|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
580
   |
Posted - 2015.12.23 03:51:00 -
[1] - 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
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
585
|
Posted - 2015.12.25 04:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote: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. My objection to this is why can't we have both high yield hardeners and to be able to have the high passive tank? Having this either or situation is just boring, and it won't help differentiate between the racial vehicles if we can somehow actually get a port.
Provided that the Repairers don't provide the same direct survivability as buffer, and both are destructible by infantry portable AV weaponry (The advantage the repairers should have is in breaking off and repeatedly engaging the same target, not the sustained brawl-fest sluggers we have right now)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
#PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
586
|
Posted - 2015.12.28 14:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
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. My objection to this is why can't we have both high yield hardeners and to be able to have the high passive tank? Having this either or situation is just boring, and it won't help differentiate between the racial vehicles if we can somehow actually get a port. Provided that the Repairers don't provide the same direct survivability as buffer, and both are destructible by infantry portable AV weaponry (The advantage the repairers should have is in breaking off and repeatedly engaging the same target, not the sustained brawl-fest sluggers we have right now) It's not if it can we should be asking. All should be able to put up a relatively high buffer on their own. It's rather how long. Otherwise, yea.
Which is why I used the term "Direct Survivability" instead of just "Survivability"...but it is probably most important that both are able to be killed with infantry portable AV...also, an actual role to have other than shoot other HAVs and/or kill footsloggers from inside of the giant battle-box would be nice (Footsloggers don't like it when you shoot at 'em, worked that one out myself)
(something something something siege roles....something something something defense relays)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
#PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
593
|
Posted - 2015.12.31 01:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
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
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
#PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
597
|
Posted - 2016.01.04 16:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Devadander wrote: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...)
is an interesting idea...avoids some of the previous problems with clone based objectives, but depending on the numbers they could either be irrelevant, or make matches go on significantly longer than necessary...but is interesting
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
#PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
625
|
Posted - 2016.01.18 23:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
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
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
#PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
631
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 17:21:00 -
[7] - Quote
Devadander wrote: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. (HAV ehp buff is to reflect loss in fitting power. Maybe 15% is better. Idk yet)
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.
Balance at the Top End, then set a percentage lower for STD with ADV a percentage right between it...yeah, you balance around the highest-end play
As for fitting amounts, just generate average values for all modules of the appropriate size that go into given slot types
(LAVs are Light, get Light Modules, DSs I treated as Medium...so pure average, HAVs are heavy so get heavy)...you shouldn't run into any issues generating fitting statistics this way
Edit: Do I need to link my Giant Spreadsheet of DOOM! ?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
#PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
631
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 17:30:00 -
[8] - Quote
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)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
#PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
631
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 17:58:00 -
[9] - Quote
Devadander wrote: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...
I Feel You
Slightly Less Giant Spreadsheet of Slightly Less Doom
Should (hopefully) show what I was saying earlier with fitting statistic generation
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
#PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
635
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 02:00:00 -
[10] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Devadander wrote:
There will be no hardener limit.
That's a shame. Scenario #2 represents a serious and frequently observed balance problem. So long as Scenario #2 is happening, HAV/AV interplay will remain broken. Limiting hardeners might furrow brows but it fixes this problem without creating new problems. The only other conceivable fix involves weakening dual-hardened HAVs by such degree that the AVer in Scenario #2 solos the tank before it can activate its second hardener. Good luck getting that one past your peers. Can't think of any other solutions to this serious interplay problem. But I wish you luck!
I disagree that the base situation is a problem. However, I can agree that hardeners being blanket better modules than other choices in the same slot, leading to the desire to fill half your slots with them 100% of the time is a problem.
And as you stated in the post immediately after the quoted one, you are right...there are a combination of factors at play; and those currently are (on HAVs): Dual Armor Hardener (With The Cooldown and Duration skills at 4 they can be up for all but the time it takes to activate the other one) and Repairer or Dual Repairer. However, one thing should be noted: this only applies to Armor HAVs, the issue of dual hardeners being a problem is not nearly as prevalent on Shield HAVs (if it exists at all)...which is where I draw my conclusion that the Passive Repairers are the Crux of the problem.
And you are correct in your post immediately after the one I quoted that there are a combination of things that work together, in this case Hardeners and Repairers (The one feature you will find on any HAV fitting designed to behave as a tank, Tank Destroyer Fits tend to go for all buffer/mitigation, which is where you see your Tri-Hardened Fittings, as the HAVs are designed to engage one or more other HAVs at once with a full rack of Damage Mods).
And you are also correct that a One-Hardener limit would fix you "Issue" in Scenario #2...but so would a number of other single factor changes (things like switching Repairers back to Active Modules, or Changing the type of weapon the Large Blaster Turret Replicates to something more appropriate for an MBT). But you are wrong that it would have zero other effects...it takes away what little variety there is left in vehicle fitting...I know that I for one (and there would be others) would not play using HAVs if such a change where made...we've had our options limited enough already, the majority of our modules where flat out removed...the disillusioned HAV community doesn't need another balancing cudgel we say with the failed "Waves of Opportunity" Rebalance, where it was decided that the vehicles where too hard to make work with the old choices...(funny they called it "Waves of Opportunity" but then made Repairers Passive Modules?)
I would accept a One Hardener Limit as an interim solution, provided that we where provided with a timetable for when more vehicle changes would come to be able to lift said limit (Since this isn't a glitch with stacking penalties on a module happening here)...but without it....
As for your other reasoning...
1: You need not kill a player or vehicle to win an engagement - Weakening them to the point the must fall back has always been viewed as sufficient in my book (Regardless on if I'm fighting dropsuits or vechicles). If they don't fall back, or if there is nothing else to do immediately, by all means, kill or pursue to kill.
2: An AVer should be able to solo-neutralize or kill an HAV...period...regardless of if Hardeners are Up or down, regardless of current HP Status, if an HAV engages, it should have a good chance of being destroyed. Likewise an AVer should be able to be killed by a Solo HAV...this isn't really an issue outside of the Railguns...but it is still something to consider. Remember for both Cases, see point 1...killing/destruction isn't necessary 100% of the time, especially if there are more pressing concerns. If the purpose of hardeners is to provide temporary invulnerability to a damage source or sources...then make them do that, but I refuse to believe that is their purpose...
3: Engaging Infantry targets should always be a big choice for an HAV operator...this point has largely been taken away by the HAV acceleration statistics introduced when all of our modules went the way of the dodo...HAVs Top speed is fine, the rate at which they get there is too frakking fast...slowing down or stopping to engage targets should have consequences, it currently doesn't (and no, removing nitro won't fix this, it's a base statistic thing)...
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
#PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
|
|
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
640
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 05:50:00 -
[11] - 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?
We figured it out, and brought it to Rattati's attention when the discussion of HAV Tiers and sHAVs where happening, it didn't make it into FoxFour for the same reason the One-Hardener-Limit didn't (Which was also proposed during the same discussions as the repairers), there just wasn't enough Dev Time to evaluate either proposed solution to the problem
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
#PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
640
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 05:52:00 -
[12] - Quote
@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
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
#PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
642
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 06:46:00 -
[13] - Quote
\o/ Moar Spreadsheets!
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
#PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
|
|
|
| |
|