|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
1
   |
Posted - 2015.10.13 09:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
I agree with Celus Ivara, SL variants must be identifiable to the vehicle pilot that is being attacked by the sound of the impact alone. Swarms still don't always render.
Yesterday I did some theorycrafting and noticed that variants aren't really necessary.
If we gave our current SL 6 shots per clip DS or ADS wouldn't notice. They leave lock on range before the fourth shot is in the air anyway - and if it launches, it won't catch up. An HAV however will have to endure 6 volleys with no pause for reload in between, which is a serious (17% for non-commandos) buff to DPS.
To me, that sounds like a very good proposition. No additional damage to DS, big buff to DPS against HAVs. No extra variants, no hassle. Only one value has to be modified. Could be deployed by Monday. |
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.13 13:05:00 -
[2] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:I think it's that and Vice Versa..."how can you have a weapon that is good at killing tanks, that won't just obliterate a Dropship immediately, and how can you have a weapon good at killing dropships that an HAV operator has a chance to escape from?"
That's why I'm in favor of a general purpose one that is OK vs both, but doesn't excel and than 2 specialty variants for each specific purpose.
@Stefan Stahl: I'll go ahead and add your idea onto the spreadsheet. Fully agreed.
CCP Rattati wrote:cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs" Easy enough to solve. In the "damage-per-volley versus lock-on-duration versus clipsize" design space you can dial in the size of the alpha-strike that can be delivered to an escaping DS and the sustainable DPS on a static target HAV.
Here are some logical sanity-checks for a potential solution:
- A short range SL must be able to scare off a DS further than 150 meters, otherwise a DS with a gunner can rain missiles on the swarmer with impunity. The launched missile must travel to 200-250 meters at least, otherwise the DS can just dip out of range to recover and be back 10 seconds later.
- A long range SL must be able to break the reps on a hardened dual-rep Madrugar, otherwise it isn't an AV weapon. That's 425 DPS to armor minimum. Better add some margin, otherwise the HAV won't be impressed.
Some more general arguments:
Right now, in any situation that doesn't involve buildings, the resolution of a fight between a DS and SL is determined only by the distance between the two. If distance is x then y volleys connect before the DS escapes, delivering z damage within w seconds and the DS either pops or it doesn't. That means I can design a SL that destroys any DS of a given ehp if caught within an arbitrary distance to the SL. In fact I came up with a couple possible variants during a train ride yesterday. However I fail to see the gameplay here. Neither the SL operator nor the DS pilot are doing anything interesting - they're both not enjoying their time, which is terrible gameplay.
I know that isn't what you asked for, but I'd like to put some effort into creating a more interesting SL-DS interplay before creating such variants. Tweaking turn-rate and missile speed as well as implementing directional swarm launching (I'm going to keep banging that drum) creates a much more interesting gameplay where we can involve both the DS pilot and the SL operator in more interesting activities.
However the design is much more complicated - more analysis to come...
By the way, if an update is underway and not yet feature-complete: Beside directional swarm launching (#directionalswarmlaunching - trending now!), we could very much use a profile-parameter for all vehicles that is hotfixable and is used to determine the speed at which a SL (or other guided weapon) locks on. I imagine it's fairly simple to implement and gives us a very easy to use design parameter.
Something of the sort: Lock-on-duration = base-value(from weapon) * skill-modifier(from character) * profile(from lock-on-target)
Profile is a float with a default of 1.0 and ranges from more than 0 to less than Inf.
An HAV may have a profile of 1.0, a DS of 1.05, an LAV of 1.1, something like that.
It's not an elegant solution, but it'd be good to have it should the need arise. If technical reasons stop it from happening, that's no big problem. |
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 11:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
Stefan Stahl wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs" Easy enough to solve. In the "damage-per-volley versus lock-on-duration versus clipsize" design space you can dial in the size of the alpha-strike that can be delivered to an escaping DS and the sustainable DPS on a static target HAV. Here are some logical sanity-checks for a potential solution: - A short range SL must be able to scare off a DS further than 150 meters, otherwise a DS with a gunner can rain missiles on the swarmer with impunity. The launched missile must travel to 200-250 meters at least, otherwise the DS can just dip out of range to recover and be back 10 seconds later. - A long range SL must be able to break the reps on a hardened dual-rep Madrugar, otherwise it isn't an AV weapon. That's 425 DPS to armor minimum. Better add some margin, otherwise the HAV won't be impressed. I'd like to follow up on this with some numbers, but I'm unsure on the design goals.
Should ADS have a harder time in the future? We just pulled in the range on the SL, so that indicates the intent is to make it easier on ADS, but the quote by Rattati above indicates ADS have it too easy now?
Should SLs become more competent against HAVs? Rattati's quote seems to indicate that HAVs have it too tough against SLs right now. Banter on the forum seems to go both ways.
I don't have enough data to come up with good design goals. My experience as a pilot doesn't give me a clear direction to go. I know my NDS can sustain a single swarmer for quite a while, on the other hand it takes two people to operate a NDS, so that seems fair.
[Edit]
By the way, for future DPS calculations for the current SL you can use a time between two volleys of 2.3 seconds. Back then I wrote this thread I actually measured the time it takes PC players to launch three volleys from a couple of youtube videos. The best SL operator took 7 seconds to lock on and launch 3 volleys. That makes about 2.3 seconds per volley. |
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 12:02:00 -
[4] - Quote
DiablosMajora wrote:Again, why not just have different swams for different vehicles?
One that can only lock on air vehicles, thus can be balanced around that
One that can only lock on ground vehicles, thus can be balanced around that as well
You don't need to tackle the monstrous task or reinvent the wheel by balancing Swarms vs All Vehicles, just divide and conquer the beast like other games do (planetside 2 comes to mind) The short story:
1. Split SL into anti-HAV SL and anti-DS SL.
2. People complain it's not worthwhile to fit one of these if it can only attack one type of vehicle and doesn't even reliably kill that sort of target ("but that's it's only purpose, why else equip it?").
3. Specialized SLs are buffed to compensate for their lack of usability against other targets.
4. Piloting an HAV is now a thing of waiting until somebody brings a anti-HAV-SL, which is guaranteed destruction.
5. Killing an HAV is now a thing of running to a supply depot, switching out to an anti-HAV-SL, running back to the HAV, killing it and running back to the supply depot to do what you were trying to do before.
6. Both SL operators and vehicle operators now hate Dust. Congratulations. |
|
|
| |
|