| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
   |
Posted - 2015.11.29 18:55:00 -
[1] - Quote
We are in a spot where vehicles can go either way.
Hardest part is balancing AV vs pro HAV without shutting down all other vehicles even more.
Not to mention current maddy meta is far too hardened.
There are few things I can suggest that would not completely ruin either sides fun.
A very slight hardener reduction would be first step.
Returning some of the less OP modules of yore could inspire some diversity in HAV fitting. (Chassis, rotation, etc.) And make hardener reduction less painful.
Someone suggested giving AV a negative infantry modifier and increasing base damage. I could be on board with that.
Large blaster could use a slight touch more AV %, as a gunni cannot win against maddy blaster to blaster. (Although maddy would still be king... Sigh... Idk) A slight AI % reduction could help ground AV as well.
Large missiles are garbage ATM. Furthering the maddy meta. They need reload love badly.
The assault swarm and mass driver getting an av rework could be amazing.
I don't seek invulnerability, just some fun tankvtank like the old days.
Suggest, discuss.
Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Derrith Erador
Fatal Absolution
3
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 19:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
You know, I was watching that previous thread you were in as a lark. TBH, I didn't want to help push for any sort of V/AV balance because I can guarantee some side is going to whine and complain. But seeing as you've got this thing going, I may as well put in my two cents.
I'm going to speak on behalf of the ADS pilots, seeing as no one will.
Back when I was active, it was impossible to kill a hardened maddy with a rail incubus. Hell, it was like pulling teeth to kill a non hardened maddy, like the dude would have to be a straight tard to die by my barrage.
The main reason that is because of two things, which could easily be rectified (maybe).
1) Reps plus hardeners make it an impenetrable fortress.
2) The scrubbing bubbles technique. This is where the tank moves back and forth constantly, making it a nightmare to hit him, and when I do, it's usually all back by the time he gets out of my LOS, because reps are too fast and cannot be interrupted by damage.
Solution:
You could reduce the acceleration on tanks, but I would be wary of how much, seeing as you could easily kill the whole maddy trade this way.
Another thing that could work is increasing the rep delay. By that I mean making it take longer to get a repair from the module. This is also a main problem in ADS duels. If you slap a three/two rep fit on anything, you're pretty much God mode in the sky. Well, unless you're stupid.
Edit: Another good way to balance tanks and armor is to make the reps breakable. By that I mean if it's under fire, the tank cannot rep until it's not taken damage for x amount of time.
99% of what Derrith says is stupidity. -D3lta Blitzkrieg
I like whales
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 20:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
Devadander wrote:We are in a spot where vehicles can go either way.
Hardest part is balancing AV vs pro HAV without shutting down all other vehicles even more.
Not to mention current maddy meta is far too hardened.
There are few things I can suggest that would not completely ruin either sides fun.
A very slight hardener reduction would be first step.
Returning some of the less OP modules of yore could inspire some diversity in HAV fitting. (Chassis, rotation, etc.) And make hardener reduction less painful.
Someone suggested giving AV a negative infantry modifier and increasing base damage. I could be on board with that.
Large blaster could use a slight touch more AV %, as a gunni cannot win against maddy blaster to blaster. (Although maddy would still be king... Sigh... Idk) A slight AI % reduction could help ground AV as well.
Large missiles are garbage ATM. Furthering the maddy meta. They need reload love badly.
The assault swarm and mass driver getting an av rework could be amazing.
I don't seek invulnerability, just some fun tankvtank like the old days.
Suggest, discuss.
1: The constant idea that hardeners are the main problem of why HAV's, particularly Madrugars is still silly to me, because they didn't change much about the system (eHP actually went down because of hull and extender/plate nerfs). I'm perplexed as to why people still haven't figured out that the repair change is what caused this shift of a massive Maddy meta after rails have somewhat been brought to Earth.
2: Adding situational modules would although be nice and a step in the right direction doesn't solve the main problems, and wouldn't change the fact that our call for a nerf is misguided.
3: I still don't see the point in this. AV doesn't need general damage buffs, they need to be given niche and be tweaked accordingly. Having all of them in general being good AV is part of the problem. Also, I don't get the reason why a giant shot would do less damage towards a smaller target vs. a larger target.
4: The blaster does need to be reworked to become more of a "Large Turret", but to help with Cal HAV's use them to fight Gal HAV's with blasters? No, that doesn't even make sense considering the damage it does, plasma, which is more hard hitting towards shields in the first place. As for a reduction in %, Same as #3; it's illogical.
5: "Missiles" are certainly not getting their instagib flow back. Nerf the damage, and they can have a fast reload. Might as well rename them to rockets while you're at it.
6: As I said in #3, they need to find their niche, not just get general buffs. We know that general buffs simply don't work.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 20:04:00 -
[4] - Quote
Derrith Erador wrote:You know, I was watching that previous thread you were in as a lark. TBH, I didn't want to help push for any sort of V/AV balance because I can guarantee some side is going to whine and complain. But seeing as you've got this thing going, I may as well put in my two cents.
I'm going to speak on behalf of the ADS pilots, seeing as no one will.
Back when I was active, it was impossible to kill a hardened maddy with a rail incubus. Hell, it was like pulling teeth to kill a non hardened maddy, like the dude would have to be a straight tard to die by my barrage.
The main reason that is because of two things, which could easily be rectified (maybe).
1) Reps plus hardeners make it an impenetrable fortress.
2) The scrubbing bubbles technique. This is where the tank moves back and forth constantly, making it a nightmare to hit him, and when I do, it's usually all back by the time he gets out of my LOS, because reps are too fast and cannot be interrupted by damage.
Solution:
You could reduce the acceleration on tanks, but I would be wary of how much, seeing as you could easily kill the whole maddy trade this way.
Another thing that could work is increasing the rep delay. By that I mean making it take longer to get a repair from the module. This is also a main problem in ADS duels. If you slap a three/two rep fit on anything, you're pretty much God mode in the sky. Well, unless you're stupid.
Edit: Another good way to balance tanks and armor is to make the reps breakable. By that I mean if it's under fire, the tank cannot rep until it's not taken damage for x amount of time.
The problem is that you're trying kill a target much bigger than you with a weapon much smaller than the ones that usually are killing it. There were even nerfs to keep ADS's from simply wrecking HAV's (although it's still possible in a longer timeframe).
You're simply using the wrong tool for the job. ADS's aren't gunships.
Top lel
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 20:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Devadander wrote:We are in a spot where vehicles can go either way.
Hardest part is balancing AV vs pro HAV without shutting down all other vehicles even more.
Not to mention current maddy meta is far too hardened.
There are few things I can suggest that would not completely ruin either sides fun.
A very slight hardener reduction would be first step.
Returning some of the less OP modules of yore could inspire some diversity in HAV fitting. (Chassis, rotation, etc.) And make hardener reduction less painful.
Someone suggested giving AV a negative infantry modifier and increasing base damage. I could be on board with that.
Large blaster could use a slight touch more AV %, as a gunni cannot win against maddy blaster to blaster. (Although maddy would still be king... Sigh... Idk) A slight AI % reduction could help ground AV as well.
Large missiles are garbage ATM. Furthering the maddy meta. They need reload love badly.
The assault swarm and mass driver getting an av rework could be amazing.
I don't seek invulnerability, just some fun tankvtank like the old days.
Suggest, discuss.
1: The constant idea that hardeners are the main problem of why HAV's, particularly Madrugars is still silly to me, because they didn't change much about the system (eHP actually went down because of hull and extender/plate nerfs). I'm perplexed as to why people still haven't figured out that the repair change is what caused this shift of a massive Maddy meta after rails have somewhat been brought to Earth. 2: Adding situational modules would although be nice and a step in the right direction doesn't solve the main problems, and wouldn't change the fact that our call for a nerf is misguided. 3: I still don't see the point in this. AV doesn't need general damage buffs, they need to be given niche and be tweaked accordingly. Having all of them in general being good AV is part of the problem. Also, I don't get the reason why a giant shot would do less damage towards a smaller target vs. a larger target. 4: The blaster does need to be reworked to become more of a "Large Turret", but to help with Cal HAV's use them to fight Gal HAV's with blasters? No, that doesn't even make sense considering the damage it does, plasma, which is more hard hitting towards shields in the first place. As for a reduction in %, Same as #3; it's illogical. 5: "Missiles" are certainly not getting their instagib flow back. Nerf the damage, and they can have a fast reload. Might as well rename them to rockets while you're at it. 6: As I said in #3, they need to find their niche, not just get general buffs. We know that general buffs simply don't work.
What do you suggest?
Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 21:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
This thread is OOC, so I am actually interested in hearing suggestions.
So Godin, if you please, tell me what you would do to improve HAV/AV.
Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 22:11:00 -
[7] - Quote
Derrith Erador wrote:You know, I was watching that previous thread you were in as a lark. TBH, I didn't want to help push for any sort of V/AV balance because I can guarantee some side is going to whine and complain. But seeing as you've got this thing going, I may as well put in my two cents.
I'm going to speak on behalf of the ADS pilots, seeing as no one will.
Back when I was active, it was impossible to kill a hardened maddy with a rail incubus. Hell, it was like pulling teeth to kill a non hardened maddy, like the dude would have to be a straight tard to die by my barrage.
The main reason that is because of two things, which could easily be rectified (maybe).
1) Reps plus hardeners make it an impenetrable fortress.
2) The scrubbing bubbles technique. This is where the tank moves back and forth constantly, making it a nightmare to hit him, and when I do, it's usually all back by the time he gets out of my LOS, because reps are too fast and cannot be interrupted by damage.
Solution:
You could reduce the acceleration on tanks, but I would be wary of how much, seeing as you could easily kill the whole maddy trade this way.
Another thing that could work is increasing the rep delay. By that I mean making it take longer to get a repair from the module. This is also a main problem in ADS duels. If you slap a three/two rep fit on anything, you're pretty much God mode in the sky. Well, unless you're stupid.
Edit: Another good way to balance tanks and armor is to make the reps breakable. By that I mean if it's under fire, the tank cannot rep until it's not taken damage for x amount of time.
One of my biggest fears of any kind of AV/V tuning is making life worse for the aerial pilots. Without competent passengers, dropships can be boring and unrewarding.
I also remember skill stacked pythons that could instagib a madrugar.
The smaller the changes, the better imo. And we should never alter both sides at once.
Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Derrith Erador
Fatal Absolution
3
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 22:41:00 -
[8] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Derrith Erador wrote:You know, I was watching that previous thread you were in as a lark. TBH, I didn't want to help push for any sort of V/AV balance because I can guarantee some side is going to whine and complain. But seeing as you've got this thing going, I may as well put in my two cents.
I'm going to speak on behalf of the ADS pilots, seeing as no one will.
Back when I was active, it was impossible to kill a hardened maddy with a rail incubus. Hell, it was like pulling teeth to kill a non hardened maddy, like the dude would have to be a straight tard to die by my barrage.
The main reason that is because of two things, which could easily be rectified (maybe).
1) Reps plus hardeners make it an impenetrable fortress.
2) The scrubbing bubbles technique. This is where the tank moves back and forth constantly, making it a nightmare to hit him, and when I do, it's usually all back by the time he gets out of my LOS, because reps are too fast and cannot be interrupted by damage.
Solution:
You could reduce the acceleration on tanks, but I would be wary of how much, seeing as you could easily kill the whole maddy trade this way.
Another thing that could work is increasing the rep delay. By that I mean making it take longer to get a repair from the module. This is also a main problem in ADS duels. If you slap a three/two rep fit on anything, you're pretty much God mode in the sky. Well, unless you're stupid.
Edit: Another good way to balance tanks and armor is to make the reps breakable. By that I mean if it's under fire, the tank cannot rep until it's not taken damage for x amount of time. The problem is that you're trying kill a target much bigger than you with a weapon much smaller than the ones that usually are killing it. There were even nerfs to keep ADS's from simply wrecking HAV's (although it's still possible in a longer timeframe). You're simply using the wrong tool for the job. ADS's aren't gunships.
In a sense, you're correct that ADS aren't gunships. In truth, the word assault in Assault DropShip... is actually misused. ADS actually mirror scouts. If you're a pilot, you'd know that the usual routine we do is:
Wait for opportune moments
Activate mods
Go in and kill
leave as soon as it gets real
Recharge mods
Repeat
The basic creed of pilots, whether they realize it or not, is to be a damn coward.
This is pretty much, modified a little, the way a good scout will operate in combat.
And on this thought that it's bigger, so it shouldn't die to you... I'm going to bite my tongue and not say what I truly want to say, because in all honesty, your thought process on this is flawed.
Take the size of a PLC, or a forge, they're about the size of a rail turret, give or take. They're more effective at killing tanks than my turret is. I had all my skills maxed on Incubus and rail mostly. Saying that it shouldn't kill a tank because it's bigger is a load of crap, as I've probably put more SP in my craft than most tankers put in their tanks.
I may be reading what you're saying wrongly, but it's stupid that I don't even pose a threat to a vehicle using an AV weapon.
99% of what Derrith says is stupidity. -D3lta Blitzkrieg
I like whales
|
Ghost Steps
G0DS AM0NG MEN
32
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 00:58:00 -
[9] - Quote
Tanks on the beta old days were balenced but really expensive, everything went wrong after the hardener modules.
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).
Caldari Scouts should be Ninjas.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 01:01:00 -
[10] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Devadander wrote:We are in a spot where vehicles can go either way.
Hardest part is balancing AV vs pro HAV without shutting down all other vehicles even more.
Not to mention current maddy meta is far too hardened.
There are few things I can suggest that would not completely ruin either sides fun.
A very slight hardener reduction would be first step.
Returning some of the less OP modules of yore could inspire some diversity in HAV fitting. (Chassis, rotation, etc.) And make hardener reduction less painful.
Someone suggested giving AV a negative infantry modifier and increasing base damage. I could be on board with that.
Large blaster could use a slight touch more AV %, as a gunni cannot win against maddy blaster to blaster. (Although maddy would still be king... Sigh... Idk) A slight AI % reduction could help ground AV as well.
Large missiles are garbage ATM. Furthering the maddy meta. They need reload love badly.
The assault swarm and mass driver getting an av rework could be amazing.
I don't seek invulnerability, just some fun tankvtank like the old days.
Suggest, discuss.
1: The constant idea that hardeners are the main problem of why HAV's, particularly Madrugars is still silly to me, because they didn't change much about the system (eHP actually went down because of hull and extender/plate nerfs). I'm perplexed as to why people still haven't figured out that the repair change is what caused this shift of a massive Maddy meta after rails have somewhat been brought to Earth. 2: Adding situational modules would although be nice and a step in the right direction doesn't solve the main problems, and wouldn't change the fact that our call for a nerf is misguided. 3: I still don't see the point in this. AV doesn't need general damage buffs, they need to be given niche and be tweaked accordingly. Having all of them in general being good AV is part of the problem. Also, I don't get the reason why a giant shot would do less damage towards a smaller target vs. a larger target. 4: The blaster does need to be reworked to become more of a "Large Turret", but to help with Cal HAV's use them to fight Gal HAV's with blasters? No, that doesn't even make sense considering the damage it does, plasma, which is more hard hitting towards shields in the first place. As for a reduction in %, Same as #3; it's illogical. 5: "Missiles" are certainly not getting their instagib flow back. Nerf the damage, and they can have a fast reload. Might as well rename them to rockets while you're at it. 6: As I said in #3, they need to find their niche, not just get general buffs. We know that general buffs simply don't work.
Repairs are part of the issue now that they are passive and constant. It is that in conjunction with the Hardener changes that have ruined HAV combat. The issue is not total raw HP or EHP it is the great disparity between the two and one that gives rise to periods of night invulnerability or utter vulnerability as opposed to a happy middle ground in which HAV have a respectable RAW HP value and are supplemented short term by active repairs and low yield hardeners.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
|
|
Nothing Certain
Pervy Sages
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 02:32:00 -
[11] - Quote
Devadander wrote:Derrith Erador wrote:You know, I was watching that previous thread you were in as a lark. TBH, I didn't want to help push for any sort of V/AV balance because I can guarantee some side is going to whine and complain. But seeing as you've got this thing going, I may as well put in my two cents.
I'm going to speak on behalf of the ADS pilots, seeing as no one will.
Back when I was active, it was impossible to kill a hardened maddy with a rail incubus. Hell, it was like pulling teeth to kill a non hardened maddy, like the dude would have to be a straight tard to die by my barrage.
The main reason that is because of two things, which could easily be rectified (maybe).
1) Reps plus hardeners make it an impenetrable fortress.
2) The scrubbing bubbles technique. This is where the tank moves back and forth constantly, making it a nightmare to hit him, and when I do, it's usually all back by the time he gets out of my LOS, because reps are too fast and cannot be interrupted by damage.
Solution:
You could reduce the acceleration on tanks, but I would be wary of how much, seeing as you could easily kill the whole maddy trade this way.
Another thing that could work is increasing the rep delay. By that I mean making it take longer to get a repair from the module. This is also a main problem in ADS duels. If you slap a three/two rep fit on anything, you're pretty much God mode in the sky. Well, unless you're stupid.
Edit: Another good way to balance tanks and armor is to make the reps breakable. By that I mean if it's under fire, the tank cannot rep until it's not taken damage for x amount of time. One of my biggest fears of any kind of AV/V tuning is making life worse for the aerial pilots. Without competent passengers, dropships can be boring and unrewarding. I also remember skill stacked pythons that could instagib a madrugar. The smaller the changes, the better imo. And we should never alter bth sides at once.
The problem I see is that infantry AV/Vehicle balance is so close, with IAV having a slight edge, except for the one glaring exception. That one exception is almost overwhelming though. I can't comment on V/V balance much, although when I fly it is always railguns bringing me down and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it. I think we should look at installation AI in the equation as well, I believe it should be nerfed or eliminated. An unmanned turret should not be more dangerous than a manned one.
Because, that's why.
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 04:58:00 -
[12] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Devadander wrote:We are in a spot where vehicles can go either way.
Hardest part is balancing AV vs pro HAV without shutting down all other vehicles even more.
Not to mention current maddy meta is far too hardened.
There are few things I can suggest that would not completely ruin either sides fun.
A very slight hardener reduction would be first step.
Returning some of the less OP modules of yore could inspire some diversity in HAV fitting. (Chassis, rotation, etc.) And make hardener reduction less painful.
Someone suggested giving AV a negative infantry modifier and increasing base damage. I could be on board with that.
Large blaster could use a slight touch more AV %, as a gunni cannot win against maddy blaster to blaster. (Although maddy would still be king... Sigh... Idk) A slight AI % reduction could help ground AV as well.
Large missiles are garbage ATM. Furthering the maddy meta. They need reload love badly.
The assault swarm and mass driver getting an av rework could be amazing.
I don't seek invulnerability, just some fun tankvtank like the old days.
Suggest, discuss.
1: The constant idea that hardeners are the main problem of why HAV's, particularly Madrugars is still silly to me, because they didn't change much about the system (eHP actually went down because of hull and extender/plate nerfs). I'm perplexed as to why people still haven't figured out that the repair change is what caused this shift of a massive Maddy meta after rails have somewhat been brought to Earth. 2: Adding situational modules would although be nice and a step in the right direction doesn't solve the main problems, and wouldn't change the fact that our call for a nerf is misguided. 3: I still don't see the point in this. AV doesn't need general damage buffs, they need to be given niche and be tweaked accordingly. Having all of them in general being good AV is part of the problem. Also, I don't get the reason why a giant shot would do less damage towards a smaller target vs. a larger target. 4: The blaster does need to be reworked to become more of a "Large Turret", but to help with Cal HAV's use them to fight Gal HAV's with blasters? No, that doesn't even make sense considering the damage it does, plasma, which is more hard hitting towards shields in the first place. As for a reduction in %, Same as #3; it's illogical. 5: "Missiles" are certainly not getting their instagib flow back. Nerf the damage, and they can have a fast reload. Might as well rename them to rockets while you're at it. 6: As I said in #3, they need to find their niche, not just get general buffs. We know that general buffs simply don't work. Repairs are part of the issue now that they are passive and constant. It is that in conjunction with the Hardener changes that have ruined HAV combat. The issue is not total raw HP or EHP it is the great disparity between the two and one that gives rise to periods of night invulnerability or utter vulnerability as opposed to a happy middle ground in which HAV have a respectable RAW HP value and are supplemented short term by active repairs and low yield hardeners.
This sounds like what we used to have back in 1.3-1.4. I miss juggling 5-6 active mods more than anybody, but it feels like reverting backwards will never be in the cards.
As mainly a gunni operator, I would love to see pulse shield repairs return. (Among others) Active armor reps would be a great step towards balance. (Again, going backwards) However I can't see the community giving passives up.
Another good thing to bear in mind is: the number of people with AV options is greater now than ever before. It's no surprise for six people to pull adv or better AV soon as one trundles out of the redline. I have been blapped with dual hardeners active by tandem forges from a good perch in two volleys. Teamwork will always be OP, be it AV or AI.
I wouldn't have it any other way.
My biggest issue is the fact that HAV have a tiered lineup, while all other vehicles are standard. Std AV can at least deny, if not destroy, anything but a pro maddy (always exceptions, but very few/well coordinated) While proto AV can shut down everything with extreme prejudice. (Exceptions, extreme fits, amazing drivers, qsyncs, etc)
Honestly, in typing up that last part, I realized that without adv/pro LAV - DS - ads, true balance can never exist.. Any potency changes in HAV (to the positive) further wrecks LAV/DS operators. Same for trying to catch AV up to maddy.
Reducing pro HAV too far negates point in owning..
*head explodes*
It's all friable at best.. And one decimal can destroy it all.
Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 05:19:00 -
[13] - Quote
What about slowing the rate at which passives pulse ever so slightly? In return maybe shave 5-10% off cost of hull?
I feel like we can give a little, or have a lot taken, and I prefer the former.
Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Alena Ventrallis
Commando Perkone
Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 16:07:00 -
[14] - Quote
1) Make armor repairers active. The reason Maddy's are so hard to kill is their reps cannot be stopped by any means. Making them active will severely limit how long they can be as strong as they are for. I'm thinking 30 sec uptime with a 2 minute cooldown, modifiable by skills.
2) Severely adjust tank acceleration. Beyond the argument of how is 82 tonnes of mass stopping on a dime and reversing in the opposite direction without ripping itself apart, it makes tanks want to actually worry about infantry getting too close. If I blindside a tank with a PLC and Lai Dai AV nades, he should not be able to immediately zip off to safety. Alternatively, put a delay on the activation of fuel injectors.
3) Make swarms specifically for killing tanks (hard-hitting but slow/nonmaneuverable missiles) and swarms specifically for hitting ADS (fast, maneuverable missiles but less damage) so we can bance the two independently of each other. The reason we always argue over V/AV is making AV balanced against a certain vehicle means throwing off the balance of AV vs a different vehicle. If we can tune AV against each type of vehicle independently, we can ensure that balance passes here don't upset the equilibrium elseware.
4) buff railgun damage. Honestly, if the railgun is supposed to be a pure AV turret (the reasoning behind removing its splash radius) then it should be the best at AV. There is nothing wrong with a railgun turret being the best turret at AV while being the worst turret at AP.
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 16:32:00 -
[15] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:1) Make armor repairers active. The reason Maddy's are so hard to kill is their reps cannot be stopped by any means. Making them active will severely limit how long they can be as strong as they are for. I'm thinking 30 sec uptime with a 2 minute cooldown, modifiable by skills.
2) Severely adjust tank acceleration. Beyond the argument of how is 82 tonnes of mass stopping on a dime and reversing in the opposite direction without ripping itself apart, it makes tanks want to actually worry about infantry getting too close. If I blindside a tank with a PLC and Lai Dai AV nades, he should not be able to immediately zip off to safety. Alternatively, put a delay on the activation of fuel injectors.
3) Make swarms specifically for killing tanks (hard-hitting but slow/nonmaneuverable missiles) and swarms specifically for hitting ADS (fast, maneuverable missiles but less damage) so we can bance the two independently of each other. The reason we always argue over V/AV is making AV balanced against a certain vehicle means throwing off the balance of AV vs a different vehicle. If we can tune AV against each type of vehicle independently, we can ensure that balance passes here don't upset the equilibrium elseware.
4) buff railgun damage. Honestly, if the railgun is supposed to be a pure AV turret (the reasoning behind removing its splash radius) then it should be the best at AV. There is nothing wrong with a railgun turret being the best turret at AV while being the worst turret at AP.
1. We had before. Almost exactly how you described. Would like to see them return.
2. Making HAV slower is something I can't get on board with. Gunni is still nimble, but not really feared. The madrugar is already like trying to tow a cathedral through a grocery store.. If active reps return, escape won't always work anyway.
3. Love it. Swarms need a full rebuild imo. They are in a terrible place ATM.
4. I don't rail, but I remember how deadly they once were. I know I'm more afraid of a rail turret than a rail tank. Like to get some rail user feedback on possible tuning.
Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Baal Omniscient
Qualified Scrub
2
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 19:56:00 -
[16] - Quote
Devadander wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:1) Make armor repairers active. The reason Maddy's are so hard to kill is their reps cannot be stopped by any means. Making them active will severely limit how long they can be as strong as they are for. I'm thinking 30 sec uptime with a 2 minute cooldown, modifiable by skills.
2) Severely adjust tank acceleration. Beyond the argument of how is 82 tonnes of mass stopping on a dime and reversing in the opposite direction without ripping itself apart, it makes tanks want to actually worry about infantry getting too close. If I blindside a tank with a PLC and Lai Dai AV nades, he should not be able to immediately zip off to safety. Alternatively, put a delay on the activation of fuel injectors.
3) Make swarms specifically for killing tanks (hard-hitting but slow/nonmaneuverable missiles) and swarms specifically for hitting ADS (fast, maneuverable missiles but less damage) so we can bance the two independently of each other. The reason we always argue over V/AV is making AV balanced against a certain vehicle means throwing off the balance of AV vs a different vehicle. If we can tune AV against each type of vehicle independently, we can ensure that balance passes here don't upset the equilibrium elseware.
4) buff railgun damage. Honestly, if the railgun is supposed to be a pure AV turret (the reasoning behind removing its splash radius) then it should be the best at AV. There is nothing wrong with a railgun turret being the best turret at AV while being the worst turret at AP. 1. We had before. Almost exactly how you described. Would like to see them return. 2. Making HAV slower is something I can't get on board with. Gunni is still nimble, but not really feared. The madrugar is already like trying to tow a cathedral through a grocery store.. If active reps return, escape won't always work anyway. 3. Love it. Swarms need a full rebuild imo. They are in a terrible place ATM. 4. I don't rail, but I remember how deadly they once were. I know I'm more afraid of a rail turret than a rail tank. Like to get some rail user feedback on possible tuning.
As a long time AV specialist who's always wanted serious V v AV battles to be a balanced and challenging for both sides I'd like to weigh in on these suggestions if I may.
I would love to see a return of the old active repair for tanks as this was one of the few things that felt right about how tanks used to function. In addition I think that a small passive repair system should come standard for all vehicles much like it does on dropsuits. Nothing like what we have now with modules mind you, but a steady small repair amount that should get base hull armor of an armor tank tank without plates from 50% to 100% on it's own in around 30-45 seconds. This would give tanks a small health buffer between repair cycles as well as an opportunity for a tanker to choose to wait for their repairs before re-engaging or to go ahead and use a repair module to top off their health. I think this concession may help switching back to active repairs an easier pill to swallow for those against it.
I'm not for making tanks slower per se, but I am very much in favor of adjusting acceleration and decelerating speeds. Realism doesn't really have anything to do with it really, I will put balance ahead of realism any day. Being able to hit top speed instantly with the press of a button is already possible and that's what I feel is the real issue. I would like to see instead 2 things: slightly faster starting acceleration with a longer time to reach top speed and the return of an old module. Have the fuel injector become an LAV only module like the afterburner is for the dropship and reintroduce the Torque Booster module specifically for tanks. These would instead allow the tank to have a passively higher top speed while still having an overall longer time to reach top speed. This lets tanks get around better without giving them an instant out from camping grounds.
I've been pushing for swarm variety for a long time now and I'm all for just about any of the variants I've seen proposed. They have been needing a massive overhaul for ages and I'm more than ready for some changes.
As for rails, from a balance standpoint, I think they should have the range of the longest AV weapon range. If you can shoot someone they should be able to effectively shoot back. Beyond that I am fairly certain that I can see no issues with any other reasonable changes to them. That's in the hands of the pilots as I have little to say about how you kill each other.
añ¼añ+añ¦-añ¬añ+añƒañ¦-añÿañ¿añ+añ+añ¦-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ
"Baal comes...and destruction follows him like a storm."
añ¿añ+añ¦añ¿aÑìaññañ¦añ+añ¿aÑìañºañòañ+añ¦añ+aññ-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ-añ¦añ¦añÖaÑìañù
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 21:39:00 -
[17] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:82 tonnes of mass
I'm going to go out of a limb here and suggest that HAV universally weight more than 100 tonnes a piece given the super dense alloys used in their base construction, weight of additional protective plating, internal systems, not to mention being designed to accommodate a 2.5m tall super soldier.
Normal MBT's are huge enough especially when you get a look at the internals of something like a Challenger..... ones designed for cloned soldiers would go far beyond conceivable proportions and trying to imagine something twice as big as a Challenger or M103 (old school I know) is very difficult.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 21:53:00 -
[18] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:82 tonnes of mass I'm going to go out of a limb here and suggest that HAV universally weight more than 100 tonnes a piece given the super dense alloys used in their base construction, weight of additional protective plating, internal systems, not to mention being designed to accommodate a 2.5m tall super soldier. Normal MBT's are huge enough especially when you get a look at the internals of something like a Challenger..... ones designed for cloned soldiers would go far beyond conceivable proportions and trying to imagine something twice as big as a Challenger or M103 (old school I know) is very difficult.
I prefer to stay away from trying to make things more "real" as that doesn't always mean "fun". Emulate all the many roles and options, but not duplicate. Real would equal OHK on pretty much everything with anything.
Would be like watching storm troopers rpg a sandcrawler 
Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 22:16:00 -
[19] - Quote
Devadander wrote:True Adamance wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:82 tonnes of mass I'm going to go out of a limb here and suggest that HAV universally weight more than 100 tonnes a piece given the super dense alloys used in their base construction, weight of additional protective plating, internal systems, not to mention being designed to accommodate a 2.5m tall super soldier. Normal MBT's are huge enough especially when you get a look at the internals of something like a Challenger..... ones designed for cloned soldiers would go far beyond conceivable proportions and trying to imagine something twice as big as a Challenger or M103 (old school I know) is very difficult. I prefer to stay away from trying to make things more "real" as that doesn't always mean "fun". Emulate all the many roles and options, but not duplicate. Real would equal OHK on pretty much everything with anything. Would be like watching storm troopers rpg a sandcrawler
In this case a more realistic simulation of HAV would only serve to make tanks more enjoyable, more balanced, and better suited to a specific battlefield role.
What we have currently is a bad joke that cannot be defended.
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
Capital Acquisitions LLC
1
|
Posted - 2015.12.01 16:04:00 -
[20] - Quote
Devadander wrote:We are in a spot where vehicles can go either way.
Hardest part is balancing AV vs pro HAV without shutting down all other vehicles even more.
Not to mention current maddy meta is far too stout for most people to handle.
There are few things I can suggest that would not completely ruin either sides fun.
Some form of armor rep/hardener rework. Fighting a maddy is just a little too tough.
Returning some of the less OP modules of yore could inspire some diversity in HAV fitting. (Chassis, rotation, etc.)
Someone suggested giving AV a negative infantry modifier and increasing base damage. I could be on board with that.
Large blaster could use some form of rework, as could large missiles. Missiles should deter an armor meta, and currently do not.
The assault swarm and mass driver getting an av rework could be interesting.
:Edited for afterthoughts/new ideas.
I don't seek invulnerability, just some fun tankvtank like the old days.
Suggest, discuss.
I thought shield tanks could easily match armor tanks. What happened to regulators being OP on a shield tank huh....
In any case, this has been discussed at length by many of us in the community. Hopefully at this point they are well aware of it.
|
|
|
Tebu Gan
Capital Acquisitions LLC
1
|
Posted - 2015.12.01 16:11:00 -
[21] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
In this case a more realistic simulation of HAV would only serve to make tanks more enjoyable, more balanced, and better suited to a specific battlefield role.
What we have currently is a bad joke that cannot be defended.
I know you really really like tanks, in reality, but it could only work for dust to an extent.
This isn't tank simulator 2016 after all.
An increased role such as breaching fortifications, destroying small turrets guarding an objective, or advanced ewar systems for disrupting and suppressing the enemy, are things that could be done to increase realism yet won't take it all the way. We have tank simulator games for that.
Stats and tank on tank interactions at current are pretty solid and nothing like real life. And they should stay that way. If we wanted to be overly realistic about it, C4 would insta pop a tank, railguns would utterly destroy other tanks in just a few hits (and it clear across the map), ect ect ect.
So realism to an extent, but just as far as tank operations in the field (IRL) are concerned.
Edit: In any case, we would likely need to hope they port the game elsewhere. |
Avallo Kantor
1
|
Posted - 2015.12.01 18:56:00 -
[22] - Quote
Honestly I think Tanks should move back to a situation where they are far less mobile, trading off with much higher defensive capabilities.
As an example, for Hardeners I would have them last longer, but reduce movement speed by a %. (one that stacks with more hardeners active)
So for example, if you have 2 hardeners active on your tank, you are moving too slowly to effectively escape, but become tough enough to be able to engage.
This way activating hardeners is less of an "always do this" situation, as it removes your mobility in exchange for solid defenses.
"Mind Blown" - CCP Rattati
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.12.01 20:20:00 -
[23] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:True Adamance wrote:
In this case a more realistic simulation of HAV would only serve to make tanks more enjoyable, more balanced, and better suited to a specific battlefield role.
What we have currently is a bad joke that cannot be defended.
I know you really really like tanks, in reality, but it could only work for dust to an extent. This isn't tank simulator 2016 after all. An increased role such as breaching fortifications, destroying small turrets guarding an objective, or advanced ewar systems for disrupting and suppressing the enemy, are things that could be done to increase realism yet won't take it all the way. We have tank simulator games for that. Stats and tank on tank interactions at current are pretty solid and nothing like real life. And they should stay that way. If we wanted to be overly realistic about it, C4 would insta pop a tank, railguns would utterly destroy other tanks in just a few hits (and it clear across the map), ect ect ect. So realism to an extent, but just as far as tank operations in the field (IRL) are concerned. Edit: In any case, we would likely need to hope they port the game elsewhere.
I've said realism could benefit the game not that the extreme levels of realism presented in games like Warthunder Ground Forces or World or Tanks is the correct course.
What I mean is that tanks could certainly benefit from stepping back from their medium as 'battle wagons' with automatic heavy turrets and into heavily fortified breaching and infantry support tools wouldn't seem them go far wrong.
As for engagements...... HAV combat has never required less skill than it does now where you don't even have to maintain your own modules and the only times you can essentially be effect are sniping from a distant position or fully hardened and rampaging through enemy lines with impunity.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
Flix Keptick
Red Star.
4
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 20:44:00 -
[24] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:1) Make armor repairers active. The reason Maddy's are so hard to kill is their reps cannot be stopped by any means. Making them active will severely limit how long they can be as strong as they are for. I'm thinking 30 sec uptime with a 2 minute cooldown, modifiable by skills.
2) Severely adjust tank acceleration. Beyond the argument of how is 82 tonnes of mass stopping on a dime and reversing in the opposite direction without ripping itself apart, it makes tanks want to actually worry about infantry getting too close. If I blindside a tank with a PLC and Lai Dai AV nades, he should not be able to immediately zip off to safety. Alternatively, put a delay on the activation of fuel injectors.
3) Make swarms specifically for killing tanks (hard-hitting but slow/nonmaneuverable missiles) and swarms specifically for hitting ADS (fast, maneuverable missiles but less damage) so we can bance the two independently of each other. The reason we always argue over V/AV is making AV balanced against a certain vehicle means throwing off the balance of AV vs a different vehicle. If we can tune AV against each type of vehicle independently, we can ensure that balance passes here don't upset the equilibrium elseware.
4) buff railgun damage. Honestly, if the railgun is supposed to be a pure AV turret (the reasoning behind removing its splash radius) then it should be the best at AV. There is nothing wrong with a railgun turret being the best turret at AV while being the worst turret at AP.
2) I think that's mostly due to fuel injectors turning tanks (especially maddys) into drag racers. Imo the overdrive mod should be brought back (it increased torque), and fuel injectors should only affect top speed, not acceleration. In addition, it might be a good idea to make torque mods high slots and injectors low slots.
3) I could get behind that. Or the addition of flares for dropships.
4) Yes. They're pretty underwhelming at the moment (I have proto rails, killing hardened targets is practically impossible unless the driver is a moron and doesn't move).
Vehicle addict // caldari scout
|
HOLY PERFECTION
Fourth Nature
178
|
Posted - 2015.12.22 19:52:00 -
[25] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:1) Make armor repairers active. The reason Maddy's are so hard to kill is their reps cannot be stopped by any means. Making them active will severely limit how long they can be as strong as they are for. I'm thinking 30 sec uptime with a 2 minute cooldown, modifiable by skills.
2) Severely adjust tank acceleration. Beyond the argument of how is 82 tonnes of mass stopping on a dime and reversing in the opposite direction without ripping itself apart, it makes tanks want to actually worry about infantry getting too close. If I blindside a tank with a PLC and Lai Dai AV nades, he should not be able to immediately zip off to safety. Alternatively, put a delay on the activation of fuel injectors.
3) Make swarms specifically for killing tanks (hard-hitting but slow/nonmaneuverable missiles) and swarms specifically for hitting ADS (fast, maneuverable missiles but less damage) so we can bance the two independently of each other. The reason we always argue over V/AV is making AV balanced against a certain vehicle means throwing off the balance of AV vs a different vehicle. If we can tune AV against each type of vehicle independently, we can ensure that balance passes here don't upset the equilibrium elseware.
4) buff railgun damage. Honestly, if the railgun is supposed to be a pure AV turret (the reasoning behind removing its splash radius) then it should be the best at AV. There is nothing wrong with a railgun turret being the best turret at AV while being the worst turret at AP.
you really hate tanks don't you
If I charge, follow me. If I retreat, kill me. If I die, revenge me.
I'm really hard headed
|
Megaman Trigger
OSG Planetary Operations
973
|
Posted - 2015.12.22 20:50:00 -
[26] - Quote
HOLY PERFECTION wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:1) Make armor repairers active. The reason Maddy's are so hard to kill is their reps cannot be stopped by any means. Making them active will severely limit how long they can be as strong as they are for. I'm thinking 30 sec uptime with a 2 minute cooldown, modifiable by skills.
2) Severely adjust tank acceleration. Beyond the argument of how is 82 tonnes of mass stopping on a dime and reversing in the opposite direction without ripping itself apart, it makes tanks want to actually worry about infantry getting too close. If I blindside a tank with a PLC and Lai Dai AV nades, he should not be able to immediately zip off to safety. Alternatively, put a delay on the activation of fuel injectors.
3) Make swarms specifically for killing tanks (hard-hitting but slow/nonmaneuverable missiles) and swarms specifically for hitting ADS (fast, maneuverable missiles but less damage) so we can bance the two independently of each other. The reason we always argue over V/AV is making AV balanced against a certain vehicle means throwing off the balance of AV vs a different vehicle. If we can tune AV against each type of vehicle independently, we can ensure that balance passes here don't upset the equilibrium elseware.
4) buff railgun damage. Honestly, if the railgun is supposed to be a pure AV turret (the reasoning behind removing its splash radius) then it should be the best at AV. There is nothing wrong with a railgun turret being the best turret at AV while being the worst turret at AP. you really hate tanks don't you
For the sake of discussion, which point(s) do you disagree with?
Purifier. First Class.
|
HOLY PERFECTION
Fourth Nature
179
|
Posted - 2015.12.22 21:17:00 -
[27] - Quote
Megaman Trigger wrote:HOLY PERFECTION wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:1) Make armor repairers active. The reason Maddy's are so hard to kill is their reps cannot be stopped by any means. Making them active will severely limit how long they can be as strong as they are for. I'm thinking 30 sec uptime with a 2 minute cooldown, modifiable by skills.
2) Severely adjust tank acceleration. Beyond the argument of how is 82 tonnes of mass stopping on a dime and reversing in the opposite direction without ripping itself apart, it makes tanks want to actually worry about infantry getting too close. If I blindside a tank with a PLC and Lai Dai AV nades, he should not be able to immediately zip off to safety. Alternatively, put a delay on the activation of fuel injectors.
3) Make swarms specifically for killing tanks (hard-hitting but slow/nonmaneuverable missiles) and swarms specifically for hitting ADS (fast, maneuverable missiles but less damage) so we can bance the two independently of each other. The reason we always argue over V/AV is making AV balanced against a certain vehicle means throwing off the balance of AV vs a different vehicle. If we can tune AV against each type of vehicle independently, we can ensure that balance passes here don't upset the equilibrium elseware.
4) buff railgun damage. Honestly, if the railgun is supposed to be a pure AV turret (the reasoning behind removing its splash radius) then it should be the best at AV. There is nothing wrong with a railgun turret being the best turret at AV while being the worst turret at AP. you really hate tanks don't you For the sake of discussion, which point(s) do you disagree with?
ill do you one better, as I have nothing to do for a few days. Ill make my own thread for you. Merry Christmas.
If I charge, follow me. If I retreat, kill me. If I die, revenge me.
I'm really hard headed
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
580
|
Posted - 2015.12.23 03:51:00 -
[28] - Quote
A simple switch from a High-Regeneration, High-Mitigation, Low-Buffer Meta to a High-Buffer, Low-Regeneration, Mid-Mitigation meta
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
#PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.12.23 03:59:00 -
[29] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:A simple switch from a High-Regeneration, High-Mitigation, Low-Buffer Meta to a High-Buffer, Low-Regeneration, Mid-Mitigation meta
As usual. Succinct. Informed. Reasonable.
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
12
|
Posted - 2015.12.23 05:39:00 -
[30] - Quote
In a perfect world a lot of things would be considered.
Plates and extenders not being the primary defense of an HAV is problematic.
When regen is high and constant, the hardeners are the problem.
When it's not, hardeners aren't the problem.
Ultimately the problem, regardless of what we all have as our pet theories, is that hardeners provide more value defensively than plates or extenders in all situations. They provide more value the more HP you have on the tank.
Reps provide raw hp recovery, and because they are high and constant, the combination is superior to HP adds in all ways when normally more reps = skirmish fit that has no sustained brawling capability.
We can bring AV and V to some semblance of parity, with STD balanced against STD and PRO vs PRO, but 1.1 theough 1.7 changed the way tanks worked so much that the AV weapons, which were keyed to kill chromosome tanks, either greatly overperform, or they're the rough equivalent of a spitball launcher with very little in between.
Even my AV/V balance proposal is a stopgap in the face of the fact that tanks need to be rebuilt ultimately, dropships as well, and AV retooled to deal with them in an appropriate fashion rather than this seesaw BS we currently deal with.
If this were easy, it would have been done already.
Because why not?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |