DUST Search - True HAV AV balance

Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:

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!

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.

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...

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 1	Posted - 2016.01.23 05:55:00 - [151] - 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 dmn it I will be an artichoke, get off my stalk." ~Dust Fiend~ Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it*~
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 12	Posted - 2016.01.23 05:58:00 - [152] - Quote Devadander wrote: 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" This is accurate. There's some"chicken or the egg" things going on here. Let me give a bit of clarification here: 1: Most of my solutions are predicated on the idea that changing reps from passive to active is not feasible in Man/hour use at this time. This is not an official reason, Rattati has NOT told me I am correct, nor has he told me I am wrong. This is merely a perspective. So if passive reps are not going to be switched to active, then hardeners are absolutely the primary place that we need to look at for the Madrugar. The problem therein lies: If we make active hardeners "One per customer" then a few things must happen alongside that change. The first being the Shield fitting nerfs to vehicles have to be redacted. Is an absolute must-be. 2: Other people Perspective is that passive reps are the root of the issue. I do not necessarily disagree even slightly. But if we assume that altering reps from passive back to active is feasible, then a few things still have to happen. One is the armor speed penalty needs a look-at. Second, the shield nerfs should be revisited, and the Shield Boosters reverted to multi-pulse setups so you cannot trivially shut them down mid-regen. There are other things that other people have focused on. 3: If AV is to be buffed AT ALL, I predicate my suggestions on the need to balance proto to proto, advanced to advanced, standard/militia to standard/militia. I also state that because Alpha damage has such WILD variations in overall effect on different vehicles, the only real adjustment that is feasible to look at is rate of fire. The overall alpha damage of forge guns, for instance, should never go below an assault forge of the appropriate tier, nor over a breach forge gun of the appropriate tier. Other AV weapons absolutely MUST have similar considerations because if you increase alpha, you run the risk of making a two-shot kill on an ADS before the pilot can properly react a reality. three shots (based on assault forge averages) gives an ADS pilot enough reaction time to escape and evade, making that third killshot a true skill shot action on the part of the forge gunner rather than a foregone conclusion. 4: All talk of "AV should always win" or "AV gunners should never be able to solo any vehicle" should be flushed down the shitter because the statements on both sides are bullsht. If a tanker is more skilled than the AV gunner than the clear majority of the time, he should win. If the AV gunner is far more skilled than the tank driver than he should have a reasonable chance (approaching, though not meeting) a 50/50 chance versus said HAV. Any time two or more tanks focus on an AV gunner or a single enemy HAV, it should be a massacre. Any time 2 or more AV gunners simultaneously focus fire on a single vehicle it should be similarly lethal. This talk of absolutes "No soloing tanks" or "Tanks should not be able to smash infantry easily" is a buncha crap that hides one simple truth: People don't like to lose. No one likes to lose, hell I don't like to lose. But bluntly I play DUST for the challenge of hunting skilled vehicle drivers. If there is no avenue for me to win against my chosen prey then it's a sht game. If I always beat the skilled vehicle drivers then it's a godmode simulation, crappy mechanics, and in my opinion, still a sh*t game. But here's the thing to both sides. If you won't give up or compromise anything to have a middle ground, then as we have found in the past, the things you claw so hard at to protect will be taken from you to even things out. It has happened to swarms, it has happened to forge guns, it has happened to tanks, LAVs, Sentinels, Scouts, everything. The harder people fight to keep a lopsided status quo, the fewer people are willing to play, and the higher the likelihood your sandcastle, whatever it is, will be torn down to make room for other people. This is not me saying that this is my intent. This is me saying "if we cannot find any middle ground, then the likelihood of me being able to stop a sandcastle from getting smashed, or mitigating the damage, is very, very slim. Same holds true for darth, kirk, and our successors who have vested interest in the power seesaw between the vehicle/anti-vehicle roles. Imagine a gigantic, shiny bug zapper. Embrace your destiny.
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 1	Posted - 2016.01.23 06:00:00 - [153] - 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 dmn 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 - [154] - Quote And he doesn't even drive them, folks. We should have been better friends by now. "And god dmn it I will be an artichoke, get off my stalk." ~Dust Fiend~ Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it*~
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 12	Posted - 2016.01.23 06:07:00 - [155] - Quote 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. Imagine a gigantic, shiny bug zapper. Embrace your destiny.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 12	Posted - 2016.01.23 06:08:00 - [156] - Quote Devadander wrote: And he doesn't even drive them, folks. We should have been better friends by now. My primary alt that I played until my PS3 killed itself (you bastards see my name and it's dogpile time) is a madrugar driver, I just don't use the double-hardened, double-rep loadout because it pisses me off. Imagine a gigantic, shiny bug zapper. Embrace your destiny.
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 1	Posted - 2016.01.23 06:09:00 - [157] - 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 dmn 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 - [158] - 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 dmn it I will be an artichoke, get off my stalk." ~Dust Fiend~ Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 642	Posted - 2016.01.23 06:46:00 - [159] - Quote \o/ Moar Spreadsheets! Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. #PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3	Posted - 2016.01.23 10:05:00 - [160] - 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! As soon as repairers are active, that disappears as a problem. Because you know, a 15 second uptime give or take a few seconds due to bonuses/tier (until tiers burn ) and a cooldown of 30ish seconds give or take depending on bonuses/tier would flip the script real quick. I'm assuming you never did any sort of major piloting back in the day, because otherwise this should be clear to you. Top lel

Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3	Posted - 2016.01.23 10:18:00 - [161] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: 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! 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. 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... I pretty much already stated why hardeners are more popular than plates currently: Plates without the proper logistic support is inherently weaker than hardeners. It was used a ** ton before, because they could be slow, lumbering wardens that were easy to rep and stay behind as cover, even with say a repping Limbus. If remote reps and LLV's were to return, and vehicle-based repair tools got a adjustment, Squads would most likely disregard the multiple HAV tactic, and put as much ISK into surrounding one or two HAV's. Worked like a charm if executed right before, and it can work again. But that's really the only way I see plates coming back strongly. Otherwise, they'll just be there, unless we nerf hardeners to compensate, which is unnecessary. As for your two points, I agree with the first one, but I disagree with the second. I don't believe that there should be a "good" chance at HAV destruction just by engaging, unless there's a high amount of AV in the area. A HAV should have a good amount of chance to escape any encounter if it sees danger ahead of time and runs before the ** hits the fan. Top lel
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3	Posted - 2016.01.23 10:25:00 - [162] - 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 simple and obvious, I have to ask ... why did it take two years to nail down, and why didn't it make it into FoxFour? A lot of the time, the dev team did the opposite of what pilots wanted. I mean, we were, barring a few internal vehicle balance issues and roles additions that were needed happy with the state of vehicles. Whining AV wannabes fault tbh. What does that have to do with the current balance issues that we've figured out months ago? Top lel
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3	Posted - 2016.01.23 10:26:00 - [163] - 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 I think that they are actually priced right, just role-set missing. Top lel
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3	Posted - 2016.01.23 10:29:00 - [164] - 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 thought everyone would have had that favorited. Huh. Top lel
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 18	Posted - 2016.01.23 13:34:00 - [165] - Quote 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 **... Sounds good. ** are calmed. Standing by. Dropsuit Usage Rates


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page