|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
   |
Posted - 2015.11.15 22:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
luckyireland wrote:Give forge gunz back there range, Please.
Blaster Turrets want their range back not to mention Railguns.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.11.16 20:18:00 -
[2] - Quote
Baal Omniscient wrote:Richard Gamerich-R wrote:Don't forget, proto tank cost 1 200 000 ISK, your suit max 130 000.
Balance tank/AV is good, if you play in coordinate squad, no vehicle can run as they want. So you're saying that a solo player in a tank is counterable by an entire squad. Yep, sounds totally balanced to me. 
It's not but he does have a point.
A major aspect of HAV and vehicular game play is their disproportionally high upkeeps over time. If an HAV designed to be quickly destroyed by individual AVers they should see the costs of their modules and hulls reduced. At present they are difficult to kill and thus the costs to outfit one is very high.
That all being said HAV have not been representative of tanks in DUST 514 at any point in their history due to a combination of woefully inappropriate turret options, poor design changes for armour modules, and a lack of emphasis on vehicle positioning.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 21:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
Baal Omniscient wrote:True Adamance wrote:Baal Omniscient wrote:Richard Gamerich-R wrote:Don't forget, proto tank cost 1 200 000 ISK, your suit max 130 000.
Balance tank/AV is good, if you play in coordinate squad, no vehicle can run as they want. So you're saying that a solo player in a tank is counterable by an entire squad. Yep, sounds totally balanced to me. It's not but he does have a point. A major aspect of HAV and vehicular game play is their disproportionally high upkeeps over time. If an HAV designed to be quickly destroyed by individual AVers they should see the costs of their modules and hulls reduced. At present they are difficult to kill and thus the costs to outfit one is very high. That all being said HAV have not been representative of tanks in DUST 514 at any point in their history due to a combination of woefully inappropriate turret options, poor design changes for armour modules, and a lack of emphasis on vehicle positioning. The point that cost per death isn't equal is a given, I've never argued that point. I would honestly rather tanks be completely free and be uber killing machines that die in 2 shots at this point though. People playing the cost per death card like it means that makes it balanced and that gets under my skin. Regardless of ISK price, 1 ISK or 1,000,000 ISK, if one player running gear specifically made to shut down what you are running can't kill you without a squad of coordinated teammates who aren't busy dodging bullets from other sources, then there's a gameplay imbalance. I agree with every point you make on tanks True, you're in fact the only tanker on these forums that I can easily agree with on a regular basis and you have been so for years. I just get frustrated with the rest of them who keep repeating the same tired old talking points rather than putting effort into trying to get a proper balance going. I don't want tanks to be useless but I want a fair fight between them and AV. Maybe some day....
To be honest I wouldn't mind HAV being more susceptible to AV fire if there were various additional modules including active counter measures, target jamming arrays, scan suppressing armour coatings, and various other odds and ends most prominent amongst them would be a powerful main gun with AoE explosive power and the ability to either switch (like a side arm) to a Co-axial Small Turret or Cuppola Mounted Small Turret.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.11.23 01:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ice Royal Glantix wrote:For all of you defending the tank side of the argument, I remind you that ISK cost should never be considered when balancing an item, simply due to the extreme wealth of many players.
However, for those of you who think that a single AVer should be able to destroy a tank, you're just a little stupid.
The point of a tank is battlefield presence over killing ability. By running a tank, compared to an assault/scout/sentinel, a player understands he is sacrificing kills. A tank simply cannot kill as much as a properly run slayer suit.
If one person could easily destroy a tank, it totally ruins the idea of creating a large presence that must be dealt with.
If a tank is causing you trouble, you can always just hide from it. If a tank is causing your team trouble, your team can deal with it. If you could destroy a tank with just one person, then the tanker would be better off in an assault or other dropsuit.
If you want to 1 v 1 a tank, use a tank.
Sincerely,
Glantix / Ice
While it is a fair statement to make that an in game currency should not significantly impact the characters abilities on a fundamental level with the design of EVE and Dust in general as well as the relative difference and coupled with the current met of Dust 514 it somewhat has to act as a balancer by incentivising or de-incentivising the vehicles deployment.
In my mind there should be a currency aspect in the game that can be used as a resource to effectively allow players to acquire certain benefits in combat but should not cause a large power disparity between players. Though I stand by the ideal that players who commit large amounts of in game currency to the combat action should be suitable compensated as a result.
As for your assessment of HAV.... I find myself agreeing with it in part. Presence is on thing that really does throw enemy players into complete disarray and denies them ground and cover they might other wise opt to use. However tanks are not nearly as useful of valuable to the team on most maps an another rifleman as they cannot capture objectives, cannot reach most objectives, have a very limited range, and are only viable to drive when hardeners are active.
Nothing pisses off a tanker more or effectively takes them out of a fight as much as being blue-balled by infantry who continue to operate normally without engaging or presenting themselves.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 00:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
Text Grant wrote:Devadander wrote:Text Grant wrote:Devadander wrote:This whole thread is somewhat of a shitpost...
If you don't like me, take that to the locker room.
I simply pointed out the road that brought us here.
Would like to help make both sides more fun. But this is obviously not the thread for it. Actually, the suggestions were quite reasonable for the literate :D So two personal attacks, and nothing to actually further any kind of discussion. I was replying to what you were speaking of. You didn't comment on the post, so I assumed you couldn't read. Maybe you just forgot to read? Either way, you didn't read.
Simply put the suggestions are simply too basic and not fleshed out enough, moreover you don't address any of the core concerns that typically get brought up in discussions of vehicle vs AV balance.
Finally you suggest giving a turret type marred by a very noticeable and quite frankly ridiculous dispersion which is more like to miss a running target at short range that hit it a lesser range and also greater projectile dispersion. While the Large Blaster has no place as an Anti Tank Turret making such changes would see it pushed to the point of disuse.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 02:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ghost Steps wrote:Tanks on the beta old days were balenced but really expensive, everything went wrong after the hardener modules, back in the day, tanks were HP mountains (like beating a boss in most vg) or weak with quick regen.
They should keep tanks simple, with just 1 hardener per fitting or go back to the tank of old days but with infantry prices (well not that cheap, slightly more can do the trick).
Limiting fitting options is a terrible idea unless infantry like the idea of being limited to one shield hardener or armour repairer.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.12.01 00:59:00 -
[7] - Quote
Text Grant wrote:True Adamance wrote:Ghost Steps wrote:Tanks on the beta old days were balenced but really expensive, everything went wrong after the hardener modules, back in the day, tanks were HP mountains (like beating a boss in most vg) or weak with quick regen.
They should keep tanks simple, with just 1 hardener per fitting or go back to the tank of old days but with infantry prices (well not that cheap, slightly more can do the trick). Limiting fitting options is a terrible idea unless infantry like the idea of being limited to one shield hardener or armour repairer. I never liked the idea of limiting items. IMO if a module is too powerful, nerf it. Like, nerf the miofibs, and take away the limit. Also, nerf hardeners.
Agreed. It's simply need to be changed so that it only confers say a 20% resistance to damage at maximum. To compensate we should be looking at a higher tier if plating and or Shield Extender to confer Raw HP.
Ideally what would happen is that tanks can remain on field even when their hardeners are down and not be instantly destroyed by AV while at the same time the amount of damage mitigated by hardeners is reduced.
Beyond that we also need active armour reps, much lower constant shield regen, a few other utility modules and large turrets that are slow firing but have an Area of Effect upon resolution.
Don't mistake me either when I say powerful single shot cannon. I mean it. You get hit by one directly as and infantryman and you are rendered instantly about as dead as they come.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 21:07:00 -
[8] - Quote
Flix Keptick wrote:Why do you even want to kill tanks? It's not like they can reliably kill infantry anyways... They just sit there, trying (and failing) to kill things. Basically, unless the tank has good gunners (let's face it that never happens) it will have a harder time engaging infantry than infantry has engaging it.
I honestly wish I had a co-axial small turret.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 01:07:00 -
[9] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:Baal Omniscient wrote:KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:Text Grant wrote:I run proto AV every match. I can't kill well built somas, much less gunnies, or maddies. Until 1 AV'er can kill 1 tanker, so long dust. It's been a crappy 4 years, and I'd like a refund for my aurum CCP.
. I think you are not aiming for a realistic balanced situation, at all. The underlined part sounds an awful lot like: Quote:Until any AV'er can kill 1 tanker Even if you mean maximized proto AV vs maximized proto tank and not lesser AV variations, that is not good gameplay balance. The reason why that is broken balance is that if in all theoretical 1v1 scenarios (impossible btw) both tank and infantryman are "on balance", the tank gets absolutely wrecked, instagibbed and all totaled if two infantrymen casually open fire together. Let's face it: infantry, dropships, tanks (and even scouts and sentinels) play differently. I understand your point, but at the same time this point can be boiled down 'Tanks shouldn't be able to be killed 1v1 because then when they get into a 2v1 situation they are f*cked'. Which is the same scenario for every other non-vehicle player on the field. 2v1 with equivalent gear and the 1 is in trouble. It's not an even analogy because of the differences between infantry and vehicle combat, but the fact is that you can currently have people soloing in a fitting that cannot be killed by another player soloing in a fitting meant to counter the first. And with hardeners in their current state a solo Av player is better off trying to avoid a hardner stacked tank because they will accomplish nothing more than drawing it's attention to them. At best, scaring it away for a few seconds. The meta is broken and needs fixing. I'm not advocating any particular action, but in the end vehicles need to be able to be killed in a 1v1 fight. But do infantry players have to wait to call in their dropsuits? Are their dropsuits vulnerable to destruction and theft while being called and recalled? Can vehicles cap points? Do infantry have a supply cap? As far as tanks go, are full proto fits equivilent to Infantry? Why should one player have to go through so many more hurdles, in and even before match, just to be easily wrecked by a single player? And, to add icing to that tasty cake, after you go up in flames to that one idiot and wait all that time to get another vehicle up and running, that numskull wanders over to a supply depot and goes back to being rambo before switching out again for more free points. I've personally always advocated for less infantry killing power and simply make vehicles the best counter to vehicles, that way AV is more of a support role if alone yet can still function as primary AV in small groups of 2-3
When it comes to infantry killing power I consider now that it's not so much that HAV need less of it.... they just need to be able to do it in a different way.
I'm for the idea that Anti Infantry Firepower should be put in the hands of secondary and tertiary gunners who crew your gun turrets (these solo player tanks are stupid as all hell) though for that to happen the small turrets themselves would have to function a bit better each in their intended role.
Blasters and Auto Cannon As Anti Infantry
Missiles as Semi Lockable AV
Railguns as Powerful Direct Damage AV
However when it comes to the main turrets it's not that HAV need less capacity to kill infantry only more more suitable way of representing their killing power befitting the type of powerful vehicle main cannon they have equipped. High Explosive Splash Damage weapons that kill upon direct hits and can be used to bombard areas or clear out cover with accurate shots.
Also if we simply reduce HAV capacity to kill infantry without giving them on map strategic options, goals, etc that do directly influence infantry gameplay such as destroying turrets, generators, etc we're simply making them less enjoyable to play than they already are.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 05:56:00 -
[10] - Quote
Medical Crash wrote:
Adamance I like your idea. Let the Tanks Main gun only be useable on other vehicles, while the only way for them to hurt infantry is with their secondary gunners. (Secondary guns may need major buffs to make up for this???)
Also, remove "Nitrous" modules from the game. Squirm tankers squirm.
AV weapons have been getting tyrannosaurus rekt-nerfed for too long now, let the tankers have a taste of their own medicine.
What they did to my Breach FG DMG and it's effective range is unbelievable. What is it's effective max range now, like 300 M? Can't remember, but that needs to be returned to what it was before the nerf. At least for the Breach FG, reward users of this weapon for all it's drawbacks.
That's not really my idea, nor do I agree with it. I feel HAV main guns should primarily be an Anti Tank gun however it should have a sizable AOE effect enough that it can threaten infantry with well placed shots.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 19:52:00 -
[11] - Quote
Jammeh McJam wrote:Why is there no dislike button?
What specifically do you dislike in the discussion.
Waves that dye the land gold.
Blessed breath to nurture life in a land of wheat.
A path the Sef descend drawn in ash.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 22:52:00 -
[12] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:Jammeh McJam wrote:Why is there no dislike button? What specifically do you dislike in the discussion. Probably that Breakin Stuff guy. He's a jerkass.
I'd say he's more of an 'Assbutt'
Waves that dye the land gold.
Blessed breath to nurture life in a land of wheat.
A path the Sef descend drawn in ash.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 09:21:00 -
[13] - Quote
Jenny Tales wrote:is this guy trolling or...?
tanks are WAY more balanced now its not even funny how OP they used to be a year ago
Um.... you are aware that Shield tanks, which arguably were the ones that were out of balance, are more potent than they ever have been in exactly the same way they were over powered last year....
Waves that dye the land gold.
Blessed breath to nurture life in a land of wheat.
A path the Sef descend drawn in ash.
|
|
|
| |
|