Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Darth-Carbonite GIO
Random Gunz Rise Of Legion.
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 21:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
First off, this is a thread dedicated to generating meaningful discussion on ADS vs Swarm balance. If you want to talk about forges or tanks, please do so elsewhere unless it happens to be relevant.
Secondly, I will be proposing only two seemingly small changes at this time. I ask that you focus your attention on providing feedback on these specific ideas. Due to the focus, this may be simple, but there's nothing like feedback.
And although it should be obvious, this is CPM data gathering, and is no way "Official."
Proposal One: Swarm Impact/Force Reduction - Decreased sway of the ADS under fire, allowing the pilot a greater chance of achieving accuracy, and evening the odds in direct Swarmer v ADS confrontations. Percentage of reduction would probably be large.
Proposal Two: Decreased Swarm Tracking Ability - Further encourage pilot skill and maneuverability while also toning down the ability to fire around corners and obstacles, thereby rewarding smart swarmer positioning. Reduction more nebulous
Two relatively simple boosts the survivability of the ADS in a swarm engagement while not hindering swarm efficiency against tanks. Fire away.
I challenge you to a Gwent duel!
YouTube
|
Llast 326
An Arkhos
8
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 22:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
Not much of a Pilot myself, and not seriously invested in Swarms. I think Proposal One is the way to go, because it affects the ADS positively in a number of areas that are not considered in the "Swarms OP discussions." I've been able to take out ADS with a Breach Flaylock, PLC, or Massdriver by bouncing them into the obstructions that the Pilot is using as cover. Stabilizing the ADS would address more issues for a pilot in my opinion, and would still gives Swarms a fighting chance against other vehicles.
MOAR Ladders
SpadeGǪ Remember your Warbarge
|
Saint Winter
THE N.O.O.B.S
63
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 22:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
Hi , everyone .
Excuse me sir Gio , but I think we should, focus on something more important and not their problems with ADS.
First, variants, some needed changes such as assault and specialist.
And I think you could add the Breach variant.
1) Assault Swarm Launcher.
You can mark 2 targets at once, it costs more CPU and RA.
Changes
Take away the ability to set 2 targets at once and reduce delay target fixation , reduce damage and increase clipsize .
2) Specialist Swarm Launcher
Currently this weapon is on the market and purchase isk, it costs less CPU and RA and but has a counter, take long to set a target.
Changes
Should pass this variant LP and remove the extra delay targeting time .
3) Breach Swarm Launcher
New variant.
Characteristics
Increased damage, increased targeting time and the clipsize same that the Normal Swarm Launcher .
After this, I think it would be cool current variants.
Maybe they need modification but this is my idea.
Now, the problem with the ADS, excuse me I have no change. |
el OPERATOR
Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 22:44:00 -
[4] - Quote
What about, in lieu of "nerfing stuff", adding skills or mods that create the results you're looking for? Y'know, game expansion type stuff? "New" Content?
Open-Beta Vet.
CAPCRO Nomad.
DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR
|
Juno Tristan
Obscure Reference
804
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 23:25:00 -
[5] - Quote
Evasion is more fun, I should be able to pull of this manoeuvre and avoid being hit
So if proposal 2 achieves this then I'm all for it
ADS Ramming Revenge!
Plasma Cannon Rampage
|
Darth-Carbonite GIO
Random Gunz Rise Of Legion.
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 01:12:00 -
[6] - Quote
Saint Winter wrote:Excuse me sir Gio , but I think we should, focus on something more important and not their problems with ADS.
As I said in the OP, this is a thread specifically meant to discuss the merits and drawbacks of two ideas, not everything that is wrong with dropships.
I also said that this would probably be a reasonably simple proposal to not only implement, but also to be understood as a positive change by most of the player base. (Probably)
el OPERATOR wrote:What about, in lieu of "nerfing stuff", adding skills or mods that create the results you're looking for? Y'know, game expansion type stuff? "New" Content?
So as we focus on making the game we play that much better, we will take aim at the things that need fixing whether they're big or small, and continue to strengthen the foundation any subsequent "New Content" would have to be built on.
I challenge you to a Gwent duel!
YouTube
|
Talos Vagheitan
Ancient Exiles.
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 02:43:00 -
[7] - Quote
There's a lot lot consider here.
Firstly, It might be premature to re-balance swarms to ADS' before dropship tiers are in place.
Secondly, I'm not sure I even agree there is an imbalance in the first place.
If we are strictly talking about swarms, then here's the situation:
One proto swarm: ADS has enough time if he doesn't miss to kill the AV'er, if not, forced to retreat
Multiple swarms in the area: Capable of destroying an ADS, usually a deterrent to keep ADS away.
^ that sounds good good me. I do not want to nerf swarms to the point where an ADS can shrug off and disregard a single swarm user. I also don't want swarm users to be forced to work in pairs.
The real "problem" I think with the swarms are their ease of use. Simple lock and fire with a 99% chance to hit VS. A highly specialized dropship which requires skill and practice to operate.
Instead of an outright nerf, I wouldn't mind seeing something like a smart fire/dumb fire mechanic, where a player could either instantly hard fire, or suffer a longer lock on time than current for the lock fire.
Then swarms would be just as effective, but require more skill to use.
Real CPM Platform
|
Juno Tristan
Obscure Reference
806
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 02:45:00 -
[8] - Quote
The reason I don't support proposition 1 is that an ADS V Swarm fight is not fun in the same way as against a forge gun.
Against a forge gunner I can throw their aim off, it is risk v reward where I need to line up my shot without becoming an easy target, with swarms I feel like I'm fighting a timer.
Locating a forge gunner's location is generally easier as well due to the more consistent rendering of the shots compared to swarms
Which I think improving options to evade swarms is the way forward
Plus, is it possible to isolate exactly what weapons would cause a DS to be knocked? As timing a forge (or PLC) shot so that a DS smashes into a wall is a legitimate and fun tactic
Do you know what kind of variables can be tweaked for proposition 2? Something like turning causing swarms to decelerate or wider turns would help evasion whilst not rewarding hitting the AB and flying straight up
ADS Ramming Revenge!
Plasma Cannon Rampage
|
Toobar Zoobar
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY
145
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 03:20:00 -
[9] - Quote
I can't dodge a swarm volley if it's not rendering you know.
Why not lock-on warnings?
Specialization: Making typo's.
|
Sicerly Yaw
Corrosive Synergy No Context
956
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 04:38:00 -
[10] - Quote
I believe the former is a better idea rather then the latter as removing maneuverability from the swarms more then it has already would make it weaker against LAV's and fuel injector tanks while making some pilots untouchable if they can simply avoid swarms with quick maneuvering
ADS and DS alike suffer from stability as it is. they are in my opinion too heavy as a rough landing can easily destroy them and collision damge is a bit too harsh, reducing impact instability and also reducing collision damge would go a long way to help pilots out especially new ones that may not have the best control and bump into random objects or land a bit roughly
my biggest problem with drop ships not so much DS as the ADS is the lackluster amount of health they have with DS having roughly 1k eHP more then the ADS this alone majorly contributes as to how fast a drop ship goes down, I would suggest slightly increasing the eHP a reasonable amount perhaps maybe only 500+ eHP maybe more
to conclude collision damage, stability, and eHP all could be reasonable reasonable buffs that don't necessarily affect swarms in a negative way against other vehicles but it does serve to help drop ships from some of its major weaknesses to make it easier for all pilots
click here if you are making a new account and want some free BPO's
|
|
Vulpes Dolosus
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 04:55:00 -
[11] - Quote
I've been a pilot since Uprising 1.3.
The biggest problem between ADS and swarmers is target acquisition, i.e. being able to identify they're under attack and from where in an efficient manner and being able to respond in time and appropriately.
Currently, the only notification an ADS pilot has is the sound the missiles make and, if actually looking at where they're being fired from, the missile glow. Both of these have the possibility to be completely glitched out, making swarms literally undetectable before hitting the ADS. This also ruins any possible way for the ADS pilot to identify where the swarms are coming from, forcing him to flee even if he may possibly be able to kill the swarmer.
Some possible remedies to fix this:
-Add missile icons to the minimap, showing the general area where they originate as well as if there are multiple swarmers.
-Highlight swarmers locking an ADS (visible only to the pilot), perhaps with a unique chevron and only on the minimap.
-Lock warnings (sounds) might be considered as well, but alone the don't provide much useful info for the pilot.
Another problem is the ease of use for swarms. Lock, fire, and unless the ADS is already 100m away ABing at full speed it's a guaranteed hit.
Compare this to the forge gun: an ADS pilot skilled enough can orbit over a forger to try and dodge the shots and a skilled forger can still track and lead the ADS (I've been in both situations multiple times). What the Swarms need is a way to implement some way to negate or hinder their use. I'm not a fan of the laser-guided idea others have because it's impractical, but I do have a solution I think might be worth exploring:
-Greatly increase the lock time for swarms, but only require a single lock for the whole magazine (the lock will break when reloading). This means that a swarmer needs one lock and each missile will fire one after another (with a reasonably slow RoF I might add).
-Decrease the size of the lock box (roughly 2/3-1/2 it's current size)
What this will do is allow swarmers to engage other vehicles and non-agressing ADSs normally, albeit with a little longer initial time due to a long lock (but remember, times between each missile volley will still be the same so long the lock is kept). Swarmers should still be allowed to redirect swarms up or to the side in order to avoid obstacles, so long as the box is back over the target in time (very similar to currently where you need to re-lock for each volley), this also giving a little leeway to retarget an orbiting ADS.
Together with my acquisition suggestions, the fight between a swarmer and ADS pilot becomes much more balanced. Both need skill to apply their damage, though I must argue that the ADS needs more skill to both apply and avoid damage (the swarmer avoids damage by damaging the ADS, e.g. knocking him around, which I argue should still exist). The ADS also has more information to help him decide how to proceed. It also shouldn't severely affect a swarms ability to engage any other target (actually it might be a stealth buff to LAVs speeding around, though it won't help one sitting around sniping with a rail turret).
Dust is there! I was real!
Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
|
Vulpes Dolosus
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 05:01:00 -
[12] - Quote
To actually answer these proposals:
Darth-Carbonite GIO wrote:Proposal One: Swarm Impact/Force Reduction - Decreased sway of the ADS under fire, allowing the pilot a greater chance of achieving accuracy, and evening the odds in direct Swarmer v ADS confrontations. Percentage of reduction would probably be large.
Proposal Two: Decreased Swarm Tracking Ability - Further encourage pilot skill and maneuverability while also toning down the ability to fire around corners and obstacles, thereby rewarding smart swarmer positioning. Reduction more nebulous
1) The sway should reward a swarmer for landing a hit on an ADS (provided it's more difficult to land one, as I've suggested above). I don't mind it much, it makes flying a bit more realistic and dynamic. Of course, there's the weird times it completely knocks you over or throws you into a wall or something, but it's not a common issue.
2) I personally believe (with little proof honestly) this actually buffs swarm's ability to navigate around corners. Besides, an ADS isn't agile enough loop around swarms, and even if it could I can't see it being very useful in an a actual fight.
Dust is there! I was real!
Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
|
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 08:54:00 -
[13] - Quote
Proposal 1: I'm not a big fan of impact force reduction. In most situations - where the DS is approximately hit in the direction of it's center of mass - the impact force is very much appropriate and fun to play with. Only in some situations, where the missiles hit the DS at an angle, the impact force calculations go nuts.
I have the feeling that this is because the impact force of missiles acts as if it were a projectile. An explosive that strikes a target at an angle would be expected to deliver an impulse perpendicular to the surface of whatever it struck. A projectile instead delivers its impulse in its original direction of travel - like a forgegun round. When striking the nose or tail of a DS at an angle this can cause massive angular impulses that make it very tough to keep the DS in the air. Given that with swarm launchers these shots can't be planned under the current mechanics it's rather annoying. The erratic close-range approach behavior of swarm missiles may also play a role in causing very large angular impulses in situations where you wouldn't expect it. E.g. sometimes you are pushed down by an impact of a swarm launcher that was fired from below.
You could tweak the impact force of swarms down, but I don't think it'd be a major benefit. Once an ADS or DS is under Swarm fire it needs to get out of there fairly quickly anyway.
Proposal 2: You are probably aware of this thread. So you could say I'm biased towards tweaking swarm missile maneuverability. Before discussing the theoretical pros and cons of changing these parameters I'd very much suggest trying it out using a SL variant - e.g. the assault SL - on the live server. Then we could see how such a change affects gameplay and go from there. |
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 08:56:00 -
[14] - Quote
Still the best proposal acroos the board
Stefan Stahl proposed - DS acceleration 12 m/s-¦ (with AB) - DS top speed 50 m/s - SL acceleration 12 m/s-¦ - SL top speed 60 m/s - SL turn rate 50 -¦/s
Basically with hard manuevers a a good pilot will be able to out dance some swarms Without evasive manuevers a pilot would be hit. Higher speed swarms means its still roughly balanced against HAVs A good swarmer will have to learn when to release the swarms Cover can be utilized
- Rattati liked it - Pilots liked it, - Practical sense - Mathematical proofs - Can be done without a hotfix, tweaked accordingly. - Only 3 parameters need to be typed in, swarm speed, turn rate, and acceleration.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
"I sometimes wonder why I share stuff "- CCP Rattati
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
10
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 10:51:00 -
[15] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Still the best proposal acroos the boardStefan Stahl proposed - DS acceleration 12 m/s-¦ (with AB) - DS top speed 50 m/s - SL acceleration 12 m/s-¦ - SL top speed 60 m/s - SL turn rate 50 -¦/s Basically with hard manuevers a a good pilot will be able to out dance some swarms Without evasive manuevers a pilot would be hit. Higher speed swarms means its still roughly balanced against HAVs A good swarmer will have to learn when to release the swarms Cover can be utilized - Rattati liked it - Pilots liked it, - Practical sense - Mathematical proofs - Can be done without a hotfix, tweaked accordingly. - Only 3 parameters need to be typed in, swarm speed, turn rate, and acceleration.
We can file this under the "Adjusting tracking" header. This would fit Darth's number 2 option.
I'm letting Darth take point on this one. Bluntly I'm biased against swarms at the moment because they irritate me incredibly.
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 11:29:00 -
[16] - Quote
well to adress swarm knock around, to be honest i dont have much of an issue with it. Not because it isnt annoying, but the nature of the current meta means I cannot afford to hang around and take on swarmers. We cant tell from the air whether its a milita volley or a Beacons. I'm far more likley to be killed afterburning away or blindsided by numerous AV rather than get love tapped into a building.
If impact damage was figured out, especially for Python pilots, I could make the argument that the imact is necessary in drving dropships away from closed in areas that infantry operate on.
Untill that day, sure reduce impact sway for dropship is fine with me.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
"I sometimes wonder why I share stuff "- CCP Rattati
|
Darth-Carbonite GIO
Random Gunz Rise Of Legion.
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 14:02:00 -
[17] - Quote
Stefan Stahl wrote:Proposal 2: You are probably aware of this thread. So you could say I'm biased towards tweaking swarm missile maneuverability.
I was aware, but it somehow slipped my mind yesterday despite having your numbers in my original write-up. I blame severe lack of sleep.
In any case, I love it and have updated the OP.
Stefan Stahl wrote:You could tweak the impact force of swarms down, but I don't think it'd be a major benefit. Once an ADS or DS is under Swarm fire it needs to get out of there fairly quickly anyway.
True, but I'm thinking of the instances where both the ADS and the swarmer are committed to the destruction of the other, typically in high risk scenarios like PC.
A common tactic is to engage a swarmer at close range, because he's already targeted you anyway so you might as well increase your chances of hitting him. Once at close range like this, it becomes a matter of how good at dodging the swarmer is, versus how good of a shot the pilot is.
By lowering impact sway we reduce external forces at work in these confrontations and buff dropship survivability slightly, almost indirectly, in very specific situations.
I certainly agree there should be some sway, but perhaps a bit less. I'll change the proposal from "Large Percentage" to "Moderate," but I'm not ready to give up on the idea completely.
I challenge you to a Gwent duel!
YouTube
|
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 14:54:00 -
[18] - Quote
Darth-Carbonite GIO wrote:... Joint proposal: Update the Assault Swarm Launcher with the proposed swarm missile movement stats. Make it have 2 missiles instead of 4, with double damage but the same impact force.
Result: - Every ADS pilot will know whether he was just hit by an 'old' or 'new' SL by counting the number of impacts. - New SLs have half the total impact per volley. - New SLs have the same DPS. - New SLs have updated tracking. - Old SLs are still available should any of these changes prove detrimental to balancing. The impact force won't do anything bad, but the tracking changes may screw up tracking entirely.
Most important bit: This needs to be reverted or updated after two weeks. Experimental stuff on the live server shouldn't be a normal thing.
And finally: Is a tweak to the lock-on parameters on the table? I'd very much like to reduce the size of the lock-on-window and have the SL lose the lock earlier and faster when you look away from the target. The item DB properties that were posted on these forums last year seemed to suggest that these parameters could be edited. That way a SL operator needs to properly track his target to get a lock and can't fire over his shoulder anymore. |
Murder Medic
Forty-Nine Fedayeen Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 15:40:00 -
[19] - Quote
Tweaking the impact pulse is pointless because you can't stick around to fight a swarm launcher without dying, plus skilled pilots have long since learned to compensate for it in their flying. Reducing swarm tracking might help but probably not honestly, I've just flown against these things for 3 years now and I just don't see them overshooting the ADS.
If you want to balance swarms vs dropships at this point, with all the bugs, just give us stronger more expensive ADS in the form of STD / ADV / PRO
Swarms are too tricky to balance because of how they function and our lack of dev team / resources to go into the code and make real changes. Just make their targets harder to kill and buff the other AV options accordingly. |
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 19:08:00 -
[20] - Quote
Stefan Stahl wrote:Darth-Carbonite GIO wrote:... Joint proposal: Update the Assault Swarm Launcher with the proposed swarm missile movement stats. Make it have 2 missiles instead of 4, with double damage but the same impact force. Result: - Every ADS pilot will know whether he was just hit by an 'old' or 'new' SL by counting the number of impacts. - New SLs have half the total impact per volley. - New SLs have the same DPS. - New SLs have updated tracking. - Old SLs are still available should any of these changes prove detrimental to balancing. The impact force won't do anything bad, but the tracking changes may screw up tracking entirely. Most important bit: This needs to be reverted or updated after two weeks. Experimental stuff on the live server shouldn't be a normal thing. And finally: Is a tweak to the lock-on parameters on the table? I'd very much like to reduce the size of the lock-on-window and have the SL lose the lock earlier and faster when you look away from the target. The item DB properties that were posted on these forums last year seemed to suggest that these parameters could be edited. That way a SL operator needs to properly track his target to get a lock and can't fire over his shoulder anymore.
I hate to be that guy, but what's to encourage swarmer to use the new tweaked assaults that give pilots a better chance, rather than wyrokamis?
probably something sweet like more missile shots per clip. 5 instead of three would be a good incentive. making them very useful vs armor tanks, and tempting vs a maneuvering dropship.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
"I sometimes wonder why I share stuff "- CCP Rattati
|
|
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 19:25:00 -
[21] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:I hate to be that guy, but what's to encourage swarmer to use the new tweaked assaults that give pilots a better chance, rather than wyrokamis? Very good point, actually. I never mentioned that I intended that change for a two week testing phase so interested people could try out what tweaking some parameters actually does to the gameplay. So in fact, there is no incentive at all to use the new variant except curiosity. Once we know what those changed swarm missile movement stats feel like we can then talk about whether we like it or not in a much more informed manner than the current speculation.
Sorry for not being very precise in the previous post. |
Megaman Trigger
OSG Planetary Operations
668
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 19:43:00 -
[22] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote: I hate to be that guy, but what's to encourage swarmer to use the new tweaked assaults that give pilots a better chance, rather than wyrokamis?
probably something sweet like more missile shots per clip. 5 instead of three would be a good incentive. making them very useful vs armor tanks, and tempting vs a maneuvering dropship.
Increased lock on range and quicker lock speed?
Purifier. First Class.
|
el OPERATOR
Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 20:30:00 -
[23] - Quote
Darth-Carbonite GIO wrote:el OPERATOR wrote:What about, in lieu of "nerfing stuff", adding skills or mods that create the results you're looking for? Y'know, game expansion type stuff? "New" Content? So as we focus on making the game we play that much better, we will take aim at the things that need fixing whether they're big or small, and continue to strengthen the foundation any subsequent "New Content" would have to be built on.
Thing is, said foundation has been proven to actually be weaker when subjected to constant reiteration. This weaker constantly variable foundation then leads to diminshed playerbase and diminished quality for what little playerbase there is. So, again, instead of looking to rewrite the base stats beneath it all why not introduce new skills or mods that create the ability to attain the end results you want? Pilot skills for handling to improve DS response, DS passives for knockback/ground contact buffering etc. Game growth instead of another year of CPMX trying to rewrite the core and just really producing little else.
Lets get some real, achievable, tangible gains in here already.
Open-Beta Vet.
CAPCRO Nomad.
DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR
|
Darth-Carbonite GIO
Random Gunz Rise Of Legion.
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 13:39:00 -
[24] - Quote
Stefan Stahl wrote:And finally: Is a tweak to the lock-on parameters on the table? I'd very much like to reduce the size of the lock-on-window and have the SL lose the lock earlier and faster when you look away from the target. The item DB properties that were posted on these forums last year seemed to suggest that these parameters could be edited. That way a SL operator needs to properly track his target to get a lock and can't fire over his shoulder anymore.
Making inquiries about this.
I challenge you to a Gwent duel!
YouTube
|
Alena Ventrallis
Commando Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 15:46:00 -
[25] - Quote
We need to make the base swarm launcher good against tanks, and the assault swarms good against DS. As it is, assault swarms are laughably unused, I havent seen them in the killboard in ages.
Basic gist is to slightly buff base swarm damage to make them better at killing tanks while reducing missile speed and acceleration so they can't catch dropships, while assault swarms get faster missiles and acceleration to make them easily catch dropships while reducing their damage since dropships have a lot less health.
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.
|
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 16:21:00 -
[26] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:We need to make the base swarm launcher good against tanks, and the assault swarms good against DS. As it is, assault swarms are laughably unused, I havent seen them in the killboard in ages.
Basic gist is to slightly buff base swarm damage to make them better at killing tanks while reducing missile speed and acceleration so they can't catch dropships, while assault swarms get faster missiles and acceleration to make them easily catch dropships while reducing their damage since dropships have a lot less health. I'm very strongly opposed to this.
While that may be easy to balance in a 1-v-1 setting it doesn't help gameplay. There really is no fun to be had in having to run back to a supply depot because you brought the wrong kind of SL. I'd much rather give every AV weapon a scope as broad as possible, including a secondary anti-infantry use for each single weapon. That way AVers can participate in the game for a longer fraction of the time, which makes the AV role much more attractive and subsequently present in the game.
It really doesn't help anyone when AV is something you only do for a few seconds until a certain vehicle is destroyed before switching back to whatever you were doing before. That way AV is a duty, not a gameplay element. |
Dont-be-a-D1CK
Dead Man's Game
176
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 16:22:00 -
[27] - Quote
Dumb fire / LoS tracking would be an awesome fix to Swarms being 'EZ mode'
The knockback effects should remain in place, already a good pilot can recover from this and kill swarmer certainly in a 1v1
Ban me once, shame on me
Ban me twice, shame on you !!!
|
Mobius Wyvern
Fatal Absolution
6
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 16:33:00 -
[28] - Quote
I hope that guy with the excellent balance proposal for Swarms chimes in.
Also let's not forget standard Dropships. I can actually get my Python away from Swarms right now if I run the moment I hear them, but standard Dropships are entirely too sluggish to outrun Swarms and just die. I'd love to play more of a support role for my team with mobile spawns and scans, but it's pretty damn hard when I'm drowned in Swarms I can't move fast enough to out-turn or outrun.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Murder Medic
Forty-Nine Fedayeen Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 16:39:00 -
[29] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:I hope that guy with the excellent balance proposal for Swarms chimes in.
Also let's not forget standard Dropships. I can actually get my Python away from Swarms right now if I run the moment I hear them, but standard Dropships are entirely too sluggish to outrun Swarms and just die. I'd love to play more of a support role for my team with mobile spawns and scans, but it's pretty damn hard when I'm drowned in Swarms I can't move fast enough to out-turn or outrun. Nevermind that, the fact that MCRU's on dropships are still bugged so you can't always spawn onto them, and the fact that CCP has decided not to add ADV and PRO variants so your spawns will always be vastly inferior to uplinks. Add to that the simple fact that it's very hard for passengers to ascertain their position on the battlefield when in your ship and it all combines to make dropships the single worst mobile deployment platform in this game |
Derrith Erador
Fatal Absolution
3
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 20:04:00 -
[30] - Quote
Darth-Carbonite GIO wrote:First off, this is a thread dedicated to generating meaningful discussion on ADS vs Swarm balance. If you want to talk about forges or tanks, please do so elsewhere unless it happens to be relevant. Secondly, I will be proposing only two seemingly small changes at this time. I ask that you focus your attention on providing feedback on these specific ideas. Due to the focus, this may be simple, but there's nothing like feedback. And although it should be obvious, this is CPM data gathering, and is no way "Official." Proposal One: Swarm Impact/Force Reduction - Decreased sway of the ADS under fire, allowing the pilot a greater chance of achieving accuracy, and evening the odds in direct Swarmer v ADS confrontations. Percentage of reduction "Moderate."Proposal Two: Decreased Swarm Tracking Ability - Further encourage pilot skill and maneuverability while also toning down the ability to fire around corners and obstacles, thereby rewarding smart swarmer positioning. Reduction from 70-¦/s to 50-¦/s. Curtesy of Stefan Stahl.Two relatively simple boosts the survivability of the ADS in a swarm engagement while not hindering swarm efficiency against tanks. Fire away. First off, you misspelled courtesy. Sorry, I'm a little bit of a grammar nazi. Anyway, my thoughts on swarms may infringe on your "no talk of tanks and forges".
On proposal one, I completely disagree with this. There are methods that exist in the ADS to counteract and minimize this. This should fall under the ADS responsibilities.
On proposal two, well I think I know a way to make this happen. It will fall under forges and tanks a bit, but only because I'm wanting to balance swarms to use assaults more.
Anyway, before we begin, there are two key issues that I believe must be addressed, and my proposal will fix it.
Issue 1: No need to maintain the lock. This is honestly the biggest problem any pilot worth their salt has with swarms, they can lob out three rounds in under five seconds no problem, and there is little chance of dodging them.
Issue 2: The size of the lock box. This in essence is the second reason they require no effort. In my dust nerd days, quite a bit ago, I measured the inner crosshair of a forge gun, and then compared them to the swarm. My findings are this:
Standard/militia swarm box size: 16x size of forge Adv swarm box size: 20x size of forge Proto swarm box size: 24x size of forge
That is way too large and unnecessary for a swarm to have.
Anyway, on to my proposal:
First step: fix the lock time. Last I checked (a while, I'll admit), the lock time was 1.05 seconds maxed out. I think this should be changed to 1.4 seconds maxed out.
Second step: Make it to where the swarm has to maintain the lock while attacking a vehicle. I do think that, in order to not completely kill the usefulness of swarms, that there should be a re-locking window, a set time where you can still hit the target without getting the lock on. I'd say about 3 seconds for regular, 5 for assault.
Third step: Lock on range change. In order to make variants more marketable, they need to have different range of operation. I believe a tiered set of ranges with corresponding lock boxes would help this. I'll explain in just a second.
Regular swarms: Used for tanks mainly. So up to a 20% increase to damage might be needed, but a slower speed. The lock ranges will be as follows, along with lock boxes.
100 meters, 16x box 175 meters, 12x box 250 meters, 8x box
You can switch sizes by pressing L1 while in lock mode.
Assault swarms: These I think will mainly be useful in fighting ADS. The raw damage is actually pretty good, so there should be no change there. There may call for a slight increase in speed, not sure yet. Anyway, on to the ranges and boxes.
180 meters, 12x box 250 meters, 8x box 400 meters, 4x box
I'm not sure how much help this will be, but I hope it does.
99% of what Derrith says is stupidity. -D3lta Blitzkrieg
Oh yeah?! Well, I love redheads.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |