|
|
| 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~
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 20:52:00 -
[2] - 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 -
[3] - 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 -
[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.
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~
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 04:58:00 -
[5] - 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 -
[6] - 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~
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 16:32:00 -
[7] - 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~
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 21:53:00 -
[8] - 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~
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2015.12.23 09:05:00 -
[9] - Quote
I miss the massive HP pools, and (sometimes) escaping on fire with nothing left.
My current party tank has five active modules, and its making me all nostalgic.
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 - 2016.01.01 15:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
I thought a little respect might go a long way, and I have not been disappointed.
I have gone through and screenshotted pretty much entire thread. Read Godin's proposal twice and screened it. Already know Breakin's proposal front to back.
I'm going to setup a doc with current vs three possible variations. Two possible with hotfixes. One needing massive module/slot/turret changes that would likely be a client (dream) update.
I'm going to try to squeeze Breakin's AV changes on there just to have the full comprehensive list. My goal is not to nerf or buff anyone. Rather, a full overhaul to increase both sides enjoyment. End result I'm hoping for is a balanced and drawn out 1v1 scenario. Keeping teamwork OP means 3v1 is my balance point there. Will be slightly trickier...
Will post and share asap.
Again everyone, amazing stuff going on here. Keep it up, as I read this every day for new posts. And will factor in any new suggestions right up until completion.
Die well o7
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 - 2016.01.01 15:48:00 -
[11] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Fristname Family name wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:kill the fuel injector module on tanks.
then see how maddys perform without their crutch Then remove myrofibs and any other movement enhancement module from infantry. NO..... NEVER........ PLEASE PUT YOUR HANDS UP AND EXIT THE VEHICLE IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!! *throws re's on the back and ready's a forge squad holding their charges aimed at your ride* now, don't ever think about nerfing people things cause your legs are too small for your body, your tank is not a necessity you know, you can always leave it and help take points..... (no reason for tank lav ect exclusive points btw to the long quote) i will not allow you to nerf my fun, ever now get out of the tank please sir I don't think Godin is seriously advocating the removal of myos...merely providing a parallel module type to the fuel injector (which the other person in the quote suggested removing from havs). To many of us, armored vehicles are a necessity to have the full experience we're looking for. I don't play ambush anymore because of the lack of vehicles over all (no way of getting cover on most maps other than a vehicle). I only rarely call out my HAVs, But when I call them out it Is always for a specific purpose. Sometimes that is a Tank Destroyer/Interdiction, other times a mobile wall/intel box, my favorite is being a " distraction Carnifex" where my job is to just get people to tunnel vision into killing me xD. Most of the time though I'll be running swarms and a RR myself, looking for HAVs or Derp ships to push away from points or pushes. Or running up and hoping melee hit detection works xD (it wasn't working well for me earlier today) I was by no means suggesting a vehicle exclusive objective type, just one that needed ordnance to destory, regardless of I'd it was mounted to an hav or carried by a merc. Another possibility for HAVs is to make NULL cannons take damage...going neutral after their hp pool is depleted. Just something for HAVs to do once more other than suppressing mercs and AV
I do this frequently in pubs when blues can't get any ground. Using std guns, I can tank my hull to the extreme, drive out with no intention of fighting, and half the red team comes flying out with spittle frothing to destroy me.
At that point my remaining fireteam can almost turn the tide alone.
This is a valid tactic, and one I will be trying to balance in as well.
+1
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 - 2016.01.01 15:52:00 -
[12] - Quote
Also, I'm thinking of using the clone unit asset for a vehicle objective.
Have neutral ones that drop on outskirts of map and can't be hacked. Destruction gives 50-100 wp, and gives an extra 10-30 clones to destroyers team.
Possibly get some epic fights out there.
(Just make sure turrets can't see the drop spots...)
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 - 2016.01.17 02:33:00 -
[13] - Quote
Been mashing my face into the keyboard on this so far...
There is NO WAY to balance what we currently have. Adv/pro HAV hulls kill it. Adding adv/pro LAV/ads only complicates matters more.
If we buffed LAV/DS and dropped std/adv HAV. Halved all module efficacy, then added the missing half to skills. (Weekend operators would be helpful, but not OP. Maxed operators skills would show on the field)
Increase resource needs on certain modules to create a meta where one can focus, or spread, but not have all the best aspects on one fit. (Giving LAV/DS fitting bonus to skill for modules that make sense)
Throw that in then adjust AV accordingly. Added new swarm variants. Breach MD AV tuned. AV laser variant. (Needs to be a new color, seriously)
Then, MAYBE, then, we would be closer to balanced than ever.
But wait... That all sounds so familiar....
There is no text description for the forehead implodingly intense /facepalm I'm feeling right now.
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 - 2016.01.18 19:41:00 -
[14] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Devadander wrote:Been mashing my face into the keyboard on this so far...
There is NO WAY to balance what we currently have. Adv/pro HAV hulls kill it. Adding adv/pro LAV/ads only complicates matters more.
If we buffed LAV/DS and dropped std/adv HAV. Halved all module efficacy, then added the missing half to skills. (Weekend operators would be helpful, but not OP. Maxed operators skills would show on the field)
Increase resource needs on certain modules to create a meta where one can focus, or spread, but not have all the best aspects on one fit. (Giving LAV/DS fitting bonus to skill for modules that make sense)
Throw that in then adjust AV accordingly. Add new swarm variants. Breach MD AV tuned. AV laser variant. (Needs to be a new color, seriously)
Then, MAYBE, then, we would be closer to balanced than ever.
But wait... That all sounds so familiar....
There is no text description for the forehead implodingly intense /facepalm I'm feeling right now. Like I said, the current system pretty much needs scrapping, and we should just go back to Chromosome. Then, all we would have to do is switch the acceleration on the HAV's (possibly up them each a bit), tune boosters, and tune hardeners, and the turrets can get worked on from there. Fixed. EDIT: Even better, if AV was tiercided, then it could be one hull vs. one weapon, so even less frustration for balance.
Removing tiers from AV would require skill bonus' for all related skills to compensate, yes?
Edit: the ahmg can/has/will muddle things. Not an op amount or anything. But still.
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 - 2016.01.19 15:37:00 -
[15] - Quote
I have yet to be popped by a knifer...
The nk vehicle damage thing, was always a bad idea imo. The only reason it got deployed was a very vocal group at the time.
I understand, they are space future knives...
Guess what.. I'm in a space future tank.
@Godin. You remember a very different lds than I do. I had my prometheus stacked and skilled. I could bumble in all wood bee style, float right over an objective, and let the team pour out. I honestly used my lds more than any other vehicle back then, due to its nigh-invulnerability. It could take so much punishment.
The reps were gimpy, agreed. Getting low enough to use them was garbage. I did enjoy the free mobile cru though.
Idk, different strokes I guess.
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 - 2016.01.19 15:41:00 -
[16] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Slayer Deathbringer wrote:Devadander wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Devadander wrote:Been mashing my face into the keyboard on this so far...
There is NO WAY to balance what we currently have. Adv/pro HAV hulls kill it. Adding adv/pro LAV/ads only complicates matters more.
If we buffed LAV/DS and dropped std/adv HAV. Halved all module efficacy, then added the missing half to skills. (Weekend operators would be helpful, but not OP. Maxed operators skills would show on the field)
Increase resource needs on certain modules to create a meta where one can focus, or spread, but not have all the best aspects on one fit. (Giving LAV/DS fitting bonus to skill for modules that make sense)
Throw that in then adjust AV accordingly. Add new swarm variants. Breach MD AV tuned. AV laser variant. (Needs to be a new color, seriously)
Then, MAYBE, then, we would be closer to balanced than ever.
But wait... That all sounds so familiar....
There is no text description for the forehead implodingly intense /facepalm I'm feeling right now. Like I said, the current system pretty much needs scrapping, and we should just go back to Chromosome. Then, all we would have to do is switch the acceleration on the HAV's (possibly up them each a bit), tune boosters, and tune hardeners, and the turrets can get worked on from there. Fixed. EDIT: Even better, if AV was tiercided, then it could be one hull vs. one weapon, so even less frustration for balance. Removing tiers from AV would require skill bonus' for all related skills to compensate, yes? Edit: the ahmg can/has/will muddle things. Not an op amount or anything. But still. what about nova knives and punching And the Assault (Breach!) Heavy Machine Gun
A well skilled HAV gives zero fucks about ahmg. And also, I let a minmando try his best. Idk if its glitched or what, but melee does zero damage to my HAV. (And is also the dumbest addition ever)
Edit: ummm is the language filter off or something? O.o
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 - 2016.01.19 16:25:00 -
[17] - Quote
Sanchez Rivera wrote:As Long As Suicide BPO LAVs With REs Exist, I Guess I'm Fine With Tanks o.o But ADS Is Another Story, AV Nades And Swarm Launchers Could Stay Short If The Pilot Is Smart  We Need Dropship BPOs To Quickly Solve The Problem, Lol  But Really, ADS Are The Safest, Rarely Take AV Nades, Plasma Cannon Hits And Can Get In A Range To Missile You And Not Get Swarm Launcher-ed I Hope We Get A Fair Re-work, Suicide LAVs Is Not Always Successful...
I'm actually OK with jlav, it is New Eden. XD
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 - 2016.01.20 00:30:00 -
[18] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Devadander wrote:Sanchez Rivera wrote:As Long As Suicide BPO LAVs With REs Exist, I Guess I'm Fine With Tanks o.o But ADS Is Another Story, AV Nades And Swarm Launchers Could Stay Short If The Pilot Is Smart We Need Dropship BPOs To Quickly Solve The Problem, Lol But Really, ADS Are The Safest, Rarely Take AV Nades, Plasma Cannon Hits And Can Get In A Range To Missile You And Not Get Swarm Launcher-ed I Hope We Get A Fair Re-work, Suicide LAVs Is Not Always Successful... I'm actually OK with jlav, it is New Eden. XD I'm not. I'd rather the LAV have enough fire power to threaten HAV and ADS.
A methana with 20gj pro and a good gunner actually can.
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 - 2016.01.20 00:36:00 -
[19] - Quote
Fristname Family name wrote:Devadander wrote:True Adamance wrote:Devadander wrote:Sanchez Rivera wrote:As Long As Suicide BPO LAVs With REs Exist, I Guess I'm Fine With Tanks o.o But ADS Is Another Story, AV Nades And Swarm Launchers Could Stay Short If The Pilot Is Smart We Need Dropship BPOs To Quickly Solve The Problem, Lol But Really, ADS Are The Safest, Rarely Take AV Nades, Plasma Cannon Hits And Can Get In A Range To Missile You And Not Get Swarm Launcher-ed I Hope We Get A Fair Re-work, Suicide LAVs Is Not Always Successful... I'm actually OK with jlav, it is New Eden. XD I'm not. I'd rather the LAV have enough fire power to threaten HAV and ADS. A methana with 20gj pro and a good gunner actually can. gonna link a moody video if i can find it, cause i know in New Age Outlaws for a while we were riding around in LAV's with a railgun on the back and we took down tanks, dropships, shut down entire objectives and were just ridiculously op with it..
I miss Moody's videos ;_;
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 - 2016.01.21 16:20:00 -
[20] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Devadander wrote:I have yet to be popped by a knifer...
The nk vehicle damage thing, was always a bad idea imo. The only reason it got deployed was a very vocal group at the time.
I understand, they are space future knives...
Guess what.. I'm in a space future tank.
@Godin. You remember a very different lds than I do. I had my prometheus stacked and skilled. I could bumble in all wood bee style, float right over an objective, and let the team pour out. I honestly used my lds more than any other vehicle back then, due to its nigh-invulnerability. It could take so much punishment.
The reps were gimpy, agreed. Getting low enough to use them was garbage. I did enjoy the free mobile cru though.
Idk, different strokes I guess. the only successful nova knifings of tanks in-game that I have ever seen were staged by the people involved to "prove" that nova knifing tanks was unfair. pretty much every single nova knifing vid could have been countered by a hard drive into the redline.
Or just driving 10 meters lol
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 - 2016.01.21 16:29:00 -
[21] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Devadander wrote:The nk vehicle damage thing, was always a bad idea imo. The only reason it got deployed was a very vocal group at the time.
Free Perspective: Very Vocal Scouts* OP from Uprising 1.8 to Uprising 1.10 (254 days) * UP for nearly a year prior and UP for over a year after Blaster Madrugars* OP from Uprising 1.7 to Present (761 days) * "Don't touch my permahardened Blaster Maddie. It's popular!"
If you don't like the nk vehicle damage thing, then by all means propose that CCP remove it. Scouts are accustomed to getting their toys taken away, and there aren't enough left to raise much of a fuss about it. Go for it. Seriously. See how very little resistance is put by that "very vocal group" you guys love to hate. But while you're at it, why not also propose some specific fixes for those things on your side of the table which are truly broken and have been for years now? Things like permahardened blaster maddies.
This thread is OOC. We are straying back into character slowly...
I get it. You like knives. You only have a pair named after you...
I only mentioned how I thought it was a bad idea for knives to hurt vehicles.
I never said we should remove it.
Reading this thread fully, you will see I do not approve of invincible Maddy's.
And I'm a maxed operator.
Moving on.
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 - 2016.01.21 16:33:00 -
[22] - Quote
As novas, melee, and ahmg are less than threats. I have no plans to change their current AV potential.
Bigger fish to fry, as it were.
Please keep thread on right track.
o7
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 - 2016.01.21 17:16:00 -
[23] - Quote
So I have a sheet with vehicles finally slated out.
I've given LAV and DS around 10% more ehp.
Increased HAV by 20%. (You'll know why in a sec)
Left slots alone. (For now)
Gave ADS more native rep/shield regen. (Again, explained later)
LAV sees a 10% pg/cpu increase. (Even fitted, still too weak)
Now the problem.
Modules... I have two solutions here. I can give LAV/DS fitting bonuses. Or I can try to balance with pg/cpu increases for lav/DS.
Either way. Modules are getting cost increase.
The goal is to get HAV back to a focus or spread meta. You can be hard, reppy, or tanky. No more of this plate, rep, dual hardener meta. Running two complex hardeners should gimp ones ability to fit much more beyond that, and so on.
Problem is, changing modules inadvertently hurts LAV/DS. Hence earlier proposed buffs. This would be much easier if all vehicles had separate modules...
Not only do I not know if ps3 can handle that much more, I don't want to dream up 40+ modules right now...
Skipping the witches.
*sigh* if I drop std/adv HAV, this all becomes a tad easier. Increasing LAV/DS proposed buffs another 10% brings them to a level that could be considered pro. But with my module price increase, they still get gimped.. I'm thinking of adding bonuses to skills to help compensate, but need a baseline first.
Right now. I need suggestions. Pretend std adv HAV don't exist, and plot from pro hull. (I'm using pro hull as base since so much officer level AV exists) Were losing the hardened meta one way or another.
Better to compromise than leave it up to others.
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 - 2016.01.21 17:26:00 -
[24] - Quote
Getting rid of tiers for HAV.
Not going to balance for things I'm removing.
No restrictions on size for suits.
Not going to restrict vehicle fittings.
I have enough papers on my desk/windows on my pc open ATM.
Thanks anyway.
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 - 2016.01.21 17:31:00 -
[25] - Quote
Breakin, we need to become better friends.
Once I get halfway satisfied here I need help with AV. I'm a master forge operator. I have pro swarms.. I barely use em. And the only thing I've ever killed with a PLC is infantry xD
I'd rather have an experts opinion.
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 - 2016.01.21 17:37:00 -
[26] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Devadander wrote:Getting rid of tiers for HAV.
Not going to balance for things I'm removing.
No restrictions on size for suits.
Not going to restrict vehicle fittings. (Other than top end, which I'm trying to keep from being OP)
I have enough papers on my desk/windows on my pc open ATM.
Thanks anyway. It's not a restriction...it's a fitting statistic generation...you don't hard stop an LAV from fitting Heavy Plates, but you assume that light plates go in them, they can make the decision to fit heavy plates on the light frame themselves (Think: Upfitting modules in eve, a 100MN After Burner is designed to go on a battleship, but I can put it on my Cruiser if I use a combination of Fitting Mods, High-Skills, and Sacrifice a bit of something else (Usually Raw HP in the form of not fitting a second Large Shield Extender) The upfitting modules carries over to armor plates, not just prop mods As for tiers, if you are only making one tier who cares? it's the Proto tier by any other name? (Being the top tier)
The module cost increase is intended to address this. I won't be increasing all modules. And if I do. I plan to give LAV/DS fitting bonuses to compensate.
The top end is the only one that matters ATM. Nobody is crying about invincible sica or onikumas.
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 - 2016.01.21 17:52:00 -
[27] - Quote
This is all academic anyway.
I could produce a masterpiece with a full color cover, printed on the finest stock.
Doesn't mean CCP will humor me...
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 - 2016.01.21 19:12:00 -
[28] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Devadander wrote:Breakin, we need to become better friends.
Once I get halfway satisfied here I need help with AV. I'm a master forge operator. I have pro swarms.. I barely use em. And the only thing I've ever killed with a PLC is infantry xD
I'd rather have an experts opinion. I'm always game for well-reasoned discourse.
Cause I'm so well known for that xD
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 - 2016.01.21 19:14:00 -
[29] - Quote
I do actually have one new module in mind.
Shield recharger....
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 - 2016.01.22 18:46:00 -
[30] - Quote
C'mon man......
There's no ONE thing that makes Maddy's so strong. That has been laid out several times in this thread. We are beyond "limiting hardeners"
It's the whole package.
2x hardeners
120 plate (or two reps if you are ballsy)
Complex heavy rep (having these passive is a problem in my eyes as well)
My goal here (one I'm already beyond the "what's the problem?" phase) is to break the ability to fit the full package. Making operators have to choose.
Do I want to dual harden? I'll have weak reps and no buffer.
Do I want great reps? I'll only have one hardener.
Do I want a tanky buffer? No hardener and mediocre reps.
This is taking my thread backwards....
You've got me dangerously close to back in character..
There will be no hardener limit.
"And god d*mn it I will be an artichoke, get off my stalk." ~Dust Fiend~
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
|
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 21:06:00 -
[31] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Now that my rant is out of the way:
I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of basically shoehorning people into choosing a single tank, that doesn't seem like it'll work to me.
1: If people can't fit the configuration you into a Madrugar's slots, then I assume that they can't do a pure one anyways. What would they then fit? iirc the only thing in the lows is ammo and regulators.
2: This would vastly cut down on the variation, and possibly introduce another FoTM.
3: Inversely, these defensive modules complement each other. Otherwise, a vehicle needs a solid amount of teamwork to live, which pilots are simply not getting right now. But even if we were graced with 128 man duels, we still would have to contend with the fact that the only support we got as repair tools, which suck.
1. I would like to bring back Chassis mods, among others, to give us back some variation.
2. Currently there is only one usable fit. Two if you are me. Having to decide between at least three possible fits brings at least that many back to the table. It's a start.
3. We as operators need to start getting people interested in riding with us. Why should my two gunners be the only ones to have fun? This is a failing on our part as operators. I know full well the difference gunners make. They can hop out and clear AV, hack objectives and installations, get links to places they otherwise could not, so on. Boatloads of wp just waiting to be claimed.
"And god d*mn it I will be an artichoke, get off my stalk." ~Dust Fiend~
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 03:41:00 -
[32] - Quote
@thad
I do like the open mind you present and some of your ideas struck home.
However, I don't feel like you read the entire thread as several things you pointed out have already had foreheads smashed into repeatedly in this thread.
I'll acquiesce that a one hardener limit would make HAV less invincible.
Then you would promptly see single hardened, max repped, nitrous injected chicken hawks. Who spend the one cycle out, and any time vulnerable in the redline.
Hmm...
The main force keeping HAV so powerful is constant passive rep. Hold on now, stay with me.
The dual hardeners are butch yes. But next time you assault an HAV, watch the actual ehp.
It isn't the hardeners bringing that armor back, steady and constant....
I get it, people want to run up solo and kill a tank.
Based on the isk investment, that's not acceptable. Hold on again.. As part of the final stages of my proposal will include price reductions.
But I am also taking infantry skill into mind. If you are hoping to destroy something I invested 60m sp into, with MLT swarms and an AV grenade.... You're just going to have to get lucky. Killing MLT with your MLT should be do-able.
In either case, actual thumb skill should always reign supreme. It works like that for dropsuits...
Currently, wyrkomi swarms, allotek plasma, and good AV nades will run me off very fast. MLT forge makes me go elsewhere even faster.
Beacons, Aldins', kubos and lai dai's.. Will destroy me.
So thus far, I've been nice enough to humor this bs and stay out of character.
Now that I see this thread has run its course.....
My notes have been taken, my sheets are populated, and I have a master AV to confer with once I'm settled and happy.
I'll make a new post when the final draft is ready to gather feedback. Would liked to have had more ads input..
Maybe my new rapport with dust fiend will prove useful...
Thanks out to everyone who put aside their characters for actual progress.
End of line.
"And god d*mn it I will be an artichoke, get off my stalk." ~Dust Fiend~
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 04:39:00 -
[33] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Devadander wrote:
I get it, people want to run up solo and kill a tank.
This may be what some people want, but it isn't at all what I suggested. I suggested that you account for and protect against Scenario #2 in your design. So long as Scenario #2 is happening, HAV/AV interplay will not be balanced.
Done with this thread and the restraint it takes to stay out of character.
Archduke is a god among men for putting up with us.
Aaaaaaand on that note..
"And god d*mn it I will be an artichoke, get off my stalk." ~Dust Fiend~
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 05:03:00 -
[34] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:
#1 - The Blaster Maddie hauls arse away, hoping and praying that another source of AV does not engage.
#2 - The Blaster Maddie rolls forward a few meters, clicks on another hardener, rotates turret and kills you.
Funny, cause from my viewpoint, its almost always #1...
"And god d*mn it I will be an artichoke, get off my stalk." ~Dust Fiend~
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 05:53:00 -
[35] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
Also, instead of screaming "HARDENERS HARDENERS" how about we look at the thing WE as the pilots have figured out months ago: Repairers.
Months ago, huh? Glad to hear you guys figured it out, Godin. Though if so obvious, I have to ask ... why did it take took two years to nail down, and why didn't it make it into FoxFour?
Because these threads always break down after we know what needs to be done.
Then nobody does anything.
HAV operators may not like what I post when I'm done.. I have fifteen HAV fits.. Two of them are Maddy's...
I try to run my gunni.. I really do.. It gets popped a lot.
Some nights I get mad and call out the "Ironsides"
I like being that powerful. But it has to change.
"And god d*mn it I will be an artichoke, get off my stalk." ~Dust Fiend~
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 05:55:00 -
[36] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:@Devadander
I don't think anyone will disagree that in a 1 player equals 1 player cenario, HAVs are very much overpriced...but they shouldn't be more powerful because they are priced so high, instead they should be priced for what they provide and should provide on the battlefield
My changes may be more popular than I expect due to the price reduction I will be including.
"And god d*mn it I will be an artichoke, get off my stalk." ~Dust Fiend~
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 06:00:00 -
[37] - Quote
But seriously, I have three sheets with different ideas on each.
It's getting massive. And doing the maths when I tinker one thing across the vehicle types is tiresome.
But if you actually read... You would know I'm not stopping at vehicles. After I get things where I want them, I will collaborate with AV users to tune AV for my proposed changes.
This will be all at ccp's mercy in the end... So calm your ****...
"And god d*mn it I will be an artichoke, get off my stalk." ~Dust Fiend~
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 06:04:00 -
[38] - Quote
And he doesn't even drive them, folks.
We should have been better friends by now.
"And god d*mn it I will be an artichoke, get off my stalk." ~Dust Fiend~
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 06:09:00 -
[39] - Quote
Either way. I put in a ticket to lock this up. There's that other thread that's still going.
I'll take channel invites from anyone from this thread.
I'm going to be absorbed in getting three versions for consideration ready. Once those are complete we can resume this rhetoric, but with numbers and shinies!
I do love you all, even if I can't stand you. o7
"And god d*mn it I will be an artichoke, get off my stalk." ~Dust Fiend~
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 06:18:00 -
[40] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Devadander wrote:But seriously, I have three sheets with different ideas on each.
It's getting massive. And doing the maths when I tinker one thing across the vehicle types is tiresome.
But if you actually read... You would know I'm not stopping at vehicles. After I get things where I want them, I will collaborate with AV users to tune AV for my proposed changes.
This will be all at ccp's mercy in the end... So calm your ****... You have a link to my AV stuff? And I assume that was directed at someone else, because I'm rather open that I consider there to be multiple potential solutions. I merely favor the one that will eat the least developer man-hours. I figure the low-hanging fruit will be looked at the most seriously if and when it comes time to address these issues.
I'll be doing as much crunching myself as possible, the less work for them the better. Yes I have your and Godin's saved to phone/pc. A yellow tablet with about eight pages of notes and ideas from this thread. I'll have solid things to look at and debate soonGäó. Then we start over with AV and another threadnaught.
xD
This won't be ready by 1.3 ...
"And god d*mn it I will be an artichoke, get off my stalk." ~Dust Fiend~
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|