| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
Learning Alliance
7
   |
Posted - 2015.08.19 14:40:00 -
[31] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Fox Gaden wrote:There are some interesting ideas in there. Still reading. I like that Anti-Materiel Rifle concept. Sort of a Sniper Rifle firing armor piercing rounds, which can chip away at an armored vehicle, but do real damage where the armor is thinner and the round can penetrate completely. Those weapons that are "not designed to benefit from Aim Down Sight or zoom functions", I am fine with them not having Zoom, or reduced Dispersion, but I would like to have the reduced sensitivity when pressing L1. reduced sensitivity? Clarify.
Tracking speed.
When tracking slower moving targets it is helpful to be able to reduce the turn speed (sensitivity) of the DS3 controller to make it easier to avoid overcompensating and waging your weapon back and forth like a dog's tail.
I use ADS on the HMG more for controlling my turn speed than for the zoom. It makes it easier to target and track targets 20m out, or to make fine adjustments to get a head shot if you are sneaking up behind someone.
I know the best players can swing their sights at full sensitivity and deaden the stick just as it passes over the target, but even those people must find it hard to track a walking target at certain ranges due to the lack of sensitivity on the DS3 thumb stick (meaning that due to the dead space at zero it only senses larger movement of the stick). They would be forced to constantly re-target, rather than track the target.
The fact that you can set the sensitivity for both hip and ADS independently makes ADS even more useful for controlling tracking speed.
So even on weapons that don't have other effects from ADS such as zoom or decreased dispersion, I would still like to have L1 decrease tracking speed, if the button is not being used for anything else.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
Learning Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 14:42:00 -
[32] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:AV/V proposal: Looking for comment and critique.
Seems like a solid framework. New content/assets might be a stretch; do you have a backup version of the framework without these items, just in case? Might also be handy to include an itemized list of the specific adjustments proposed.
His new content proposals are simply reskins of existing art assets, so not too much of a stretch. He is not proposing anything that is actually new, just mixing and matching existing stuff to make a new combination.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
10
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 14:45:00 -
[33] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:AV/V proposal: Looking for comment and critique.
Seems like a solid framework. New content/assets might be a stretch; do you have a backup version of the framework without these items, just in case? Might also be handy to include an itemized list of the specific adjustments proposed. His new content proposals are simply reskins of existing art assets, so not too much of a stretch. He is not proposing anything that is actually new, just mixing and matching existing stuff to make a new combination.
This.
Things like converting a forge gun model to use as a heavy laser and such
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
554
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 15:11:00 -
[34] - Quote
You missed a spot.
Remotes and proxies. These used to be fearsome to me.
Now I can't think of the last time someone hopped on my tank and started puking remotes. Haven't heard the beep beep beep of proxies in so long, if someone focused on dropping them everywhere I could be quite ambushed.
We have had hardeners for a long time now. The current resistance is indeed to high. Limiting modules is bad though.
Remember how myofibs were limited until a fix could be found?... Still waiting. If we limit, they will never revert.
As pretty much the only non-tanker that speaks on tanks that I respect, I tucked the bitters away to respond to this. I can't agree enough on parity and full turret lineup.
However, those forge changes though... Mainly the charge overheat. Can't count how many times the killshot was the last round that I had to hold and track and plot and let go at last possible opening... Just no. Besides, if I forge infantry, I do it with the AFG  inside 30 meters.
The current HAV meta is simply due to the 'balances' to rails and missiles. Hard to keep Maddie's in check when I have no teeth. Not to mention, when we had a grand module variety, dual trip hardened tanks weren't a real problem. Much like dropsuits, there were many and varied vehicle fits.
We need to stop treating vehicle operators like bad children.
This is dust.
There are vehicles.
Maybe play something else if you want a foot only game.
Edit: last part not at you breakin. Did say I was trying to hold back my bitters lol.
Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
10
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 15:51:00 -
[35] - Quote
Devadander wrote:You missed a spot.
Remotes and proxies. These used to be fearsome to me.
Those are the items I'm actually not familiar enough with to do writeups. Plus the packed came out long before I wrote this. it predated the changes to keep vets out of academy. As noted in the last portion.
The limit to hardeners was the least sh*t of a buncha sh*t choices. Nothing else modded on the HAVs I could find would drop things into the range where they could be killed properly without either gimping them stupid, or not fixing the problems at all.
as to the forge charge drop, it's because the forge gun doesn't need to be a convenient replacement for a sniper rifle that pulls an OHK. For every advantage there is to an item there must be a core disadvantage, and primarily the held-charge is used to ghetto a sniper shot.
I recognize that you (and me) forge snipe like real men with an assault, but the breach and standard are an entirely different story for most.
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
Llast 326
An Arkhos
8
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 17:14:00 -
[36] - Quote
When I get some time I will throw together what a little writeup on what i think is inhibiting the use of RE and Proxies.
I still use them a lot, I have a decent understanding of how they work, and I don't want them to be easy to use, but they should be a factor in AV.
MOAR Ladders
SpadeGǪ Remember your Warbarge
|
Tebu Gan
0uter.Heaven
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 18:49:00 -
[37] - Quote
Why hello Breakin, and grats on your CPM election. Me being me, get ready for the smack down.
Your proposal is awful, and should be burned with the fires of hell...
Ok, serious time. It's an excellent piece of work. Though I do have some problems with a few of your proposals. (Of course I do right)
On Tanks
I have NEVER been able to agree with a single hardener rule. Placing such limitations leaves NO room for any variation in tank fitting. The baseline fit under this proposal would be the double plated, single rep, single hardener fit that I myself run mostly for trolling in Pubs (and PC).
With a single hardener rule, this would be the ONE and ONLY tank on the armor side to run. I do understand why you make such a proposal, but in the end it's nothing more than a band-aid on a gushing wound.
And from my experiences with running this fit, I can say a 10% reduction would be HUGE. At 30%, I suspect a single swarmer could easily match a single tank, not to mention your proposals to forge guns (of which I agree). Perhaps this is your intended goal, yet, given the costs for tanks, I simply could not agree with this.
With hardener cycles up, a single tanks should not be solo'ed (with just the main weapon) by one infantry. Your proposal, while not fully pushing it to that point, would bring it very close. For this to work, costs would HAVE to come down. 1.2 million for a paper tank is simply unacceptable.
And never mind multiple AV, as that would be complete over kill for any tank that moves onto the field.
Anyways, enough of my critique. The main problem with tanks lay in the "Waves of Opportunity". The concept works in practice from the tanks perspective, but does not work from the AV perspective.
I know from experience, that you can easily work the "Waves of Opportunity" to my own sole advantage. AV quite literally have no "Window of Opportunity" between hardener cycles. On the flip side, I have a HUGE window.
This is the biggest problem with AV/Tank interactions. I propose :
We reduce the available active hardener times reducing the tanks window
A change to passive reps, that fall more inline with EVE active reps.
Terribly sorry, but at work atm and breaks over, will finish later. |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
10
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 19:45:00 -
[38] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:
With hardener cycles up, a single tanks should not be solo'ed (with just the main weapon) by one infantry. Your proposal, while not fully pushing it to that point, would bring it very close. For this to work, costs would HAVE to come down. 1.2 million for a paper tank is simply unacceptable.
As far as I'm concerned, one player = one player, regardless of what he's wearing or driving. So your assertion that a tank should not be solo'd always has and always will fall on deaf ears. Until a Dev says otherwise, I'm not going to quit pushing that.
However, I fully agree on the cost. Part of this is to push tank costs down so that losses of vehicles can be sustained and a single vehicle will not bankrupt a player if it explodes. If a tank is a role, then it needs to be sustainable by itself, not by being too obnoxious to deal with. Which means tanks need to follow dropsuits in the "expendable asset" category, rather than what they are now, an inducement to ragequit if I pop it for you.
And as said before, single hardener was the least asinine of a host of bad solutions. It was literally the only way I could make the numbers work in a sane fashion, mostly because of the passive reps.
The other option that would have worked easily would have been a significant buff to AV alpha.
If that were to happen Dropships would become extinct. And I don't want that.
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
Tebu Gan
0uter.Heaven
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 20:27:00 -
[39] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:
With hardener cycles up, a single tanks should not be solo'ed (with just the main weapon) by one infantry. Your proposal, while not fully pushing it to that point, would bring it very close. For this to work, costs would HAVE to come down. 1.2 million for a paper tank is simply unacceptable.
As far as I'm concerned, one player = one player, regardless of what he's wearing or driving. So your assertion that a tank should not be solo'd always has and always will fall on deaf ears. Until a Dev says otherwise, I'm not going to quit pushing that. However, I fully agree on the cost. Part of this is to push tank costs down so that losses of vehicles can be sustained and a single vehicle will not bankrupt a player if it explodes. If a tank is a role, then it needs to be sustainable by itself, not by being too obnoxious to deal with. Which means tanks need to follow dropsuits in the "expendable asset" category, rather than what they are now, an inducement to ragequit if I pop it for you. And as said before, single hardener was the least asinine of a host of bad solutions. It was literally the only way I could make the numbers work in a sane fashion, mostly because of the passive reps. The other option that would have worked easily would have been a significant buff to AV alpha. If that were to happen Dropships would become extinct. And I don't want that.
Cost is a large issue, and prices would have to come down to reflect the loss of durability.
Now, I don't want to go too far with this, as I know it's a rather touchy subject and it's unlikely we will ever agree. But on that one vs one thing.
Tanks are nothing like infantry and should not be treated as such. I'm for them having increased durability for what they trade out when you attempt to compare them to dropsuits.
Tanks are quite limited in what area's they can actually control, and even then they have some severe limitations. More often than not I run ground game because the contributions I make as infantry far outweigh any contribution I can make in a tank. Just by having a tank on the field does not mean you are going to hold a significant advantage. And with many maps and sockets, tanks just have no viable way to make a contribution.
More often than not, AV go for a tank because it's there and they want to kill a tank. Not because it's holding them back from an objective or preventing them from moving up. Given in a few instances they can completely hold a point, they are often very limited to objectives. Dom and Aqa are 2 where they can often make noticeable impacts.
Pubs are Pubs, if a tank dominates, is it due to the inadequacies AV or the lack of diversity on the AVers side to deal with it.
Let me just throw PC out there. Tanks absolutely do not dominate infantry directly. In fact, you would question whether AV is actually underpowered at all or if tanks are OP. Tanks are there mostly for dropship control. Notably the bridge map would tend to be a good map for a blaster, it's not something I see much anymore.
Tanks play an important role, yet it's more directed in the Vehicle vs Vehicle department. And there are often times when I must mulit role and drop tanks all together in favor of a commando. Because my tank isn't making any contribution or AV is dominating.
Look, bottom line, they go through with this (even WITH a huge cost reduction), tanks will be completely and utterly worthless. Yes, gloom and doom I know, but it's the cold hard truth. Why in the world would I EVER call a tank out when infantry do it better? Under your proposal tanks become a novelty item (yet again). AV would be where it's at for ALL vehicle control.
I commend your efforts at balancing, yet I feel you are missing some important aspects when it comes to tanks and their actual contributions. Or their ability to interact with said infantry that feel they NEED to 1 vs 1 them.
|
Cross Atu
OSG Planetary Operations
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 20:28:00 -
[40] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:
With hardener cycles up, a single tanks should not be solo'ed (with just the main weapon) by one infantry. Your proposal, while not fully pushing it to that point, would bring it very close. For this to work, costs would HAVE to come down. 1.2 million for a paper tank is simply unacceptable.
As far as I'm concerned, one player = one player, regardless of what he's wearing or driving. So your assertion that a tank should not be solo'd always has and always will fall on deaf ears. Until a Dev says otherwise, I'm not going to quit pushing that. However, I fully agree on the cost. Part of this is to push tank costs down so that losses of vehicles can be sustained and a single vehicle will not bankrupt a player if it explodes. If a tank is a role, then it needs to be sustainable by itself, not by being too obnoxious to deal with. Which means tanks need to follow dropsuits in the "expendable asset" category, rather than what they are now, an inducement to ragequit if I pop it for you. And as said before, single hardener was the least asinine of a host of bad solutions. It was literally the only way I could make the numbers work in a sane fashion, mostly because of the passive reps. The other option that would have worked easily would have been a significant buff to AV alpha. If that were to happen Dropships would become extinct. And I don't want that.
I still maintain that a transition to active, rather than passive, reps is the right call. Gives another point from which to tune values.
We also need to look at the situation of value in each type of HAV when considering 'one player = one player' because a HAV with two gunners on board then equals three players and balance needs to account for that in some manner.
CPM mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!
|
|
|
Tebu Gan
0uter.Heaven
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 20:29:00 -
[41] - Quote
Cross Atu wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:
With hardener cycles up, a single tanks should not be solo'ed (with just the main weapon) by one infantry. Your proposal, while not fully pushing it to that point, would bring it very close. For this to work, costs would HAVE to come down. 1.2 million for a paper tank is simply unacceptable.
As far as I'm concerned, one player = one player, regardless of what he's wearing or driving. So your assertion that a tank should not be solo'd always has and always will fall on deaf ears. Until a Dev says otherwise, I'm not going to quit pushing that. However, I fully agree on the cost. Part of this is to push tank costs down so that losses of vehicles can be sustained and a single vehicle will not bankrupt a player if it explodes. If a tank is a role, then it needs to be sustainable by itself, not by being too obnoxious to deal with. Which means tanks need to follow dropsuits in the "expendable asset" category, rather than what they are now, an inducement to ragequit if I pop it for you. And as said before, single hardener was the least asinine of a host of bad solutions. It was literally the only way I could make the numbers work in a sane fashion, mostly because of the passive reps. The other option that would have worked easily would have been a significant buff to AV alpha. If that were to happen Dropships would become extinct. And I don't want that. I still maintain that a transition to active, rather than passive, reps is the right call. Gives another point from which to tune values. We also need to look at the situation of value in each type of HAV when considering 'one player = one player' because a HAV with two gunners on board then equals three players and balance needs to account for that in some manner.
Good point on that, I'll have to elaborate more on this as well. |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 20:59:00 -
[42] - Quote
TL;DR it for me please.... what is the more central axis of balance based around.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
Tebu Gan
0uter.Heaven
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 21:00:00 -
[43] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:TL;DR it for me please.... what is the more central axis of balance based around.
Only allowing one hardener per fit, buffing forge gun with faster ROF (which I think is a solid idea). Reducing hardener to 30%. |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
10
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 21:20:00 -
[44] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:True Adamance wrote:TL;DR it for me please.... what is the more central axis of balance based around. Only allowing one hardener per fit, buffing forge gun with faster ROF (which I think is a solid idea). Reducing hardener to 30%.
And reverting the shield changes and a buncha other crap.
The fulcrum point is balancing AV weapons to Vehicles is balance by intended time to kill.
And no, it will not make tanks useless. It puts the benchmark madrugar fit at an identical TTK to the closed beta sagaris solo. That's hardly "worthless.
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 21:47:00 -
[45] - Quote
Some of that I like. Some I don't like.
What of 180mm Armour Plates, Active Armour Repairers, Shield Regen being unbreakable but slow and passive, etc?
Are they covered in the proposal?
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
Tebu Gan
0uter.Heaven
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 22:21:00 -
[46] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
And reverting the shield changes and a buncha other crap.
The fulcrum point is balancing AV weapons to Vehicles is balance by intended time to kill. The suggestions for this balance method and the suggestions for benchmarking are actually what I consider most important: establishing a method. Numbers and specifics can be shifted up or down as needed and at will depending upon results.
And no, it will not make tanks useless. It puts the benchmark madrugar fit at an identical TTK to the closed beta sagaris solo. That's hardly "worthless."
Bear in mind all of my proposals are designed to be easily shifted up or down the curve as needed in entire. I want to set things so that, were this proposal adopted and tebu correct that tanks are too squishy, the curve can be easily shifted to compensate.
A solid method trumps any numbers I can pull out of my ass any day of the week. And a solid method will make it easier to find the sweet spot.
But there is no room in a balanced environment for a single player to require 2-3 to kill.
My thing is, within the hardened cycle, it should require more than one to deal with. As we have a non defensive mode that (non hardened) has no defenses if one were to choose double hardeners. It takes burst dps for short periods (which are long periods at the moment). On the flip side, my single hard / rep, double plated fit does better with slower, sustained DPS.
Outside of that cycle, tanks are easily taken solo even now. As I had started in the post above that I will finish at some point in time, I think a big part has to do with the waves of opportunity working nearly completely in the tanks favor.
Surely we can get creative and work out and idea to open up those windows for AV. I'm still pointing to changing the rep cycles to a 5 second cycle or more. With some of you proposals there, and rep cycles in mind, one will drive one(tank) off with relative ease.
Passive reps need to emphasise mitigation of sustained dps, where burst (2 Av for example) damage kills it. And in all honesty, active reps DO need to come back, yet I think we can still keep passive around if we change some of it's basic mechanics.
In my mind, a double hardened or triple hardened tank should tank burst damage, and not do nearly as well with sustained dps. To do this, timers need to come down to more reasonable levels to reduce the actual time you can effectively take damage. As any of these tanks without hardeners are basically two shot with an unmodded rail.
On the flip side, the fit you describe should be great at dealing with sustained dps, but fail against larger bursts. While it could take burst damage for a short time, it's not possible to sustain it like the previous fit. It's built around the idea that you drop those cycles for some long term sustainability.
One type goes balls deep, the other creeps around the edges.
(sorry, kinda messy, in a hurry to get to the game) |
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
378
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 22:24:00 -
[47] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Some of that I like. Some I don't like.
What of 180mm Armour Plates, Active Armour Repairers, Shield Regen being unbreakable but slow and passive, etc?
Are they covered in the proposal?
Breakin's proposal is largely about quick fixes that could be implemented to address immediate balance concerns to allow for a proper baseline.
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
10
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 22:40:00 -
[48] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Some of that I like. Some I don't like.
What of 180mm Armour Plates, Active Armour Repairers, Shield Regen being unbreakable but slow and passive, etc?
Are they covered in the proposal?
This proposal is based entirely on "what we have."
If it is feasible I actually would like to open a dialog with rattati about re-introducing as many modules for vehicles lost in 1.7 that I can get away with.
We will see.
I'm actually taking making vehicles more sustainable as a pet project objective on the CPM. While I cannot promise (I haven't even finished the NDA process yet) the best results, I'm not interested in the role becoming useless.
Did I mention I'm in favor of the turret lethality climbing some to match the lessening of defenses? Something something tank cannons being effective.
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
One Eyed King
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 23:09:00 -
[49] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:Some of that I like. Some I don't like.
What of 180mm Armour Plates, Active Armour Repairers, Shield Regen being unbreakable but slow and passive, etc?
Are they covered in the proposal? This proposal is based entirely on "what we have." If it is feasible I actually would like to open a dialog with rattati about re-introducing as many modules for vehicles lost in 1.7 that I can get away with. We will see. I'm actually taking making vehicles more sustainable as a pet project objective on the CPM. While I cannot promise (I haven't even finished the NDA process yet) the best results, I'm not interested in the role becoming useless. Did I mention I'm in favor of the turret lethality climbing some to match the lessening of defenses? Something something tank cannons being effective.
Will you be looking into what ever happened the previous proposal of UHAVs and the like?
I thought it sounded interesting to have various HAV classes, but then talk died out, and I never heard what became of the concepts.
Or is that getting ahead of everything?
Former CEO of the Land of the BIind.
Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
|
Tebu Gan
0uter.Heaven
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 23:52:00 -
[50] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
Did I mention I'm in favor of the turret lethality climbing some to match the lessening of defenses? Something something tank cannons being effective.
This would be an acceptable trade off. Although, I feel often times tanks are not quite the power house against infantry people make them out to be. I personally use tanks more as an anti vehicle/turret source. Blasters can be used for AI, yet I feel often times they are lacking.
If I want to go for kills, an ADS is still king in that department.
And don't forget dropships, 30% hardeners will drop them even lower on the totem pole. Though I think it's widely known that dropships need the same treatment tanks were given. |
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
10
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 00:26:00 -
[51] - Quote
One Eyed King wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:Some of that I like. Some I don't like.
What of 180mm Armour Plates, Active Armour Repairers, Shield Regen being unbreakable but slow and passive, etc?
Are they covered in the proposal? This proposal is based entirely on "what we have." If it is feasible I actually would like to open a dialog with rattati about re-introducing as many modules for vehicles lost in 1.7 that I can get away with. We will see. I'm actually taking making vehicles more sustainable as a pet project objective on the CPM. While I cannot promise (I haven't even finished the NDA process yet) the best results, I'm not interested in the role becoming useless. Did I mention I'm in favor of the turret lethality climbing some to match the lessening of defenses? Something something tank cannons being effective. Will you be looking into what ever happened the previous proposal of UHAVs and the like? I thought it sounded interesting to have various HAV classes, but then talk died out, and I never heard what became of the concepts. Or is that getting ahead of everything?
I'm going to take any discussion with the devs about vehicle/AV balance as carefully, logically, and civilly as I can. Bearing in mind, I'm more concerned with learning the process and such at the moment so I can effectively share your feedback as well as mine. Since we didn't get a pokey (again) and I don't think anyone else on CPM 2 has the same interest, I'm going to have to play devil's advocate against myself when it comes to V/AV or any advice I give will inevitably make the problems worse.
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 - 2015.08.20 00:29:00 -
[52] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
Did I mention I'm in favor of the turret lethality climbing some to match the lessening of defenses? Something something tank cannons being effective.
This would be an acceptable trade off. Although, I feel often times tanks are not quite the power house against infantry people make them out to be. I personally use tanks more as an anti vehicle/turret source. Blasters can be used for AI, yet I feel often times they are lacking. If I want to go for kills, an ADS is still king in that department. And don't forget dropships, 30% hardeners will drop them even lower on the totem pole. Though I think it's widely known that dropships need the same treatment tanks were given.
there's nothing here I disagree with out of hand. Incubi will need to change fitting metas likely, but...
I absolutely have not forgotten dropships. Once I know how things work, what's in the works (in theory) and once I have figured out where my evil talents best lie? THEN I intend to advocate.
But it's also not just tanks and dropships, it's also rifle balance, and I want to help rattati set up baselines, procedures and performance curves wherever he has not already done so by providing good feedback and suggestions. The lack of such has been rather telling in every aspect of the game, especially AV/V, which is invariably all over the gorram map.
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 00:45:00 -
[53] - Quote
Eh..... I'm not convinced that HAV can be fixed with the content we have now.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
10
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 00:59:00 -
[54] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Eh..... I'm not convinced that HAV can be fixed with the content we have now.
I think it has more to do with the platform limitations
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
Learning Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 13:12:00 -
[55] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:
With hardener cycles up, a single tanks should not be solo'ed (with just the main weapon) by one infantry. Your proposal, while not fully pushing it to that point, would bring it very close. For this to work, costs would HAVE to come down. 1.2 million for a paper tank is simply unacceptable.
As far as I'm concerned, one player = one player, regardless of what he's wearing or driving. So your assertion that a tank should not be solo'd always has and always will fall on deaf ears. Until a Dev says otherwise, I'm not going to quit pushing that.
I actually agree with Tebu Gan on this one, specifically because he also specified "with just the main weapon".
I think that Swarm, Plasma Cannon, and AHMG users should be able to solo a tank, but only if they also have AV Grenades, or start with a Flux, or the tank is stuck and can't get away, or some other factor. A solo AV'er should only be able to solo a tank if they are lucky, or are supplementing the limitations of their main weapon with something else.
I would make an exception for Forge Guns though. First because Forge Guns are a ranged weapon, so you can't exactly pair them up with an AV Grenade. Secondly, the Forge Gun is an aimed weapon, with a charge up time, that can only be used by a Sentinel (with all the limitations to movement that implies). These are limitations the other weapons do not have. So I am fine with a Forge Gun being able to solo a tank, but it should not be easy.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
10
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:47:00 -
[56] - Quote
Honestly I suggested that Heavy weapons be the primary anti-HAV weapons with Light AV weapons and sidearms keyed for lighter vehicles once upon a time. People rioted.
Mostly my concerns that a weapon has to be able to kill a target pertains to things where the intended engagement distance makes for a passable duel with a railgun.
Plasma cannon has range limitations already which almost necessitate AV nades for solo, and I'm tired of grinding my teeth about swarms.
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
Tebu Gan
0uter.Heaven
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:55:00 -
[57] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:
I actually agree with Tebu Gan on this one, specifically because he also specified "with just the main weapon".
I think that Swarm, Plasma Cannon, and AHMG users should be able to solo a tank, but only if they also have AV Grenades, or start with a Flux, or the tank is stuck and can't get away, or some other factor. A solo AV'er should only be able to solo a tank if they are lucky, or are supplementing the limitations of their main weapon with something else.
I would make an exception for Forge Guns though. First because Forge Guns are a ranged weapon, so you can't exactly pair them up with an AV Grenade. Secondly, the Forge Gun is an aimed weapon, with a charge up time, that can only be used by a Sentinel (with all the limitations to movement that implies). These are limitations the other weapons do not have. So I am fine with a Forge Gun being able to solo a tank, but it should not be easy.
Even a forge gun with it's limitations has some strengths. A big part of that being said range. Few weapons have the range (and nearly the power) of a particle cannon.
For a blaster tank, a forge gun easily beats it in range, making it difficult to dislodge it.
It stands on more even ground with a rail tank, considering they are matched in range.
A missile tank is not nearly in as bad a position as a blaster, yet missiles are missiles. They don't do much beyond pop maddies.
A forge gun even now has superior vehicle control. They drive away both tanks and ADS, locking down high points while covering large portions of the map. To me, forge guns even now are in a strong spot. They are an absolute must in many PC's I play, and typically have a larger impact on the win than any tank would.
They don't need to outright kill a tank, just drive it out. That said though, the proposed slight increase in ROF for the FG would put it in a VERY strong position. Maybe just a bit to strong as they aren't exactly weak now. But I do like the idea of a higher ROF.
Anyhow, there are multiple options open to AV and they should all be considered being used in conjunction (a true AV'er) to supplement the primary weapon.
And Proxies really need to be looked at. These things could be absolutely devastating. Maybe something like spider mines in SC, where when you get in the proximity of them, they magnetize to the target. As it is now, you can lay a trap, yet getting a tank to drive over them can be difficult. A magnetic feature like AV nades have would go a long way in making them invaluable assets. |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
10
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 15:05:00 -
[58] - Quote
I would actually focus on how to make vehicle turrets more incrementally lethal, and the vehicles less costly to go with the proposal.
The dispersion on the blaster turrets is highly likely to cause problems if tanks lose durability.
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
Tebu Gan
0uter.Heaven
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 15:23:00 -
[59] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I would actually focus on how to make vehicle turrets more incrementally lethal, and the vehicles less costly to go with the proposal.
The dispersion on the blaster turrets is highly likely to cause problems if tanks lose durability.
True, and this would be a reasonable trade off.
Something though I've mentioned in the past, if a tank is AI focused, it should be more on par with the infantry it is fighting. Be it through range limitations or durability.
If a tank is AV focused, in the case of a rail gun, it should have the durability to withstand punishment from infantry AV as it's not focused around fighting said infantry. Increased durability for the trade off of AI capabilities.
Else, the anti vehicle role would fall squarely on infantry AV and only infantry. |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
10
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 15:41:00 -
[60] - Quote
I disagree. Anti vehicle weapons are anti-vehicle weapons. I feel that heavy weapons need to be dual purpose rather than ungodly and unreasonably more powerful.
The same applies to turrets. Making heavy turrets gimped against infantry by more methods than rotation speeds can create some issues.
Infantry should always be a threat unless they take no special effort to be so. By the same token, HAVs should always be a threat to infantry.
Problem with most dialogs is people willing to meet in the middle usually get drowned in a sea of bullsh*t when it comes to AV/v. Honestly I wish balance hadn't swung so hard that the community feels that one must have proto AV to avoid getting schooled without hope of reprieve by HAV and ADS.
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |