot a tank when it has its hardners on) unless the tanker has 2 hardners and is perma-hardened (which isnt even waves of opportunity anymore, is it...?)
On top of this, it seems like a vehicle is not viable unless it has a hardner - which i dont believe is right. In eve, there are many ways to fit a ship. In dust, there are many ways to fit a dropsuit. When it gets to tanks though, theres only so many ways to fit a tank and still be viable, and that is because windows of opportunity forces players to fit hardners.
There isnt a solution i can propose that wouldnt start a flamewar and cause butthurt, but my point still stands:
Tanks and DS will NOT be balanced so long as 'Windows of Opportunity' applies to hardners - they will flip flop between overpowered and underpowered, much like the activation cycle of the hardners themselves. All you need to do is look back at the changes made to hardners in the past for proof. |
DUST Fiend
17
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 03:18:00 -
[2] - Quote
This is because one of the foulest sicknesses plaguing DUST has always been the Redline. This game will ultimately be impossible to balance so long as the redline remains. There are plenty of alternatives, but all require actual coding, so it will never happen unless a port magically appears (don't hold your breath)
I am a beautiful space manatee, flying through the sky with the greatest of ease
Swarms everywhere.
So-bittervet
|
Reign Omega
T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 03:21:00 -
[3] - Quote
I too..dislike burnt steaks.
TLDR.
(Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.pâ+n+ín+ƒ. LASERS BTCH!!!!!! The Incursions are back... and they're golden baby!
|
DRT 99
RAT PATROL INC.
The Empire of New Eden
522
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 03:27:00 -
[4] - Quote
Reign Omega wrote:I too..dislike burnt steaks.
TLDR.
how could i have inconvenienced you like that! that will teach me for using words i tell you what! |
Reign Omega
T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 03:32:00 -
[5] - Quote
DRT 99 wrote:Im confident that a solution exists, but it most likely involves a significant hardner nerf (with them switched over to passive instead of active), and a vehicle buff to the point where they are usable without hardners. But im not suggesting anything - this is simply the problem i see, CCP can do the rest if they so chose Reign Omega wrote:I too..dislike burnt steaks.
TLDR. how could i have inconvenienced you like that! that will teach me for using words i tell you what!
Yup, serves you right!
(Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.pâ+n+ín+ƒ. LASERS BTCH!!!!!! The Incursions are back... and they're golden baby!
|
Maken Tosch
DUST University
Ivy League
12
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 04:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
Perhaps CCP Rattati can draw inspiration from Eve Online to address hardeners.
In Eve Online, a specific class of ships known as Marauders are the only ships in Eve capable of going into what we call Bastion mode. What is Bastion mode and what does it do?
It is a mode that needs to be manually activated and goes into a set cycle of about 10 minutes if I remember the timer correctly. During this time, the ship morphs into a reinforced state where various bays are opened exposing what look like reactors to the vacuum of space. At the same time, the ship's damage resistance to any type of damage is increased by a large magnitude where it can take on almost any damage and survive until the timer runs out. Meanwhile, the ship is still able to fire back.
But there are downsides to using Bastion mode.
Once the mode is activated you can't move, you can't take in any remote repairs from another player, the mode does nothing to your damage output, and you can't manually deactivate until the timer runs its course. So if anything happens to your fleet like if they are forced to retreat, you get left behind and the opposing fleet can have their way with you. Which brings me to the next downside.
Bastion mode, is not full proof. Given enough damage in a short time, the seemingly-unbreakable tank on your ship will break. This is especially true if the ships that fire their powerful weapon happen to be Drifters which can one-hit kill even a Marauder in Bastion Mode.
How can this be applied to Dust?
The concept of Bastion mode can be adapted for use in Dust by making the following changes to the hardeners:
- Extend the time active significantly.
- Vehicles such as LAVs and HAVs that have this module become immobilized when it's active.
- Dropships are forced to hover in a stationary position but can change which way to look during the hover. They can't increase or decrease altitude.
The idea here is that hardeners are taking up so much power to increase the damage resistance of the vehicles that they are unable to furnish enough power to keep the vehicles moving. So the vehicles become sitting ducks until the hardeners finish their cycle. This also means that they won't be able to help their team in other places if they are needed elsewhere in a battle that changes rapidly.
Eve Online Invite
https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 04:09:00 -
[7] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:Perhaps CCP Rattati can draw inspiration from Eve Online to address hardeners. In Eve Online, a specific class of ships known as Marauders are the only ships in Eve capable of going into what we call Bastion mode. What is Bastion mode and what does it do? It is a mode that needs to be manually activated and goes into a set cycle of about 10 minutes if I remember the timer correctly. During this time, the ship morphs into a reinforced state where various bays are opened exposing what look like reactors to the vacuum of space. At the same time, the ship's damage resistance to any type of damage is increased by a large magnitude where it can take on almost any damage and survive until the timer runs out. Meanwhile, the ship is still able to fire back. But there are downsides to using Bastion mode.Once the mode is activated you can't move, you can't take in any remote repairs from another player, the mode does nothing to your damage output, and you can't manually deactivate until the timer runs its course. So if anything happens to your fleet like if they are forced to retreat, you get left behind and the opposing fleet can have their way with you. Which brings me to the next downside. Bastion mode, is not full proof. Given enough damage in a short time, the seemingly-unbreakable tank on your ship will break. This is especially true if the ships that fire their powerful weapon happen to be Drifters which can one-hit kill even a Marauder in Bastion Mode. How can this be applied to Dust?The concept of Bastion mode can be adapted for use in Dust by making the following changes to the hardeners:
- Extend the time active significantly.
- Vehicles such as LAVs and HAVs that have this module become immobilized when it's active.
- Dropships are forced to hover in a stationary position but can change which way to look during the hover. They can't increase or decrease altitude.
The idea here is that hardeners are taking up so much power to increase the damage resistance of the vehicles that they are unable to furnish enough power to keep the vehicles moving. So the vehicles become sitting ducks until the hardeners finish their cycle. This also means that they won't be able to help their team in other places if they are needed elsewhere in a battle that changes rapidly.
Bastion modules are one thing but they would have to be enforcer or marauder specific and convey very real and tangible benefits to the HAV basically chaining itself into position.
In addition to damage mitigation you'd be talking rep bonuses, possibly heat build up reduction, maybe even RoF or something like that.
However the issue plaguing HAV is that they aren't tanks. They don't function like tanks, and they are so general purpose that they will never have a real battlefield role.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
Maken Tosch
DUST University
Ivy League
12
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 04:10:00 -
[8] - Quote
I forgot to mention that there is also Siege mode, Triage mode, and Industrial Reconfiguration mode in Eve Online, but those are completely different. One deals massive amounts of damage. One repairs like a boss. And one processes ore like there is no tomorrow.
Eve Online Invite
https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
|
Maken Tosch
DUST University
Ivy League
12
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 04:12:00 -
[9] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Bastion modules are one thing but they would have to be enforcer or marauder specific and convey very real and tangible benefits to the HAV basically chaining itself into position.
In addition to damage mitigation you'd be talking rep bonuses, possibly heat build up reduction, maybe even RoF or something like that.
However the issue plaguing HAV is that they aren't tanks. They don't function like tanks, and they are so general purpose that they will never have a real battlefield role.
I guess to address that part, you can have the module tell the system to not accept any repairs from another player. Though I'm not sure about repairs coming from the tank itself. It was just a thought that deserved mentioning.
Eve Online Invite
https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
|
DRT 99
RAT PATROL INC.
The Empire of New Eden
522
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 04:36:00 -
[10] - Quote
i've always liked the idea of a siege cycle for tanks but i fear this will be more of the same, vulnerable when not in siege, impossible to force off while in siege |
|
|
Beld Errmon
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 06:27:00 -
[11] - Quote
As an old tanker (not current) I've gotta say the biggest power of tanks has always been their mobility, the hardeners and weapons are great, but its always been the ability to gtfo that has made tanks hard to kill.
Slow them down a fair bit and they won't be able to scythe through the battlefield the way they currently do, you could perhaps tie it to the hardeners, if you're hard *snicker* you lose a lot of your speed... hopefully dropships would get their own hardeners or this idea for tanks would ruin my current occupation.
Assault Dropship Pilot
Semi-Retired Closed Bittervet
|
bear90211
Negative-Feedback.
345
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 08:17:00 -
[12] - Quote
DRT 99 wrote:First off i forgot if its Windows of Opportunity or Waves of Opportunity, but im referring to CCPs goal of vehicles being strong for a little while and then vulnerable for a little while. Whatever its called it isnt working.
Now before anyone burns me at the steak for attempting to touch vehicle balance, let me state i have some basic experience using vehicles and extensive experience shooting them. I know im going to be accused of bias by people who dont even read the whole OP. Regardless of that, as someone who would like to get into using vehicles, there is no bias here - these are simply my observations as someone who has shot at vehicles and my frustrations as someone attempting to learn how to use vehicles.
Now with that out of the way, im going to cut to the chase - most active modules are fine, and the Windows or Waves or whatever it is works tolerably. Hardners, on the other hand, are working too well and throwing everything else out of whack.
So at this point i figure many people have already stopped reading and have started replying, those of you still with me, let me explain.
Im going to be using tanks in this example but much of this applies to DS as well, tanks are simpler to type than vehicles.
Currently, with hardners active, tanks are increadibly difficult to destroy with a reasonable ammount of infantry AV. That being said, without hardners, tanks are increadibly easy to destroy with just a single person. The current state of hardners makes vehicles incredibly difficult to balance as they are both overpowered and underpowered at the same time - it all depends wholly on whether the hardners are on or off.
Am i the only one who sees an issue with this?
From an infantry perspective, since tanks are so fast and can easily outrun infantry AV, tanks can simply make their 'vulnerable' period completely irrelevant by either using 2 hardners or returning to the redline and waiting for the cooldown. Either way, the only time they will be getting shot is when they have their hardners on.
From a tank's perspective, it basically forces you to fit 2 hardners, or spend time in the redline waiting for cooldowns.
What im getting at is the current 'Windows of Opportunity' system isnt fun for both tankers (do nothing in redline and wait to get hard again) and infantry (can only ever shoot a tank when it has its hardners on) unless the tanker has 2 hardners and is perma-hardened (which isnt even waves of opportunity anymore, is it...?)
On top of this, it seems like a vehicle is not viable unless it has a hardner - which i dont believe is right. In eve, there are many ways to fit a ship. In dust, there are many ways to fit a dropsuit. When it gets to tanks though, theres only so many ways to fit a tank and still be viable, and that is because windows of opportunity forces players to fit hardners.
There isnt a solution i can propose that wouldnt start a flamewar and cause butthurt, but my point still stands:
Tanks and DS will NOT be balanced so long as 'Windows of Opportunity' applies to hardners - they will flip flop between overpowered and underpowered, much like the activation cycle of the hardners themselves. All you need to do is look back at the changes made to hardners in the past for proof.
TL;DR Vehicles are too reliant on hardners, too durable with hardners, too vulnerable without.
I think I made a thread a while back, maybe, stating that hardeners should have a 60% res, a 45 sec active period and a 60 sec down time, BUT you could only have 1 hardener of either type. forcing the tank to leave before the hardener pops, or getting screwed up, but implement the passive hardeners and active armor reps, with a natural (Very low) HP regen / sec. |
DRT 99
RAT PATROL INC.
The Empire of New Eden
528
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:43:00 -
[13] - Quote
Beld Errmon wrote:On the other hand I think hardeners have become too much of a must have, the few times i've bothered to try out a tank i've noticed that once the hardeners go on you might as well not bother shooting at another tank with a blaster, seems this way with a swarm launcher as well, unless your entire time is shooting at them at the same time.
This right here.
bear90211 wrote:I think I made a thread a while back, maybe, stating that hardeners should have a 60% res, a 45 sec active period and a 60 sec down time, BUT you could only have 1 hardener of either type. forcing the tank to leave before the hardener pops, or getting screwed up, but implement the passive hardeners and active armor reps, with a natural (Very low) HP regen / sec.
This would only make things worse, the problem right now is that vehicles are weak as hell without hardners active and ridiculously durable with them, so giving them an even harder hardner will only cause MORE issues, because tanks will have to be nerfed somehow to make up for this, making them even weaker without the hardner.
|
Count- -Crotchula
Namtar Elite
Gallente Federation
273
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:46:00 -
[14] - Quote
I took out axlkazik's gv0 earlier :)
and orzels cv0 last week
it's not hard to do, normally 1 or 2 shots from a bluedot helps as a distraction as much as it does to tip the numbers in your favour, bit hard to take down the tanks when they're shooting at you, just be sneaky and use cover.
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=211419&find=unread
https://www.youtube.com/user/DeanBetamberine
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
370
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:51:00 -
[15] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:Perhaps CCP Rattati can draw inspiration from Eve Online to address hardeners. In Eve Online, a specific class of ships known as Marauders are the only ships in Eve capable of going into what we call Bastion mode. What is Bastion mode and what does it do? It is a mode that needs to be manually activated and goes into a set cycle of about 10 minutes if I remember the timer correctly. During this time, the ship morphs into a reinforced state where various bays are opened exposing what look like reactors to the vacuum of space. At the same time, the ship's damage resistance to any type of damage is increased by a large magnitude where it can take on almost any damage and survive until the timer runs out. Meanwhile, the ship is still able to fire back. But there are downsides to using Bastion mode.Once the mode is activated you can't move, you can't take in any remote repairs from another player, the mode does nothing to your damage output, and you can't manually deactivate until the timer runs its course. So if anything happens to your fleet like if they are forced to retreat, you get left behind and the opposing fleet can have their way with you. Which brings me to the next downside. Bastion mode, is not full proof. Given enough damage in a short time, the seemingly-unbreakable tank on your ship will break. This is especially true if the ships that fire their powerful weapon happen to be Drifters which can one-hit kill even a Marauder in Bastion Mode. How can this be applied to Dust?The concept of Bastion mode can be adapted for use in Dust by making the following changes to the hardeners:
- Extend the time active significantly.
- Vehicles such as LAVs and HAVs that have this module become immobilized when it's active.
- Dropships are forced to hover in a stationary position but can change which way to look during the hover. They can't increase or decrease altitude.
The idea here is that hardeners are taking up so much power to increase the damage resistance of the vehicles that they are unable to furnish enough power to keep the vehicles moving. So the vehicles become sitting ducks until the hardeners finish their cycle. This also means that they won't be able to help their team in other places if they are needed elsewhere in a battle that changes rapidly.
Well...the Bastion Module is an affective module, and would be interesting for a particular type of HAV (such as...the Marauder? xD)...The Bastion Module can only be fit to Marauder Class Battleships, when activivated, it immobilizes the ship it is fit on on provides several bonuses for 60 seconds. These bonuses are: a 30% Resistance bonus to all buffers (Shield, Armor, and Hull), 100% increase the the repair/boost amount of local reps/shield boosters, and a 25% bonus to both optimal range and falloff range for all turrets (and a 25% Missile Velocity bonus). The bastion module also makes the equipped ship immune to any form of electronic warfare (jamming, sensor dampeners, tracking disruptors...etc), but not to capacitor warfare. Additionally, while the bastion mode is active, it disallows remote assistance (this includes friendly Capacitor Transfers as well as Remote Shield Boosters and/or Armor Repairers).
Anyway...while a Bastion Module would be an interesting new addition, let's keep in mind that the "windows of opportunity" system creates engagements that are inherently only fun for one of the parties involved in the engagement...and compounds issues with the high-regen stats on vehicles in general, but tanks in particular it is most noticeable.
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
|
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 20:44:00 -
[16] - Quote
I fully agree that the waves of opportunity design hasn't worked out so far. My experience mostly comes from NDS, but the mechanics mostly carry over to HAVs.
One major issue is that you either have to use two hardeners to counteract the cooldown - effectively creating a passive resistance and negating the design intent - or you use one hardener (or stacked hardeners) but then you spend extended amount of times not playing but rather waiting for the cooldown to end.
I could imagine having much shorter intervals of hardening with equally short cooldown times. I'm talking 3 second up time, 5 second cooldown. Then hardeners become a much more active thing to manage. You'd try to bring up hardeners just before the other blastertank comes out of overheat to mitigate a few seconds worth of damage, or you'd hold a missile salvo for 2 seconds to wait for the other tank's hardener to run out. Most importantly you wouldn't consider the cooldown a phase where you don't play. You'd just have to deal with it and keep playing and stay active in the fight.
While I'm thinking about it: In Eve active models are important because they trade one resource - ehp - for another - capacitor. A passively hardened ship gets to use all it's cap for mobility and weapons. An active hardened one needs to spend cap and risks running out of cap too soon. Too soon being defined as 'before the fight ends'.
A major issue when carrying this over to Dust is that the current hardeners stay active for longer than a current HAV vs HAV or HAV vs AV fight lasts. In Eve terms that means we have too much cap and we should change our fitting to take advantage of that. In Dust it means no one's ever not going to run hardeners.
I'm no expert on this. Just sharing a few thoughts. |
pegasis prime
Darken's Forge and Trade
2
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 12:21:00 -
[17] - Quote
Got as far as " with hardners invinsible without hardners weak......sounds like windows of opertunity to me .....good night .
Proud Caldari purist .
I fought and bled for the State on Caldari prime.
|
Joel II X
Bacon with a bottle of Quafe
8
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 12:33:00 -
[18] - Quote
Lol "runs to the redline and waits to get hard again".
Just... Lol xD
Scouts United
Gk.0s & Quafes all day.
|
General Mosquito
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
282
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 13:37:00 -
[19] - Quote
DRT 99 wrote:
Currently, with hardners active, tanks are increadibly difficult to destroy with a reasonable ammount of infantry AV. That being said, without hardners, tanks are increadibly easy to destroy with just a single person. .
With two hardeners active, a tank can be cut through with 6 AV grenades at maximum.
Now, should two people be able to destroy a double hardened tank in less than 4 seconds?
It is already suicide to not run a dual hardened maddie. So if you can't go with a maximum hardened tank and survive for more than 5 seconds, what is the point of tanks?
The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
|
General Mosquito
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
282
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 13:42:00 -
[20] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:
Once the mode is activated you can't move, you can't take in any remote repairs from another player, the mode does nothing to your damage output, and you can't manually deactivate until the timer runs its course.
Actually, Bastion gives you a 25% boost to falloff and missile velocity, which does affect damage output.
The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
|
|
|
Vell0cet
OSG Planetary Operations
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 14:22:00 -
[21] - Quote
I'd like to see vehicles get a complete overhaul to be more EVE-like.
If we had vehicle capacitors, webs, and neuts, then vehicles could be "tackled." This would allow for vehicles to get a large EHP buff, less regen but the ability to be crippled. If they modeled the TTK around frigate fights in EVE, I think that would be ideal for a FPS. I would use most of the same frigate modules as in EVE (excluding things like ASB's, AAR's and cap boosters). EVE has over a decade of balancing, let's take advantage of that.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Knox Firmus
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
43
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 14:36:00 -
[22] - Quote
General Mosquito wrote:Maken Tosch wrote:
Once the mode is activated you can't move, you can't take in any remote repairs from another player, the mode does nothing to your damage output, and you can't manually deactivate until the timer runs its course.
Actually, Bastion gives you a 25% boost to falloff and missile velocity, which does affect damage output.
While the falloff curve gets stretched, and the missiles do get to their target faster, this does not actually increase damage, only the range at which it can be applied. DPS is still determined by the cycle time of the module, and the damage each cycle produces.
you could argue the first volley of missiles has a higher dps, but after that it is the same |
General Mosquito
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
283
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 15:10:00 -
[23] - Quote
Knox Firmus wrote:
While the falloff curve gets stretched, and the missiles do get to their target faster, this does not actually increase damage, only the range at which it can be applied. DPS is still determined by the cycle time of the module, and the damage each cycle produces.
you could argue the first volley of missiles has a higher dps, but after that it is the same
Falloff has an affect on DPS.
A Vargur in bastion will be doing more damage at say 50km than out. A Kronos gains less, but still is a noticeable increase in applied DPS. A paladin gains an huge increase in the application of scorch.
These are meaningful increases in applied DPS.
The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
|
Vegetation Monster
G0DS AM0NG MEN
The Empire of New Eden
330
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 15:40:00 -
[24] - Quote
How about we make it so Hardeners give less resistance. Say 30% when active and 15% when not active. Also- this means reduce resource cost of Shield hardeners specifically.
Say shield tank has 2 hardeners. When both are inactive, they give a little less than 30% with stacking penalty and you have the ability to active them. Say you activate both, you get less than 60% resistance with stacking penalties.
This makes it so the tank isn't completely useless with hardeners activated and not as overpowered as now with 2 hardeners activated.
B
Double O
T
Y
|
DRT 99
RAT PATROL INC.
The Empire of New Eden
531
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 16:21:00 -
[25] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:Got as far as " with hardeners invincible without hardeners weak......sounds like windows of opportunity to me .....good night .
Congratulations! You managed to successfully read into the OP to the point where i state what the problem is, but apparently missed the part where i say 'this is a bad thing'
General Mosquito wrote:
With two hardeners active, a tank can be cut through with 6 AV grenades at maximum.
Now, should two people be able to destroy a double hardened tank in less than 4 seconds?
It is already suicide to not run a dual hardened maddie. So if you can't go with a maximum hardened tank and survive for more than 5 seconds, what is the point of tanks?
I can agree that AV grenades are allitle over the top right now. Im thinking what if we halved damage and nanite cost to resupply, but doubled carry capacity? they become less alpha and more sustained DPS, same total damage dealt, but more chance to react for the vehicle.
Vegetation Monster wrote:How about we make it so Hardeners give less resistance. Say 30% when active and 15% when not active. Also- this means reduce resource cost of Shield hardeners specifically.
Say shield tank has 2 hardeners. When both are inactive, they give a little less than 30% with stacking penalty and you have the ability to active them. Say you activate both, you get less than 60% resistance with stacking penalties.
This makes it so the tank isn't completely useless with hardeners activated and not as overpowered as now with 2 hardeners activated.
I sort of like this, but would prefer 25% when active, even that is pushing it with 2 hardeners active simultaneously
Joel II X wrote:Lol "runs to the redline and waits to get hard again".
Just... Lol xD
DONT MOCK
SOMETIMES IT TAKES A WHILE
ITS A SERIOUS MEDICAL CONDITION |
Toobar Zoobar
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar
DARKSTAR ARMY
134
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 16:25:00 -
[26] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:Perhaps CCP Rattati can draw inspiration from Eve Online to address hardeners. In Eve Online, a specific class of ships known as Marauders are the only ships in Eve capable of going into what we call Bastion mode. What is Bastion mode and what does it do? It is a mode that needs to be manually activated and goes into a set cycle of about 10 minutes if I remember the timer correctly. During this time, the ship morphs into a reinforced state where various bays are opened exposing what look like reactors to the vacuum of space. At the same time, the ship's damage resistance to any type of damage is increased by a large magnitude where it can take on almost any damage and survive until the timer runs out. Meanwhile, the ship is still able to fire back. But there are downsides to using Bastion mode.Once the mode is activated you can't move, you can't take in any remote repairs from another player, the mode does nothing to your damage output, and you can't manually deactivate until the timer runs its course. So if anything happens to your fleet like if they are forced to retreat, you get left behind and the opposing fleet can have their way with you. Which brings me to the next downside. Bastion mode, is not full proof. Given enough damage in a short time, the seemingly-unbreakable tank on your ship will break. This is especially true if the ships that fire their powerful weapon happen to be Drifters which can one-hit kill even a Marauder in Bastion Mode. How can this be applied to Dust?The concept of Bastion mode can be adapted for use in Dust by making the following changes to the hardeners:
- Extend the time active significantly.
- Vehicles such as LAVs and HAVs that have this module become immobilized when it's active.
- Dropships are forced to hover in a stationary position but can change which way to look during the hover. They can't increase or decrease altitude.
The idea here is that hardeners are taking up so much power to increase the damage resistance of the vehicles that they are unable to furnish enough power to keep the vehicles moving. So the vehicles become sitting ducks until the hardeners finish their cycle. This also means that they won't be able to help their team in other places if they are needed elsewhere in a battle that changes rapidly.
Rattati has only tried to make dust less and less like EVE since he took control.
Specialization: Making typo's.
|
DRT 99
RAT PATROL INC.
The Empire of New Eden
532
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 16:29:00 -
[27] - Quote
Toobar Zoobar wrote:Rattati has only tried to make dust less and less like EVE since he took control.
i agree that DUST and EVE are different and should remain different, but certain themes (Like racial tanking philosophy) just arent meant to be messed with, and dust originally had this backwards (amarr have reps, gal have plates) wasnt it ratatti that corrected this?
additionally, a bastion / siege mod in DUST would draw inspiration from the same mod in EVE but would not be the same - infact i dont even think they would have the same name |
General Mosquito
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
283
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 17:00:00 -
[28] - Quote
DRT 99 wrote:
I can agree that AV grenades are allitle over the top right now. Im thinking what if we halved damage and nanite cost to resupply, but doubled carry capacity? they become less alpha and more sustained DPS, same total damage dealt, but more chance to react for the vehicle.
[
No, AV grenades are just about right.
Jesus, you don't even know why you think tanks are OP, you are just spouting off random crap and pretending that is a thesis.
Having a high alpha nuclear baseball is exactly what infantry needs to punish yolo swag tankers who like to drive into a horde of people.
Jesus, I am getting pretty tired of having to tell AV how to kill my tank. If I had not biomassed my heavy toon there would never be tank alive on the enemy team, but you scrubs can't even kill a standard maddy without help.
The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
|
DUST Fiend
17
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 17:03:00 -
[29] - Quote
General Mosquito wrote:DRT 99 wrote:
I can agree that AV grenades are allitle over the top right now. Im thinking what if we halved damage and nanite cost to resupply, but doubled carry capacity? they become less alpha and more sustained DPS, same total damage dealt, but more chance to react for the vehicle.
[
No, AV grenades are just about right. Jesus, you don't even know why you think tanks are OP, you are just spouting off random crap and pretending that is a thesis. Having a high alpha nuclear baseball is exactly what infantry needs to punish yolo swag tankers who like to drive into a horde of people. Jesus, I am getting pretty tired of having to tell AV how to kill my tank. If I had not biomassed my heavy toon there would never be tank alive on the enemy team, but you scrubs can't even kill a standard maddy without help.
The main problem is that the nuclear baseball is even more effective than most actual AV weapons, and can be carried even by non AV players.
So you are 100% outnumbered by AV from the moment you spawn onto the map. Toning them back a tad wouldn't hurt anyone but scrubs.
I am a beautiful space manatee, flying through the sky with the greatest of ease
Swarms everywhere.
So-bittervet
|
DRT 99
RAT PATROL INC.
The Empire of New Eden
533
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 17:05:00 -
[30] - Quote
General Mosquito wrote:Jesus, you don't even know why you think tanks are OP
incase i wasnt clear, let me dumb it down for you.
Vehicles are weak and hardeners are overperforming.
I never said tanks are OP, consider reading the OP next time. |
|
|
General Mosquito
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
283
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 17:07:00 -
[31] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:
The main problem is that the nuclear baseball is even more effective than most actual AV weapons, and can be carried even by non AV players.
So you are 100% outnumbered by AV from the moment you spawn onto the map. Toning them back a tad wouldn't hurt anyone but scrubs.
You know this game is screwed when a tanker is defending AV nades versus so called AV players.
As a tanker, I assume every player has AV nades, and I don't get into throwing range. If they actually had them, there would be far less complaining about maddies.
Clearly, the scrubs(which is 99% of the infantry players when it comes to fighting tanks) need all the help they can get, because thinking isn't their strong suit. They need more homing AV otherwise they just can't do the job.
The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
|
General Mosquito
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
283
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 17:08:00 -
[32] - Quote
DRT 99 wrote:General Mosquito wrote:Jesus, you don't even know why you think tanks are OP incase i wasnt clear, let me dumb it down for you. Vehicles are weak and hardeners are overperforming. I never said tanks are OP, consider reading the OP next time.
And yet, even double hardened two players can absolutely nuke a tank.
So how are hardeners overperforming exactly?
The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
|
DRT 99
RAT PATROL INC.
The Empire of New Eden
533
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 17:17:00 -
[33] - Quote
General Mosquito wrote:You know this game is screwed when a tanker is defending AV nades versus so called AV players.
As a tanker, I assume every player has AV nades, and I don't get into throwing range. If they actually had them, there would be far less complaining about maddies.
Clearly, the scrubs(which is 99% of the infantry players when it comes to fighting tanks) need all the help they can get, because thinking isn't their strong suit. They need more homing AV otherwise they just can't do the job.
"If everyone used AV, tanks wouldnt be OP"
Also, you evidently missed the part where i said Half Damage, Double Capacity
General Mosquito wrote:And yet, even double hardened two players can absolutely nuke a tank.
So how are hardeners overperforming exactly?
Well i'd say that the fact that it takes 2 people to even stand a chance at killing one double hardened tank that, ignoring hardeners, dies to three 'baseballs', is a pretty sure sign that hardeners are overperforming and vehicles without hardeners are lacking.
Tell me exactly how many players you think it should take to kill a tank. This will be good. |
General Mosquito
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
283
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 17:34:00 -
[34] - Quote
DRT 99 wrote:
Also, you evidently missed the part where i said Half Damage, Double Capacity
Which increases their TTK, which is a non starter. I didn't miss you being an idiot, I just didn't want to come out and call you one. You really are pushing for it.
DRT 99 wrote:
Well i'd say that the fact that it takes 2 people to even stand a chance at killing one double hardened tank that, ignoring hardeners, dies to three 'baseballs', is a pretty sure sign that hardeners are overperforming and vehicles without hardeners are lacking.
Tell me exactly how many players you think it should take to kill a tank. This will be good.
1. Not stand a chance. Two players with AV will cut right through a double hardened tank. Two players with AV nades and either swarms/forges/plc won't even have to reload. These claims that people struggle to kill a tank with 4 people are simply lies. There is literally no excuse for a tank to live with 3 people trying to kill it.
2. Having to double up on hardeners to be able to even face av isn't a sign that hardeners are overperforming. It is players resorting to the ONLY fit that allows them to engage at an objective at all. Even if they do that, and go max tank, two people can nuke it with AV nades during its hardened phase. And since the tanker has to double up to survive, it creates the unhardened opportunity to kill it.
How many people to take out a tank? I have said this many, many times before, the answer is one. But not from range, and not with only a single weapon slot being used. I risk my tank by calling it out. In order to kill me, you better have to come within my killing zone so I at least have a chance to either evade, fight or die.
Then again, people like you, talking about tanks without having ever driven one, of course you don't know what you are talking about.
The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
|
DRT 99
RAT PATROL INC.
The Empire of New Eden
533
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 18:08:00 -
[35] - Quote
General Mosquito wrote:2. Having to double up on hardeners to be able to even face av isn't a sign that hardeners are overperforming. It is players resorting to the ONLY fit that allows them to engage at an objective at all.
This is exactly what i have been saying, when the ONLY way to have a vehicle be durable is with hardeners, theres something wrong.
Im not saying 'flat out nerf hardeners' im saying 'make vehicles viable without hardeners' because the windows of opportunity gameplay isnt working |
General Mosquito
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
283
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 18:09:00 -
[36] - Quote
DRT 99 wrote:General Mosquito wrote:2. Having to double up on hardeners to be able to even face av isn't a sign that hardeners are overperforming. It is players resorting to the ONLY fit that allows them to engage at an objective at all. This is exactly what i have been saying, when the ONLY way to have a vehicle be durable is with hardeners.
And your solution is to nerf hardeners because you were dropped on your head as a child?
The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
|
DRT 99
RAT PATROL INC.
The Empire of New Eden
533
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 18:21:00 -
[37] - Quote
General Mosquito wrote:DRT 99 wrote:General Mosquito wrote:2. Having to double up on hardeners to be able to even face av isn't a sign that hardeners are overperforming. It is players resorting to the ONLY fit that allows them to engage at an objective at all. This is exactly what i have been saying, when the ONLY way to have a vehicle be durable is with hardeners. And your solution is to nerf hardeners because you were dropped on your head as a child?
What im saying is that vehicles are underperforming unless hardeners are involved - people are FORCED To use hardeners in order to be viable, which kills variety in fittings. Theres like 2 viable loadouts for a maddies low slots. both involve 2 hardeners.
What im saying is make vehicles viable without hardeners. Does that involve a hardener nerf? yes. does it involve some other buffs? also yes. |
General Mosquito
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
283
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 18:25:00 -
[38] - Quote
DRT 99 wrote:
What im saying is that vehicles are underperforming unless hardeners are involved - people are FORCED To use hardeners in order to be viable, which kills variety in fittings. Theres like 2 viable loadouts for a maddies low slots. both involve 2 hardeners.
What im saying is make vehicles viable without hardeners. Does that involve a hardener nerf? yes. does it involve some other buffs? also yes.
We are not going to get ANOTHER total vehicle rework with this game.
So keep asking for what will never happen I guess.
You are better off learning to not suck at AV, that might be possible.
The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
|
DRT 99
RAT PATROL INC.
The Empire of New Eden
534
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 19:45:00 -
[39] - Quote
General Mosquito wrote:You are better off learning to not suck at AV, that might be possible.
youre contributing nothing to the discussion other than insuls. if youre going to provide reasonable criticism, do so, if youre going to suggest an alternative, im listening, otherwise stop spkring all over the thread. |
DUST Fiend
17
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 19:54:00 -
[40] - Quote
DRT 99 wrote:General Mosquito wrote:You are better off learning to not suck at AV, that might be possible. youre contributing nothing to the discussion other than insuls. if youre going to provide reasonable criticism, do so, if youre going to suggest an alternative, im listening, otherwise stop spkring all over the thread.
I think his point is that without an adequate dev team or resources, asking for fixes or changes at this point is less productive than just figuring out how to handle it with what currently exists.
I am a beautiful space manatee, flying through the sky with the greatest of ease
Swarms everywhere.
WoD 514
|
|
|
General Mosquito
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
283
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 19:59:00 -
[41] - Quote
DRT 99 wrote:General Mosquito wrote:You are better off learning to not suck at AV, that might be possible. youre contributing nothing to the discussion other than insuls. if youre going to provide reasonable criticism, do so, if youre going to suggest an alternative, im listening, otherwise stop spkring all over the thread.
My contribution is to correct the blatant lies and hyperbole coming from the crybaby av'ers.
I'm sure you would love it if no one ever pointed out that you are wrong, or bad. That isn't the real world though sparky. In the real world, fools get mocked and idiots get told to mind their tongues.
Keep singing those stories about needing a whole squad to take out a tank, and I'll still be around to point out that it isn't true.
The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
10
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 20:00:00 -
[42] - Quote
General Mosquito wrote:DRT 99 wrote:
What im saying is that vehicles are underperforming unless hardeners are involved - people are FORCED To use hardeners in order to be viable, which kills variety in fittings. Theres like 2 viable loadouts for a maddies low slots. both involve 2 hardeners.
What im saying is make vehicles viable without hardeners. Does that involve a hardener nerf? yes. does it involve some other buffs? also yes.
We are not going to get ANOTHER total vehicle rework with this game. So keep asking for what will never happen I guess. You are better off learning to not suck at AV, that might be possible.
Depends whether or not you know how to suggest the changes that are the low-hanging fruit to make V/AV balance work.
But the thing tanks need is a purpose that isn't simply ROLL ROLL ROLL ROLL PEW PEW INFANTRY DIE!!!
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
Megaman Trigger
Ready to Play
436
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 20:04:00 -
[43] - Quote
Buff raw HP for a HAVs primary tank and maybe return passive resistance skills and plates, tone down Active Hardeners, move Heavy Reps to Active rather than Passive (keep light reps as Passive or introduce native reps)
Would that be a balance, or at least a start, both sides could agree on or work from?
Purifier. First Class.
|
General Mosquito
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
283
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 20:08:00 -
[44] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
Depends whether or not you know how to suggest the changes that are the low-hanging fruit to make V/AV balance work.
But the thing tanks need is a purpose that isn't simply ROLL ROLL ROLL ROLL PEW PEW INFANTRY DIE!!!
Small changes are one thing. Tweak av damage, slow tanks down, adjust turret rotation, are all possible as low hanging changes. All would be viable for discussion. None of the crybaby threads ever approach that idea though. Its always nerf hardeners, nerf hardeners, nerf hardeners. They want that because it will destroy the maddie as a viable option to play in. Which is seemingly the only goal of these types of threads. "I can't kill a hardened tank by myself in less than 5 seconds! This is not fair!" is not a valid argument for tanks being op.
There will never be another roll for tanks in this game. No one in PC uses them for transport, and a 3 man tank team is a virtual steamroller in pubs. People don't spawn on tank CRUs when you are sitting by an undefended flag, so it isn't like making them roaming crus works either.
The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
|
Pocket Rocket Girl
Psygod9
502
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 20:28:00 -
[45] - Quote
General Mosquito wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
Depends whether or not you know how to suggest the changes that are the low-hanging fruit to make V/AV balance work.
But the thing tanks need is a purpose that isn't simply ROLL ROLL ROLL ROLL PEW PEW INFANTRY DIE!!!
Small changes are one thing. Tweak av damage, slow tanks down, adjust turret rotation, are all possible as low hanging changes. All would be viable for discussion. None of the crybaby threads ever approach that idea though. Its always nerf hardeners, nerf hardeners, nerf hardeners. They want that because it will destroy the maddie as a viable option to play in. Which is seemingly the only goal of these types of threads. "I can't kill a hardened tank by myself in less than 5 seconds! This is not fair!" is not a valid argument for tanks being op. There will never be another roll for tanks in this game. No one in PC uses them for transport, and a 3 man tank team is a virtual steamroller in pubs. People don't spawn on tank CRUs when you are sitting by an undefended flag, so it isn't like making them roaming crus works either.
can you please link a nurf tank thread that has been made with in the last 6 months?
Have garbage gun game? Throw a Core.
|
General Mosquito
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
283
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 20:56:00 -
[46] - Quote
Pocket Rocket Girl wrote:
can you please link a nurf tank thread that has been made with in the last 6 months?
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=208479
The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
|
Pocket Rocket Girl
Psygod9
502
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 21:19:00 -
[47] - Quote
dam how far back did you have to go?(page wise i went about 15) I admit you got me on that one
now comparing how many nurf tanks threads to AV is OP why do you call AVer crybabies? when its the tankers crying.
Have garbage gun game? Throw a Core.
|
General Mosquito
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
283
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 21:36:00 -
[48] - Quote
Pocket Rocket Girl wrote:dam how far back did you have to go?(page wise i went about 15) I admit you got me on that one now comparing how many nurf tanks threads to AV is OP why do you call AVer crybabies? when its the tankers crying.
I call av'ers crybabies because every time I try to kill a tank with AV, I do it. It isn't difficult, it doesn't take me and 5 friends. I just do what is necessary, and poof, no more tank.
If I can do it in a scout suit with std av and proto nades and less than 3 million SP in suits, there is no excuse for anyone else to not be able to do it. Especially since I don't even use the easy mode minmando setup that allows you to never even be at risk.
Learn to spell and type, unless you like people thinking you are a re.tarded 14 year old girl who flunked out of 1st grade.
The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
|
Megaman Trigger
Ready to Play
440
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 23:22:00 -
[49] - Quote
General Mosquito wrote:If I can do it in a scout suit with std av and proto nades and less than 3 million SP in suits, there is no excuse for anyone else to not be able to do it.
As an AV Sentinel, I have to disagree with this statement, is only because Commandos can't use AV Grenades and because our (Sentinel) fat asses can't get close to a HAV unless it comes to us. The Forge is also slower to charge than a Plasma Cannon and hits for less Alpha, so even if we did get close, 3 'nades and a charge shot may not drop the tank
Purifier. First Class.
|
General Mosquito
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
283
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 23:27:00 -
[50] - Quote
Megaman Trigger wrote:
As an AV Sentinel, I have to disagree with this statement, is only because Commandos can't use AV Grenades and because our (Sentinel) fat asses can't get close to a HAV unless it comes to us. The Forge is also slower to charge than a Plasma Cannon and hits for less Alpha, so even if we did get close, 3 'nades and a charge shot may not drop the tank
Here is the thing:
You are not your dropsuit, and your dropsuit is not a fixed role.
If your goal is to destroy a tank, you should use what works, not what you want to work. I always thought that the heavy should be the primary AV unit, but CCP clearly thinks differently. I don't make the rules, but I do intend to win within them.
Playing to win matters more than trying to respect your SP investment.
The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
|
|
|
Blood Immortal
Bank of DUST 514
23
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 23:48:00 -
[51] - Quote
A tank with 1 harder on is easy to kill, it takes 2 to survive even 1 swarm unless you hit nitro and run at first shot. |
Megaman Trigger
Ready to Play
441
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 23:49:00 -
[52] - Quote
General Mosquito wrote:Megaman Trigger wrote:
As an AV Sentinel, I have to disagree with this statement, is only because Commandos can't use AV Grenades and because our (Sentinel) fat asses can't get close to a HAV unless it comes to us. The Forge is also slower to charge than a Plasma Cannon and hits for less Alpha, so even if we did get close, 3 'nades and a charge shot may not drop the tank
Here is the thing: You are not your dropsuit, and your dropsuit is not a fixed role. If your goal is to destroy a tank, you should use what works, not what you want to work. I always thought that the heavy should be the primary AV unit, but CCP clearly thinks differently. I don't make the rules, but I do intend to win within them. Playing to win matters more than trying to respect your SP investment.
Which makes an entire class obsolete and pointless. What's the point of Heavy weapons if Light weapons do the job better? Why have Sentinels if Assaults and Scouts can perform their role just as well, if not better?
Forge Guns should be a viable option for taking down HAVs, as should non-Minmatar/Caldari Commandos. Gunnlogi should b a viable HAV choice. If the only viable AV fit is Plasma Cannon and AV Grenades on a Light/Scout frame, then there's an issue, just like if the only viable HAV fit is double hardened Madruger. If there's no other options, for either AV or HAV, then there's a serious issue.
Purifier. First Class.
|
General Mosquito
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
283
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 01:37:00 -
[53] - Quote
Megaman Trigger wrote:General Mosquito wrote:Megaman Trigger wrote:
As an AV Sentinel, I have to disagree with this statement, is only because Commandos can't use AV Grenades and because our (Sentinel) fat asses can't get close to a HAV unless it comes to us. The Forge is also slower to charge than a Plasma Cannon and hits for less Alpha, so even if we did get close, 3 'nades and a charge shot may not drop the tank
Here is the thing: You are not your dropsuit, and your dropsuit is not a fixed role. If your goal is to destroy a tank, you should use what works, not what you want to work. I always thought that the heavy should be the primary AV unit, but CCP clearly thinks differently. I don't make the rules, but I do intend to win within them. Playing to win matters more than trying to respect your SP investment. Which makes an entire class obsolete and pointless. What's the point of Heavy weapons if Light weapons do the job better? Why have Sentinels if Assaults and Scouts can perform their role just as well, if not better? Forge Guns should be a viable option for taking down HAVs, as should non-Minmatar/Caldari Commandos. Gunnlogi should b a viable HAV choice. If the only viable AV fit is Plasma Cannon and AV Grenades on a Light/Scout frame, then there's an issue, just like if the only viable HAV fit is double hardened Madruger. If there's no other options, for either AV or HAV, then there's a serious issue.
You're preaching to the choir on that front.
But ask yourself, do I want to destroy tanks or wear a fat suit? If you want to destroy vehicles, the fat suit is not the most effective.
The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
|
Megaman Trigger
Ready to Play
441
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 02:06:00 -
[54] - Quote
General Mosquito wrote:You're preaching to the choir on that front.
But ask yourself, do I want to destroy tanks or wear a fat suit? If you want to destroy vehicles, the fat suit is not the most effective.
And that is something that needs to change, and I don't think the problem is the suit. Not entirely.
HAVs are out of balance with themselves, which needs to be addressed. Too fragile while unhardened, too resilient while hardened. Gunnlogis need something to make them a viable alternative. Both need more options in terms of modules. Buffing raw HP and/or add passive resist (hardeners would need toning down for balance with the latter) and moving Heavy Reps to active would be a start for sorting the HAVs, then shield HAVs can be looked at more and adjusted further.
Sentinels need more AV options, hell, more Heavy weapon options in general. They need a shield AV option and a shield AI weapon. Preferably bring them up to two weapons, one AV and one AI, for each race.
Purifier. First Class.
|
Maken Tosch
DUST University
Ivy League
12
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 04:17:00 -
[55] - Quote
General Mosquito wrote:Maken Tosch wrote:
Once the mode is activated you can't move, you can't take in any remote repairs from another player, the mode does nothing to your damage output, and you can't manually deactivate until the timer runs its course.
Actually, Bastion gives you a 25% boost to falloff and missile velocity, which does affect damage output.
Hmm... I never knew that.
Eve Online Invite
https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
370
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 04:36:00 -
[56] - Quote
Megaman Trigger wrote:General Mosquito wrote:You're preaching to the choir on that front.
But ask yourself, do I want to destroy tanks or wear a fat suit? If you want to destroy vehicles, the fat suit is not the most effective. And that is something that needs to change, and I don't think the problem is the suit. Not entirely. HAVs are out of balance with themselves, which needs to be addressed. Too fragile while unhardened, too resilient while hardened. Gunnlogis need something to make them a viable alternative. Both need more options in terms of modules. Buffing raw HP and/or add passive resist (hardeners would need toning down for balance with the latter) and moving Heavy Reps to active would be a start for sorting the HAVs, then shield HAVs can be looked at more and adjusted further. Sentinels need more AV options, hell, more Heavy weapon options in general. They need a shield AV option and a shield AI weapon. Preferably bring them up to two weapons, one AV and one AI, for each race.
I would disagree that direct resilience is necessarily the problem. The problem is the constant recovery resulting in that massive resilience (on Armor Tanks), followed by a quick turn around back into combat...the problem isn't that the HAVs can take damage, it's that Damage doesn't stick to HAVs. Even shield HAVs have this problem to some degree...just without the benefit of direct resilience from it. The problem is with the Reps, not the Hardeners (although hardeners need changed from long duration/cooldown to short duration/cooldown), not the plates/extenders (although these could provide a little more HP...and not suck as much at lower tiers...or at light modules), not even necessarily the hulls/mobility (Mobility could use a bit of toning down).
Overall as I've said time and time again, it's the setup of HAVs as skirmishing oriented Attack Platforms, when they should be more like siege oriented Combat Platforms
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
|
Megaman Trigger
Ready to Play
442
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 11:29:00 -
[57] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Megaman Trigger wrote:General Mosquito wrote:You're preaching to the choir on that front.
But ask yourself, do I want to destroy tanks or wear a fat suit? If you want to destroy vehicles, the fat suit is not the most effective. And that is something that needs to change, and I don't think the problem is the suit. Not entirely. HAVs are out of balance with themselves, which needs to be addressed. Too fragile while unhardened, too resilient while hardened. Gunnlogis need something to make them a viable alternative. Both need more options in terms of modules. Buffing raw HP and/or add passive resist (hardeners would need toning down for balance with the latter) and moving Heavy Reps to active would be a start for sorting the HAVs, then shield HAVs can be looked at more and adjusted further. Sentinels need more AV options, hell, more Heavy weapon options in general. They need a shield AV option and a shield AI weapon. Preferably bring them up to two weapons, one AV and one AI, for each race. I would disagree that direct resilience is necessarily the problem. The problem is the constant recovery resulting in that massive resilience (on Armor Tanks), followed by a quick turn around back into combat...the problem isn't that the HAVs can take damage, it's that Damage doesn't stick to HAVs. Even shield HAVs have this problem to some degree...just without the benefit of direct resilience from it. The problem is with the Reps, not the Hardeners (although hardeners need changed from long duration/cooldown to short duration/cooldown), not the plates/extenders (although these could provide a little more HP...and not suck as much at lower tiers...or at light modules), not even necessarily the hulls/mobility (Mobility could use a bit of toning down). Overall as I've said time and time again, it's the setup of HAVs as skirmishing oriented Attack Platforms, when they should be more like siege oriented Combat Platforms
Hardeners may not be the problem by themselves, but the combination of Hardeners and Passive Reps is. Separately neither is that big an issue, and in fact are likely working as intended, but when combined the result is invinsi-tank. As you said, damage just doesn't stick.
Tankers have said, and I can agree, that without Hardeners a HAV is too fragile. So buff the HP for the hulls. If that's not enough, a small passive resistance can be added and Active Hardeners reduced to balance. Make it attractive, or at least viable, to run HP over resistance.
Active Reps definitely need to a thing again. Fuel Injector needs a rework when combined with Hardeners to stop instant acceleration the moment things go south. Perhaps activating a Hardener reduces acceleration and top speed, much like fitting a plate, due the Hardeners making the armour much denser and heavier. Or it can be a result of high power drain.
Purifier. First Class.
|
Kierkegaard Soren
Eridani Light Horse Battalion
913
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 12:52:00 -
[58] - Quote
Just wanted to poke my nose in here and add to the relatively small chorus of opinion that's pinpointing the mobility of tanks as the real culprit to our current issues. I am absolutely fine with tanks being able to withstand a tremendous amount of sustained fire when hardners are active, it's an attribute that no other suit or vehicle should possess. Tanks are line-breakers, and they should be fierce. However, it's there ability to GTFO once the situation gets too hot that's making them OP; essentially, a hardened maddy has very little risk of losing because of the speed at which it can accelerate, even in reverse. Top-line speed is about right -tanks should be more mobile than infantry by default- but there NEEDS to be a strong element of pilots considering what they're getting themselves into every time they commit to a firefight, lest they run into a firefight that will overwhelm thier defenses before they can retreat to repair.
Ideally, reps should be an activated module, acceleration should be reduced, reverse gear top speed should be reduced, and turning speed should be increased to compensate, so good tankers can use thier skills and good judgement to best effect without making AV redundant.
Dedicated Commando.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing."
|
General Mosquito
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
284
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 14:36:00 -
[59] - Quote
Kierkegaard Soren wrote: but there NEEDS to be a strong element of pilots considering what they're getting themselves into every time they commit to a firefight, lest they run into a firefight that will overwhelm thier defenses before they can retreat to repair.
This already happens with tankers who actually survive.
The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
10
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 14:42:00 -
[60] - Quote
General Mosquito wrote:Kierkegaard Soren wrote: but there NEEDS to be a strong element of pilots considering what they're getting themselves into every time they commit to a firefight, lest they run into a firefight that will overwhelm thier defenses before they can retreat to repair.
This already happens with tankers who actually survive.
Yeah but right now it's entirely too easy for idiots to be lazy and still profit.
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
10
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 14:46:00 -
[61] - Quote
My take on bastion/siege modules:
Incredibly bad idea.
Anything that immobilizes a vehicle in DUST is going to guarantee the vehicle's destruction.
In EVE, dreadnoughts and Marauders do not have targetable weak points that carry the vehicular equivalent of a headshot modifier.
Things like this need to be very firmly kept in mind when cooking up ideas.
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
Quasar Storm
0uter.Heaven
650
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 14:49:00 -
[62] - Quote
DRT 99 wrote:First off i forgot if its Windows of Opportunity or Waves of Opportunity, but im referring to CCPs goal of vehicles being strong for a little while and then vulnerable for a little while. Whatever its called it isnt working.
Now before anyone burns me at the steak for attempting to touch vehicle balance, let me state i have some basic experience using vehicles and extensive experience shooting them. I know im going to be accused of bias by people who dont even read the whole OP. Regardless of that, as someone who would like to get into using vehicles, there is no bias here - these are simply my observations as someone who has shot at vehicles and my frustrations as someone attempting to learn how to use vehicles.
Now with that out of the way, im going to cut to the chase - most active modules are fine, and the Windows or Waves or whatever it is works tolerably. Hardners, on the other hand, are working too well and throwing everything else out of whack.
So at this point i figure many people have already stopped reading and have started replying, those of you still with me, let me explain.
Im going to be using tanks in this example but much of this applies to DS as well, tanks are simpler to type than vehicles.
Currently, with hardners active, tanks are increadibly difficult to destroy with a reasonable ammount of infantry AV. That being said, without hardners, tanks are increadibly easy to destroy with just a single person. The current state of hardners makes vehicles incredibly difficult to balance as they are both overpowered and underpowered at the same time - it all depends wholly on whether the hardners are on or off.
Am i the only one who sees an issue with this?
From an infantry perspective, since tanks are so fast and can easily outrun infantry AV, tanks can simply make their 'vulnerable' period completely irrelevant by either using 2 hardners or returning to the redline and waiting for the cooldown. Either way, the only time they will be getting shot is when they have their hardners on.
From a tank's perspective, it basically forces you to fit 2 hardners, or spend time in the redline waiting for cooldowns.
What im getting at is the current 'Windows of Opportunity' system isnt fun for both tankers (do nothing in redline and wait to get hard again) and infantry (can only ever shoot a tank when it has its hardners on) unless the tanker has 2 hardners and is perma-hardened (which isnt even waves of opportunity anymore, is it...?)
On top of this, it seems like a vehicle is not viable unless it has a hardner - which i dont believe is right. In eve, there are many ways to fit a ship. In dust, there are many ways to fit a dropsuit. When it gets to tanks though, theres only so many ways to fit a tank and still be viable, and that is because windows of opportunity forces players to fit hardners.
There isnt a solution i can propose that wouldnt start a flamewar and cause butthurt, but my point still stands:
Tanks and DS will NOT be balanced so long as 'Windows of Opportunity' applies to hardners - they will flip flop between overpowered and underpowered, much like the activation cycle of the hardners themselves. All you need to do is look back at the changes made to hardners in the past for proof.
TL;DR Vehicles are too reliant on hardners, too durable with hardners, too vulnerable without.
So really the problem is armor. Not really.
The problem is the low HP & high mitigation techniques tanks and other vehicle have. Another problem is having low passive armor repair. No doubt maddys benefit from this the most, But all tanks suffer from it.
3 things that would solve issues with tanks
-Increase eHP
-Make hardeners PASSIVE resistance with a lower percentage of mitigation. But bring back other mitigation modules like DMG control.
-Make armor repair ACTIVE and have it repair more.
Recent studies show that staring at a green apple changes the likelihood of all ravens being black.
|
General Mosquito
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
284
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 14:49:00 -
[63] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
Yeah but right now it's entirely too easy for idiots to be lazy and still profit.
That is the tankers opponents who allow that.
If a tank is making in and out runs on you, there is no excuse for you to not leave him a instapop proxie trap on the third go round.
A tank actually trying to push an objective, meeting determined opposition who don't just fling swarms(and even if they do, minmando plus one mlt swarmer will put a serious hurting on a tank) will die.
If it is so easy, lets get in a squad, I will give you proto tanks, and you put up back to back to back quality games without dying.
The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
|
DUST Fiend
17
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 15:54:00 -
[64] - Quote
General Mosquito wrote:If it is so easy, lets get in a squad, I will give you proto tanks, and you put up back to back to back quality games without dying.
When my PC is fixed I think I'm gonna start doing this. I'll let well known tank complainers use any full PRO fit they like, and I will record their performance for all to see.
I am a beautiful space manatee, flying through the sky with the greatest of ease
Swarms everywhere.
WoD 514
|
Kaze Eyrou
DUST University
Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 17:37:00 -
[65] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:This is because one of the foulest sicknesses plaguing DUST has always been the Redline. This game will ultimately be impossible to balance so long as the redline remains. There are plenty of alternatives, but all require actual coding, so it will never happen unless a port magically appears (don't hold your breath)
Actually, I'm going to call you out on this. Specifically because I am not well versed in every single shooter out there.
What shooter game, first person or third person, has no Redline?
Also, are we including the Redline to be the out-of-bounds redline as well or just the safe-zone Redline?
CB Vet // Logi Bro // @KazeEyrou
Kaze's Helpful Links
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
370
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 18:59:00 -
[66] - Quote
Megaman Trigger wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Megaman Trigger wrote:General Mosquito wrote:You're preaching to the choir on that front.
But ask yourself, do I want to destroy tanks or wear a fat suit? If you want to destroy vehicles, the fat suit is not the most effective. And that is something that needs to change, and I don't think the problem is the suit. Not entirely. HAVs are out of balance with themselves, which needs to be addressed. Too fragile while unhardened, too resilient while hardened. Gunnlogis need something to make them a viable alternative. Both need more options in terms of modules. Buffing raw HP and/or add passive resist (hardeners would need toning down for balance with the latter) and moving Heavy Reps to active would be a start for sorting the HAVs, then shield HAVs can be looked at more and adjusted further. Sentinels need more AV options, hell, more Heavy weapon options in general. They need a shield AV option and a shield AI weapon. Preferably bring them up to two weapons, one AV and one AI, for each race. I would disagree that direct resilience is necessarily the problem. The problem is the constant recovery resulting in that massive resilience (on Armor Tanks), followed by a quick turn around back into combat...the problem isn't that the HAVs can take damage, it's that Damage doesn't stick to HAVs. Even shield HAVs have this problem to some degree...just without the benefit of direct resilience from it. The problem is with the Reps, not the Hardeners (although hardeners need changed from long duration/cooldown to short duration/cooldown), not the plates/extenders (although these could provide a little more HP...and not suck as much at lower tiers...or at light modules), not even necessarily the hulls/mobility (Mobility could use a bit of toning down). Overall as I've said time and time again, it's the setup of HAVs as skirmishing oriented Attack Platforms, when they should be more like siege oriented Combat Platforms Hardeners may not be the problem by themselves, but the combination of Hardeners and Passive Reps is. Separately neither is that big an issue, and in fact are likely working as intended, but when combined the result is invinsi-tank. As you said, damage just doesn't stick. Tankers have said, and I can agree, that without Hardeners a HAV is too fragile. So buff the HP for the hulls. If that's not enough, a small passive resistance can be added and Active Hardeners reduced to balance. Make it attractive, or at least viable, to run HP over resistance. Active Reps definitely need to a thing again. Fuel Injector needs a rework when combined with Hardeners to stop instant acceleration the moment things go south. Perhaps activating a Hardener reduces acceleration and top speed, much like fitting a plate, due the Hardeners making the armour much denser and heavier. Or it can be a result of high power drain.
I would dissagree that hulls need more HP, it's the buffer modules that need to provide more...adding hp to the hulls just further encourages multi-hardened builds...in fact HAV hulls may even need to have their HP reduced (The Maddy in Particular).
Also, I would argue that, on their own merits Hardeners are fine, but Passive Reps are broken at their current repair levels. Combining something that is fine, but amplifies the power of something broken just results in the broken thing being even worse off
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
|
Megaman Trigger
Ready to Play
443
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 19:15:00 -
[67] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Megaman Trigger wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Megaman Trigger wrote:General Mosquito wrote:You're preaching to the choir on that front.
But ask yourself, do I want to destroy tanks or wear a fat suit? If you want to destroy vehicles, the fat suit is not the most effective. And that is something that needs to change, and I don't think the problem is the suit. Not entirely. HAVs are out of balance with themselves, which needs to be addressed. Too fragile while unhardened, too resilient while hardened. Gunnlogis need something to make them a viable alternative. Both need more options in terms of modules. Buffing raw HP and/or add passive resist (hardeners would need toning down for balance with the latter) and moving Heavy Reps to active would be a start for sorting the HAVs, then shield HAVs can be looked at more and adjusted further. Sentinels need more AV options, hell, more Heavy weapon options in general. They need a shield AV option and a shield AI weapon. Preferably bring them up to two weapons, one AV and one AI, for each race. I would disagree that direct resilience is necessarily the problem. The problem is the constant recovery resulting in that massive resilience (on Armor Tanks), followed by a quick turn around back into combat...the problem isn't that the HAVs can take damage, it's that Damage doesn't stick to HAVs. Even shield HAVs have this problem to some degree...just without the benefit of direct resilience from it. The problem is with the Reps, not the Hardeners (although hardeners need changed from long duration/cooldown to short duration/cooldown), not the plates/extenders (although these could provide a little more HP...and not suck as much at lower tiers...or at light modules), not even necessarily the hulls/mobility (Mobility could use a bit of toning down). Overall as I've said time and time again, it's the setup of HAVs as skirmishing oriented Attack Platforms, when they should be more like siege oriented Combat Platforms Hardeners may not be the problem by themselves, but the combination of Hardeners and Passive Reps is. Separately neither is that big an issue, and in fact are likely working as intended, but when combined the result is invinsi-tank. As you said, damage just doesn't stick. Tankers have said, and I can agree, that without Hardeners a HAV is too fragile. So buff the HP for the hulls. If that's not enough, a small passive resistance can be added and Active Hardeners reduced to balance. Make it attractive, or at least viable, to run HP over resistance. Active Reps definitely need to a thing again. Fuel Injector needs a rework when combined with Hardeners to stop instant acceleration the moment things go south. Perhaps activating a Hardener reduces acceleration and top speed, much like fitting a plate, due the Hardeners making the armour much denser and heavier. Or it can be a result of high power drain. I would dissagree that hulls need more HP, it's the buffer modules that need to provide more...adding hp to the hulls just further encourages multi-hardened builds...in fact HAV hulls may even need to have their HP reduced (The Maddy in Particular). Also, I would argue that, on their own merits Hardeners are fine, but Passive Reps are broken at their current repair levels. Combining something that is fine, but amplifies the power of something broken just results in the broken thing being even worse off
Disagree about reducing HAV hull HP. If higher hull HP encourages multi-hardener fits, either nerf the Hardeners in function or fitting costs (higher costs, can't fit multiple) or buff their function slightly and cap their numbers.
Purifier. First Class.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |