| 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?
|
|
|
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
1
|
Posted - 2015.12.23 08:31:00 -
[31] - Quote
kill the fuel injector module on tanks.
then see how maddys perform without their crutch |
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2015.12.23 09:05:00 -
[32] - 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~
|
Daemonn Adima
Eternal Beings
712
|
Posted - 2015.12.23 18:46:00 -
[33] - Quote
Again meta/tier locks would solve this problem also.
I don't understand trying to balance mlt/std/adv gear AND proto. A proto swarm/forge user can nearly 1 shot militia tanks or dropships. A proto gear user can nearly instant kill players in mlt/std gear.
This is like car racing in which one would allow unmodded Honda Civics to go up against Formula 1 racecars. It doesn't make any sense and shouldn't be like this.
The biggest "edge" I gained in Dust was finally getting proto mods, a suit and weapons. I went from regularly struggling to kill proto players to killing them quite easily. Mlt/std players melt like butter to my proto fit. Its honestly sad how fast some players die, they literally have no chance at killing me in an encounter. |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
1
|
Posted - 2015.12.23 22:48:00 -
[34] - Quote
Daemonn Adima wrote:Again meta/tier locks would solve this problem also.
I don't understand trying to balance mlt/std/adv gear AND proto. A proto swarm/forge user can nearly 1 shot militia tanks or dropships. A proto gear user can nearly instant kill players in mlt/std gear.
This is like car racing in which one would allow unmodded Honda Civics to go up against Formula 1 racecars. It doesn't make any sense and shouldn't be like this.
The biggest "edge" I gained in Dust was finally getting proto mods, a suit and weapons. I went from regularly struggling to kill proto players to killing them quite easily. Mlt/std players melt like butter to my proto fit. Its honestly sad how fast some players die, they literally have no chance at killing me in an encounter.
proto gear is mostly a crutch for actual experience. i regularly use apex suits and cant tell the difference between gear other than their color.
if balancing AV tiers vs vehicle tiers is too much to ask for, then what about removing the tiers? just have one vehicle of each type and then balance the AV against that. |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
12
|
Posted - 2015.12.23 23:10:00 -
[35] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:Daemonn Adima wrote:Again meta/tier locks would solve this problem also.
I don't understand trying to balance mlt/std/adv gear AND proto. A proto swarm/forge user can nearly 1 shot militia tanks or dropships. A proto gear user can nearly instant kill players in mlt/std gear.
This is like car racing in which one would allow unmodded Honda Civics to go up against Formula 1 racecars. It doesn't make any sense and shouldn't be like this.
The biggest "edge" I gained in Dust was finally getting proto mods, a suit and weapons. I went from regularly struggling to kill proto players to killing them quite easily. Mlt/std players melt like butter to my proto fit. Its honestly sad how fast some players die, they literally have no chance at killing me in an encounter. proto gear is mostly a crutch for actual experience. i regularly use apex suits and cant tell the difference between gear other than their color. if balancing AV tiers vs vehicle tiers is too much to ask for, then what about removing the tiers? just have one vehicle of each type and then balance the AV against that.
That's what we had before. It worked about as well as what we have now
Because why not?
|
APPIE93
Dead Man's Game
Preatoriani
17
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 11:01:00 -
[36] - Quote
In my opinion tanks and av are pretty balanced.
you can destroy a tank whitin seconds and you can kill av'ers within seconds.
The biggest issue with tanks is currently the way people use it and specially combined with domination being the only pub mode available.
I thought that the goal of tanks was to make them strong on moments so they could push a point, but not to make them that strong that they could sit there the entire match. With the hardners that is achieved (only adjustment could be that 2 active hardners would only do around 50% damage reduction, i guess its around 60-70% now). However the price of a proto tank is currently to much compared to what it can do, for this I would suggest that proto tanks would be around 600-700k isk.
The issue with how people use tanks and with domination the only gamemode available.
- redline to small you can only drive back and up front before you are in the redline on most maps.
- tanks have a weak moment when hardners are down but because the redline is so close you would see them wait in the redline for there hardners. (you can't hit tanks on there weak moment)
- tanks are also very effective to snipe from there own redline on the objective, very low risk for the tank/no counter. and a tank is in my opinion not maint for redline sniping. In skirmish it is no issue because there are more objectives, but in domination there is just one point.
In short my awnser to balance HAV/AV would be:
Increase the redline in domination or Remove HAV's from DOM.
APPLE PIE RISING!
@PIE
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.12.25 00:35:00 -
[37] - Quote
Devadander wrote: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.
Blub
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.12.25 00:38:00 -
[38] - Quote
Derrith Erador wrote: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.
No, that's not my thought process at all. It's a DROPSHIP, not a jet, a gunship, or otherwise. It's not meant to be a tank killer, nor was it to my knowledge ever described as such. It wasn't until Pilots were able to abuse faulty mathz created by CCP that it became such and that was nipped in the bud quickly.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.12.25 00:41:00 -
[39] - Quote
Ghost Steps wrote: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).
You do realize that the price is about the same right now, right?
Additionally, no, it's not hardeners fault (if anything, the hardener buffs have helped Shield HAV's and Dropships, because they simply last longer). It's the constant, passive regen that changed. Only but a few people complained about the active, high regen that existed before, as it would quickly turn off, allowing for a opportunity of assault and quick destruction of a target.
Also, Balanced*.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.12.25 00:46:00 -
[40] - 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.
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.
Top lel
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.12.25 00:56:00 -
[41] - 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: Just no. Before it was 15 seconds up, and 45 seconds down, and that was damn near perfect (made the remote reps even more worth it as they were iirc almost double the time). Otherwise, yes, active reps please.
2: It needs a acceleration nerf, but severe? No. Your example is exactly why.
3: Okay for the swarms, but you are disregarding FG's, and PLC's (**** AV nades, they need to either burn or change form). How are you planning on segmenting them?
4: I still hate this "It's a pure AV turret" nonsense. It's a large turret; it's meant to shoot at big stuffz. If that just so happens to be a vehicle, then that's nice, but that's not the only thing it can shoot at. Additionally, every other large turret is in the same boat, so they should be just as capable, just in a different way of blowing up/melting big stuffz.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.12.25 00:58:00 -
[42] - Quote
True Adamance wrote: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.
In certain cases like proportions, yes. But realism shoved into every aspect, especially in this game? No, that's not even possible.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.12.25 01:02:00 -
[43] - Quote
Flix Keptick 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. 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). Altough imo, HAVs should be given a purpose. That used to be locking down areas and infantry/vehicle suppression, but with the change to blaster accuracy it's hardly the case anymore. Basically, there isn't much I CAN do besides killing instalations and trying to spine people (which is hard considering my ****** aim). Something like destructible control points or things that can only be captured with vehicles would give tanks a purpose, and would make them contribute for the win (and less focused on killing infantry).
I'd be sort of fine with that change. Or a up time nerf of the nitro.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.12.25 01:05:00 -
[44] - Quote
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.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.12.25 01:08:00 -
[45] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:Daemonn Adima wrote:Again meta/tier locks would solve this problem also.
I don't understand trying to balance mlt/std/adv gear AND proto. A proto swarm/forge user can nearly 1 shot militia tanks or dropships. A proto gear user can nearly instant kill players in mlt/std gear.
This is like car racing in which one would allow unmodded Honda Civics to go up against Formula 1 racecars. It doesn't make any sense and shouldn't be like this.
The biggest "edge" I gained in Dust was finally getting proto mods, a suit and weapons. I went from regularly struggling to kill proto players to killing them quite easily. Mlt/std players melt like butter to my proto fit. Its honestly sad how fast some players die, they literally have no chance at killing me in an encounter. proto gear is mostly a crutch for actual experience. i regularly use apex suits and cant tell the difference between gear other than their color. if balancing AV tiers vs vehicle tiers is too much to ask for, then what about removing the tiers? just have one vehicle of each type and then balance the AV against that.
That would only work if there was one tier of AV
And as Breakin said, the change from what you're suggesting didn't change anything.
Top lel
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
585
|
Posted - 2015.12.25 04:55:00 -
[46] - 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
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.12.27 16:43:00 -
[47] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: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)
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.
Top lel
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
586
|
Posted - 2015.12.28 14:01:00 -
[48] - 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
|
Sgt Kirk
Fatal Absolution
Bleeding Sun Conglomerate
12
|
Posted - 2015.12.28 14:31:00 -
[49] - Quote
Great stuff in this thread. Sadly, my bugging to get more tanks back didn't work but this thread still has some good material for the future.
Sgt Kirk's Youtube Channel
Skype: jadkirk
|
DIinkelFritz
The Eternal Noxium Imperium
25
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 03:36:00 -
[50] - Quote
In eve, the offset of armor hardening and armor repairing/shield reping is capacitor or energy reserve. I notice that tanks currently don't have an sort of energy, they just have durations and cooldowns. Tanks need to have capacitor and then all active modules need to drain capacitor. A tank could drive around with armor hardeners active or speed boosts active and it will last. If they use all three, then they burn up the cap and their "invulnerability" lasts for a very short time and it leaves them with nothing. Gives more skill to using an HAV other than activating all the condoms and pulling out before the swarm orgy hits. Not sure how it would work with dropships, though I believe that all vehicles should be balanced by this mechanic.
It also paves the way for electronic warfare =p
Committed suicide....again...
|
|
|
DIinkelFritz
The Eternal Noxium Imperium
25
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 03:41:00 -
[51] - Quote
Also, since this is about balancing AV and HAV, I thought I would Quote from another thread regarding swarm launcher "buffs".
This is the conclusion after several heated discussions about what is broken and what is not.
"
Swarm launcher users must MAINTAIN the lock during missile flight or the missiles fly off in random directions and don't hit ****. This eliminates the set and forget system. This also eliminates the issue for us swarm users to have to constantly re-lock onto an enemy vehicle. We launch our missiles and keep launching them until we run out of ammo. However. We have to maintain the vehicle in our hit box or else we lose all the missiles that were launched. This makes our potential damage to vehicles much higher, on the grounds of killing them. However, it's a risk vs reward system. If you get killed, or you are forced to move because of enemy fire. Tough ****. The tank got away. This also rewards DS pilots. If the pilot out maneuvers the lock or simply gets out of range of the lock, then the threat effectively disappears for a time
Vehicles get notification when they have been locked on. This will give the drivers a heads up to find cover or start moving. "
Derrith Erador added with
"The problem with that is the fact that maintaining the lock is rather easy seeing as the PRO swarm has a lock box that is 24x the inner crosshair of a forge gun. So the solution to this, and to the rather underwhelming range is:
There will be three lock range settings:
short: range is 75 meters, with a 20x lock box
medium: range is 150 meters, with 12x lock box
long: range is 250 meters, with a 4x lock box
I'd use this for the standard, needless to say that the assault swarm should be the anti-ADS variant and will have greater lock range, lock box size, but less damage. That's my two cents on it, no point in maintaining a lock if I can just leave your zone with ease."
Original Dead-thread link: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3061313#post3061313
Committed suicide....again...
|
Fristname Family name
Opus Arcana
813
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 13:40:00 -
[52] - Quote
Sgt Kirk wrote:Great stuff in this thread. Sadly, my bugging to get more tanks back didn't work but this thread still has some good material for the future.
material for you know what ;)
this isnt the right place for this shenanigans lol
sorry senpai
BAKA! Why would I love you!!
>blushes and looks down as you start to walk away i tug on your shirt and look in your eyes
|
Fristname Family name
Opus Arcana
813
|
Posted - 2015.12.29 13:46:00 -
[53] - Quote
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
BAKA! Why would I love you!!
>blushes and looks down as you start to walk away i tug on your shirt and look in your eyes
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
593
|
Posted - 2015.12.31 01:13:00 -
[54] - 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
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
12
|
Posted - 2016.01.01 03:42:00 -
[55] - Quote
I quit playing ambush when they removed my favorite targets from the game mode.
Because why not?
|
Fristname Family name
Opus Arcana
816
|
Posted - 2016.01.01 10:26:00 -
[56] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I quit playing ambush when they removed my favorite targets from the game mode.
this would be the hoards of tanks im assuming? speaking of targets, tanks and ambush, anyone seen Duna around?
BAKA! Why would I love you!!
>blushes and looks down as you start to walk away i tug on your shirt and look in your eyes
|
Fristname Family name
Opus Arcana
816
|
Posted - 2016.01.01 10:34:00 -
[57] - Quote
http://imgur.com/iKPMqHy
when you finally found a way to make your tank also a mobile supply deport
(image is poop as anything lol but there is a tank inside a depo, i got one of a tank without a large turrent somewhere and its better quality lol)
BAKA! Why would I love you!!
>blushes and looks down as you start to walk away i tug on your shirt and look in your eyes
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.01 15:41:00 -
[58] - 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 -
[59] - 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 -
[60] - 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~
|
|
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
597
|
Posted - 2016.01.04 16:16:00 -
[61] - 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
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.05 06:03:00 -
[62] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:
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)
Agreed then.
Also, I have a write-up you might like about said subject of the role of a HAV.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.05 06:09:00 -
[63] - Quote
DIinkelFritz wrote:In eve, the offset of armor hardening and armor repairing/shield reping is capacitor or energy reserve. I notice that tanks currently don't have an sort of energy, they just have durations and cooldowns. Tanks need to have capacitor and then all active modules need to drain capacitor. A tank could drive around with armor hardeners active or speed boosts active and it will last. If they use all three, then they burn up the cap and their "invulnerability" lasts for a very short time and it leaves them with nothing. Gives more skill to using an HAV other than activating all the condoms and pulling out before the swarm orgy hits. Not sure how it would work with dropships, though I believe that all vehicles should be balanced by this mechanic.
It also paves the way for electronic warfare =p
Each module actually has its own capacitor, which for all active modules are unstable. This is represented by the active times and cooldowns. I'd rather for convenience sake keep it that way, as having to manage capacitor on top of driving the vehicle would end up being a pain in the ass. It becomes even more apparent when you do consider a faster moving, more accurate styled vehicle like Dropship. You can't be fiddling with modules while trying to dodge ****; that doesn't work.
At the most, being able to manage them similar to cloaks would be decent enough and allow for things like vamps and neuts. Hell, they can be done now really by messing with the timers tbh.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.05 06:10:00 -
[64] - Quote
DIinkelFritz wrote:Also, since this is about balancing AV and HAV, I thought I would Quote from another thread regarding swarm launcher "buffs". This is the conclusion after several heated discussions about what is broken and what is not. " Swarm launcher users must MAINTAIN the lock during missile flight or the missiles fly off in random directions and don't hit ****. This eliminates the set and forget system. This also eliminates the issue for us swarm users to have to constantly re-lock onto an enemy vehicle. We launch our missiles and keep launching them until we run out of ammo. However. We have to maintain the vehicle in our hit box or else we lose all the missiles that were launched. This makes our potential damage to vehicles much higher, on the grounds of killing them. However, it's a risk vs reward system. If you get killed, or you are forced to move because of enemy fire. Tough ****. The tank got away. This also rewards DS pilots. If the pilot out maneuvers the lock or simply gets out of range of the lock, then the threat effectively disappears for a time Vehicles get notification when they have been locked on. This will give the drivers a heads up to find cover or start moving. " Derrith Erador added with "The problem with that is the fact that maintaining the lock is rather easy seeing as the PRO swarm has a lock box that is 24x the inner crosshair of a forge gun. So the solution to this, and to the rather underwhelming range is: There will be three lock range settings: short: range is 75 meters, with a 20x lock box medium: range is 150 meters, with 12x lock box long: range is 250 meters, with a 4x lock box I'd use this for the standard, needless to say that the assault swarm should be the anti-ADS variant and will have greater lock range, lock box size, but less damage. That's my two cents on it, no point in maintaining a lock if I can just leave your zone with ease." Original Dead-thread link: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3061313#post3061313
That would mean the damage output would have to be totally reworked. I'm fine with the change though.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.05 06:12:00 -
[65] - 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
Then I will not allow you to nerf my fun, because reasons.
And why do I have to get out of a vehicle, ever? Actually, Why should I? Infantry gameplay has, still is, and will probably always be boring in dust. There's actual fun in vehicles.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.05 06:13:00 -
[66] - 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
You understand me. I accept you.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.05 06:17:00 -
[67] - 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...)
Stuff like this is what I wish for. Things that vehicles can use, destroy, etc. that can help the team out and give the pilots something to do.
Top lel
|
Flix Keptick
R-A-P-T-U-R-E
4
|
Posted - 2016.01.16 23:59:00 -
[68] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote: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...) Stuff like this is what I wish for. Things that vehicles can use, destroy, etc. that can help the team out and give the pilots something to do.
Yep. I've been saying this for a long time. If tanks had better things to do than pooping on infantry then there would be a lot less complaining on the infantry AND tanker side.
scout//assault//heavy
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.17 02:33:00 -
[69] - 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~
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.18 08:31:00 -
[70] - Quote
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.
Top lel
|
|
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.18 19:41:00 -
[71] - 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~
|
Slayer Deathbringer
Planetary Response Organisation
FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE
11
|
Posted - 2016.01.18 23:13:00 -
[72] - Quote
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
"It's not my fault that you lost a 1 mill isk suit to a 1k isk forge gun"
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
625
|
Posted - 2016.01.18 23:18:00 -
[73] - 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
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.19 04:33:00 -
[74] - Quote
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.
For the skill bonus, there was such in Chromosome, so basically it would probably need to be added back. Math would need to be done. But the environment of how HAV's and in general vehicles operated (minus the turrets, and DS tanking ability) needs to return.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.19 04:34:00 -
[75] - 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
That can burn in a fire. It's silliness that makes **** all sense.
Top lel
|
Fristname Family name
Opus Arcana
834
|
Posted - 2016.01.19 05:13:00 -
[76] - Quote
Godin Thekiller 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 That can burn in a fire. It's silliness that makes **** all sense.
removing tiers of weapons is a completelty terrible idea imo, the DS could pull it off but having all of one type of weapon only having pg/cpu changes isn't a good idea, it makes the game seem so much more dull :/ whats the point in getting proto if i can fit a militia with the same stats, everything will be stupid cause this
"okay starter fit ez kill ez game ez life. THIS IS FOR THE WAIFU!!!" *pow pow pow pow pow*
"How the heck did he kill me im full officer/proto, wtf he had stacked armor and damage mods with a militia weapon.... RQ"
no point of making things boring, yes in a way it will reduce idiots complaining about proto spam etc and make some scrubs happy but its not worth killing tiers for honestly, and don't forget we have AV nades, Proxy/RE, and also cant just do it for one set of guns eg. av as it would be stupid and i would cry, but also mainly the amount of componsation skills required would either be too strong, too weak or keep the weapons the same/make them all proto damage values or if you dumped it all onto suits for some stupid reason that would also be ********. by the way why are you guys wanting to nerf AV? i feel its fine as it is and same for tanks at the moment, and just letting you know you should ask for logi dropships back before requesting anything else done, as logi and assault dropships are the proto tier for them. and for LAVs either request logi LAV back or request the tree build into a troop transport thing which is like a land whale i guess, although thats a bit too much work at them moment i think personally just asking for logi lav back and a scout one which has like 10% increased top speed for one race and 10% acceleration for the other or maybe 10% top speed and 15% acceleration and for the other other race the same 15% top speed 10% acceleration (at level 5 for the respective skill tree or maybe just by default as they are meant to be faster and make the skill bonus something like reduced spawn timer on the cru in lav but that seems better suited for the logi one, maybe handling or damage reduction slightly? as they would be weak of course, even more speed would work. as for logi stuff i got no clue what they are planning. also the scout lav could be substituted for a 'assault' LAV which specializes in the back gun and could even have one on the passenger seat, and the skill bonuses could be like fire rate, reload or damage even also no doubt you would want tracking speed. thats all i got... but yeah you really should get those logi LAVs and DSs back.
RIP in peace bumblebee whale :c
BAKA! Why would I love you!!
>blushes and looks down as you start to walk away i tug on your shirt and look in your eyes
|
Fristname Family name
Opus Arcana
834
|
Posted - 2016.01.19 05:15:00 -
[77] - Quote
Godin Thekiller 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 That can burn in a fire. It's silliness that makes **** all sense.
I <3 nova knifing tanks, even if i suicide. if you just drive away when i am jumping on you, you woulda been fine. also when proxys are being dropped on you best to leave even sooner :P RIP that one guy the other day
BAKA! Why would I love you!!
>blushes and looks down as you start to walk away i tug on your shirt and look in your eyes
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.19 10:40:00 -
[78] - Quote
Fristname Family name wrote:
removing tiers of weapons is a completelty terrible idea imo, the DS could pull it off but having all of one type of weapon only having pg/cpu changes isn't a good idea, it makes the game seem so much more dull :/ whats the point in getting proto if i can fit a militia with the same stats, everything will be stupid cause this
"okay starter fit ez kill ez game ez life. THIS IS FOR THE WAIFU!!!" *pow pow pow pow pow*
"How the heck did he kill me im full officer/proto, wtf he had stacked armor and damage mods with a militia weapon.... RQ"
no point of making things boring, yes in a way it will reduce idiots complaining about proto spam etc and make some scrubs happy but its not worth killing tiers for honestly, and don't forget we have AV nades, Proxy/RE, and also cant just do it for one set of guns eg. av as it would be stupid and i would cry, but also mainly the amount of componsation skills required would either be too strong, too weak or keep the weapons the same/make them all proto damage values or if you dumped it all onto suits for some stupid reason that would also be ********. by the way why are you guys wanting to nerf AV? i feel its fine as it is and same for tanks at the moment, and just letting you know you should ask for logi dropships back before requesting anything else done, as logi and assault dropships are the proto tier for them. and for LAVs either request logi LAV back or request the tree build into a troop transport thing which is like a land whale i guess, although thats a bit too much work at them moment i think personally just asking for logi lav back and a scout one which has like 10% increased top speed for one race and 10% acceleration for the other or maybe 10% top speed and 15% acceleration and for the other other race the same 15% top speed 10% acceleration (at level 5 for the respective skill tree or maybe just by default as they are meant to be faster and make the skill bonus something like reduced spawn timer on the cru in lav but that seems better suited for the logi one, maybe handling or damage reduction slightly? as they would be weak of course, even more speed would work. as for logi stuff i got no clue what they are planning. also the scout lav could be substituted for a 'assault' LAV which specializes in the back gun and could even have one on the passenger seat, and the skill bonuses could be like fire rate, reload or damage even also no doubt you would want tracking speed. thats all i got... but yeah you really should get those logi LAVs and DSs back.
RIP in peace bumblebee whale :c
1: Please make paragraphs, that wall of white text is hard as hell to read.
2: IMO everything should be tiercided, as that would mean the focus would be on variations and sacrifice, not just paying more to overcome obstacles inherent in the design of a weapon, suit, module, turret, or vehicle. It also would mean that skill, SP based and player based would take a front seat, not just who has the most ISK (that would then play into macro stuff like waging the wars and ****).
Regardless, AV and vehicles are solidly isolated, in that they don't usually mess with normal infantry a lot, so doing them first wouldn't affect much really.
3: " by the way why are you guys wanting to nerf AV? i feel its fine as it is and same for tanks at the moment, and just letting you know you should ask for logi dropships back before requesting anything else done, as logi and assault dropships are the proto tier for them. and for LAVs either request logi LAV back or request the tree build into a troop transport thing which is like a land whale i guess"
The nerfs for AV would only be needed as adjustments along with adjustments done to make vehicles more suitable.
And that last part doesn't make sense. You do realize that LDS's were horrid for repairing, and the LLV WAS the repairer, right? Additionally, LLV's had a speed reduction while in, so why the hell would you buff that back up? Also, The only reason why both vehicles, or really any other vehicle was removed because it had missing functions to properly use them (LDS with no suitable transport functions, Marauder and Enforcer HAV's for no real game changing module, layout, etc.), or had them and was simply broken (LLV's infantry remote rep just being bad, and Black Ops HAV's for not having a working reverse CRU).
And no, these vehicles weren't prototype vehicles per class. Their meta would be that of a proto vehilce, but they weren't proto vehicles. That would be like calling an assault suit a proto suit for a medium frame.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.19 10:42:00 -
[79] - Quote
Fristname Family name wrote:
I <3 nova knifing tanks, even if i suicide. if you just drive away when i am jumping on you, you woulda been fine. also when proxys are being dropped on you best to leave even sooner :P RIP that one guy the other day
Even if you like it, that still doesn't change the fact that its addition makes **** all sense. I mean, if knives are capable of damaging tanks now, might as well say **** it and let all weapons do some sort of damage against any vehicle, because why not?
Top lel
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.19 15:37:00 -
[80] - 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 -
[81] - 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~
|
Sanchez Rivera
Wolf Pack Special Forces
118
|
Posted - 2016.01.19 15:53:00 -
[82] - Quote
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 Want To Have All The BPOs :3
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.19 16:25:00 -
[83] - 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~
|
Fristname Family name
Opus Arcana
835
|
Posted - 2016.01.19 23:52:00 -
[84] - Quote
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
but when im focused with my breach forge guns out there >:D your either my personal WP farm or im gonna kill you mwhahahahhahaa
BAKA! Why would I love you!!
>blushes and looks down as you start to walk away i tug on your shirt and look in your eyes
|
Fristname Family name
Opus Arcana
836
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 00:01:00 -
[85] - Quote
Devadander wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Slayer Deathbringer wrote:
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
idk lets check...
**** fuck **** boobs ****** #plzz CCP senpai don't ban me i was testing something <3 xxo :*
also punching hit detection etc is broken imo at the moment and needs a rework as the knives had revived, a weapon specific range could help it but become a pain to create although making light weapon melee 2m heavy 3/4m and sidearm/equipment 1.5m would be reasonable in my opinion, and would allow me to have more fun with my suits. i can just see it now, my hmg just bonking some dude on the head lol just swinging it around like a baseball bat and seeing those rag doll mechanics would make my day everyday tbh.
Pre Post edit: the f word has been allowed but that is all by the looks of it, also i said it twice only mid sentence it is allowed i think ill send a help ticket soon about it to prevent any issues arising for bypassing the censor, as that is a ban able offense... i used the poop word also one for mentally challenge as well and they were no go words still so yeah.......
btw if you don't wanna die from CQC simply be aware, tanks are just able to lock down open areas so well or at least make 2/3 people commit to av for a bit which is normally useful players that have to result to it as well causing objectives to be lost etc
BAKA! Why would I love you!!
>blushes and looks down as you start to walk away i tug on your shirt and look in your eyes
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 00:10:00 -
[86] - Quote
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.
"That means Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space."
- Unnamed Gunnery Chief, The Citadel
|
Fristname Family name
Opus Arcana
836
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 00:11:00 -
[87] - Quote
thank you senpai I love you heaps have a great day at work xxo <3 :*
that wasn't at the end of my help ticket I swear ;)
i always put something like this at the end of League of legends reports as well honestly XD
BAKA! Why would I love you!!
>blushes and looks down as you start to walk away i tug on your shirt and look in your eyes
|
Fristname Family name
Opus Arcana
836
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 00:26:00 -
[88] - 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.
so as i suggested earlier possibly a assualt LAV, with bonuses to back gun such as damage, fire rate, tracking speed, cooldown/reload/heat build up armor/shield pen (thats not a bad idea tbh +x% damage to the turrents lest effective hp form eg. missiles +damage to shields. or just old gun proficiency) or maybe clip size or splash radius.. although some of these are not effective for some turrents eg. cool down/heat build up for missiles and splash radius for blasters etc but an assault LAV would need a few different bonuses like that to become a more viable assault vehicle rather than just a jeep to get places. having cal LAV (just relized assault light assault vehicle is dumb and maybe the LAV's we have now should just be LV's and then we get actual LAV's or we could get MAV's which could be pretty much transport vehicles with like 4 guns and 6 seats and a driver seat with guns mounted on windows which protect mercs from getting hurt yet they can shoot out of them still (the windows will be a spot to shoot through of course) and the guns wont be able to track 180 dergrees but something like 90 on from straight out the window like this
Gû¼vGû¼vGû¼ the v being the tracking limits
but idk even then its sorta too much work for this stage in a way... just making old LAV into LV and making assault variants called LAV's which are the same just more stats and bonuses towards back gun and more slots would be best thing imo as better gun means for firepower and a much more liable form of mobile pressure on objectives/tanks/ds and infantry as well.
BAKA! Why would I love you!!
>blushes and looks down as you start to walk away i tug on your shirt and look in your eyes
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 00:30:00 -
[89] - 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~
|
Fristname Family name
Opus Arcana
837
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 00:34:00 -
[90] - Quote
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..
BAKA! Why would I love you!!
>blushes and looks down as you start to walk away i tug on your shirt and look in your eyes
|
|
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 00:36:00 -
[91] - 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~
|
Fristname Family name
Opus Arcana
837
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 00:36:00 -
[92] - Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amzMGdD_THc
me too ;-;
hearing Big E in the background audio brings back memories
BAKA! Why would I love you!!
>blushes and looks down as you start to walk away i tug on your shirt and look in your eyes
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
12
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 13:52:00 -
[93] - Quote
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.
Imagine a gigantic, shiny bug zapper.
Embrace your destiny.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 21:45:00 -
[94] - Quote
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.
I'm thinking more like the 2009 Intaki Prime trailer or how a T17E2 wrecks T1 german tanks in Warthunder.
"That means Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space."
- Unnamed Gunnery Chief, The Citadel
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 21:51:00 -
[95] - 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.
It still doesn't change that the concept is stupid as **** Breaking.
A Nova knife isn't even long enough to penetrate 120mm of armoured plating, plus regular tank armour that is both hardened and maintained by a massive nanite repair system. Even if the knife should somehow cut into the plating what is it damaging that caused the HAV to explode of be rendered usable?
Every other AV form I can appreciate..... but knives are beyond ridiculous even if actually achieving a kill is unlikely.
"That means Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space."
- Unnamed Gunnery Chief, The Citadel
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
18
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 01:20:00 -
[96] - Quote
Because when it comes to True HAV Balance, Nova Knives make for a far bigger problem than perma-hardened blaster maddies and ineffective Swarms. 
Tell you what. Let's trade that unacceptable and unbearably offensive NK damage for a limitation of 1 hardener per loadout. Instantly better HAV balance. That's the goal, right? Better balance?
Dropsuit Usage Rates
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 03:30:00 -
[97] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Because when it comes to True HAV Balance, Nova Knives make for a far bigger problem and higher priority than perma-hardened blaster maddies and ineffective Swarms. Why not ask Rattati if you can trade out that unbearably offensive NK damage for a reasonable and fair limitation of 1 hardener per loadout? Bam! Instantly better HAV balance. No more NK QQ. Progress on two fronts. Happiness and high fives all around. But most importantly, instantly better HAV balance. Better HAV balance is the goal, right?
Where did I express the idea that this would function to balance AV vs Tanks?
Merely that the idea that a combat knife could meaningfully damage a tank.... is beyond laughable.
Also it not necessarily a fair demand to limit modules unless you feel compelled to effect the same limitation on certain dropsuit modules which produce some of the most popular fittings.
"That means Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space."
- Unnamed Gunnery Chief, The Citadel
|
Fristname Family name
Opus Arcana
843
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 03:56:00 -
[98] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Because when it comes to True HAV Balance, Nova Knives make for a far bigger problem and higher priority than perma-hardened blaster maddies and ineffective Swarms. Why not ask Rattati if you can trade out that unbearably offensive NK damage for a reasonable and fair limitation of 1 hardener per loadout? Bam! Instantly better HAV balance. No more NK QQ. Progress on two fronts. Happiness and high fives all around. But most importantly, instantly better HAV balance. Better HAV balance is the goal, right? Where did I express the idea that this would function to balance AV vs Tanks? Merely that the idea that a combat knife could meaningfully damage a tank.... is beyond laughable. Also it not necessarily a fair demand to limit modules unless you feel compelled to effect the same limitation on certain dropsuit modules which produce some of the most popular fittings.
KNIVES ARE ONLY GOOD AV AGAINST RETARDS, IF YOU DIE IN A TANK TO KNIVES ITS CAUSE YOU STAYED STILL. the knives shoulld never be nerfed just cause a few good scouts managed to kill your dam tank, like honestly its a cqc weapon, if your being knifed you probably have RE's on you already and are gonna die anyway.... and also wouldn't you want to have the hardener cap and then bring back logi vehicles first so you can have those balanced as well rather than just get things 'balanced' and then new logi ds comes and then that turns out to be op with the mods or something like that. but also what exactly needs to be balanced? can i have a little list of what needs to be balanced so we can all see whatss 'wrong' at the moment?
BAKA! Why would I love you!!
>blushes and looks down as you start to walk away i tug on your shirt and look in your eyes
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
18
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 04:11:00 -
[99] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Because when it comes to True HAV Balance, Nova Knives make for a far bigger problem and higher priority than perma-hardened blaster maddies and ineffective Swarms. Why not ask Rattati if you can trade out that unbearably offensive NK damage for a reasonable and fair limitation of 1 hardener per loadout? Bam! Instantly better HAV balance. No more NK QQ. Progress on two fronts. Happiness and high fives all around. But most importantly, instantly better HAV balance. Better HAV balance is the goal, right? Where did I express the idea that this would function to balance AV vs Tanks? Merely that the idea that a combat knife could meaningfully damage a tank.... is beyond laughable. Also it not necessarily a fair demand to limit modules unless you feel compelled to effect the same limitation on certain dropsuit modules which produce some of the most popular fittings.
Priorities, TA. Here we are in yet another HAV balance thread, and once again we find pilots scratching heads and dragging heels over serious and longstanding balance issues. Yet somehow, they've the strength of mind to find, complain reach consensus on something on "the other side" that they don't like ... something with of little-to-no effect whatsoever on True HAV Balance.
Do carry on.
As for what's fair, consider the cloak. It is truly crap. And yet dropsuits are limited to one per loadout. If CCP can find reason to limit something that's largely ineffective to one per loadout, why could they not do the same with something as overly effective?
Dropsuit Usage Rates
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
18
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 12:35:00 -
[100] - Quote
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:
Blaster Madrugars
* OP from Uprising 1.7 to Present (761 days and counting)
* "Don't touch my permahardened Blaster Maddie. It's popular!"
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
Dropsuit Usage Rates
|
|
|
Fristname Family name
Opus Arcana
844
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 14:40:00 -
[101] - Quote
how often do you guys actually lose you tanks to knives? lke knives alone, not if av is shooting you but a scout comes along and takes it, just knives. and was it cause you didn't move? then if so it was your fault, the knives weren't the problem but you were.....
Also as someone who runs everything as i have a few alts, I feel the av isn't a large issues, its more when its multiple people or if you allow them to poke for some time
BAKA! Why would I love you!!
>blushes and looks down as you start to walk away i tug on your shirt and look in your eyes
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 16:20:00 -
[102] - 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 -
[103] - 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 -
[104] - 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 -
[105] - 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~
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
631
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 17:21:00 -
[106] - 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
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 17:26:00 -
[107] - 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~
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
631
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 17:30:00 -
[108] - 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
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 17:31:00 -
[109] - 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 -
[110] - 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 -
[111] - 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~
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
631
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 17:58:00 -
[112] - 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
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
12
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 19:10:00 -
[113] - Quote
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.
Imagine a gigantic, shiny bug zapper.
Embrace your destiny.
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 19:12:00 -
[114] - 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 -
[115] - 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~
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 19:18:00 -
[116] - Quote
Fristname Family name wrote:how often do you guys actually lose you tanks to knives? lke knives alone, not if av is shooting you but a scout comes along and takes it, just knives. and was it cause you didn't move? then if so it was your fault, the knives weren't the problem but you were.....
Also as someone who runs everything as i have a few alts, I feel the av isn't a large issues, its more when its multiple people or if you allow them to poke for some time
I've never lost a tank to knives but that's not the reason I bring it up.
"That means Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space."
- Unnamed Gunnery Chief, The Citadel
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
12
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 22:12:00 -
[117] - Quote
On a certain level nova knives make sense if you're carving open a hatch to dump a grenade into the crew compartment.
Current method lends itself poorly to suspension of disbelief.
But that's all in the animations and controls. If we had a titanfall-esque rodeo mechanic (and the ability to use small turrets to burn off the leeches) then we could have NKs cutting in, or commandos tearing engine vents open.
Especially if the cost of a tank is a resource authorization that allows a vehicle to be resupplied several times during a battle after you lose one.
It's not the concept of NK AV that's idiotic.
It's how it works mechanically that grates on my brain.
Imagine a gigantic, shiny bug zapper.
Embrace your destiny.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 22:33:00 -
[118] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:On a certain level nova knives make sense if you're carving open a hatch to dump a grenade into the crew compartment.
Current method lends itself poorly to suspension of disbelief.
But that's all in the animations and controls. If we had a titanfall-esque rodeo mechanic (and the ability to use small turrets to burn off the leeches) then we could have NKs cutting in, or commandos tearing engine vents open.
Especially if the cost of a tank is a resource authorization that allows a vehicle to be resupplied several times during a battle after you lose one.
It's not the concept of NK AV that's idiotic.
It's how it works mechanically that grates on my brain.
Now I could certainly understand mechanics that represent dumping grenades into the crew compartment of an HAV as that would very badly damage the vehicles internal systems and crew. It is as you say though that the current depiction of Nova Knives as a form of AV does lend poorly to ones suspension of disbelief as frankly scathing blows from very short knives against armour that self repairs does not make as much sense as 'carving open a hatch'.
That said I cannot understand why this mechanic was brought to Dust 514. It's for the most part redundant. Knives very rarely score kills against HAV and even if they do most dropsuits are killed in the resultant explosion or simply ignored as the HAV pilot drives off.
I'd agree that it's not the concept of a Nova Knife being able to be used as an anti-vehicle tool but how CCP depicts it. Simply put there is very little a sci-fi knife could hope to do to sci-fi tank armour just by stabbing it. However if that knife were used to cleave open/off a section of armour or hatch to give other AV weapons a greater capacity to damage tanks then I could get behind it.
That said it's simply not a priority and likely will never see meaningful change leaving the mechanic out of place and immersion breaking.
I almost with Nova Knives themselves weren't core weapons but instead our melee action or even a melee stance we could take on all dropsuits.... but that is besides the point.
"That means Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space."
- Unnamed Gunnery Chief, The Citadel
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
12
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 23:49:00 -
[119] - Quote
NKs used to be the default but no one used them because the charge mechanic never really got figured out by theplayerbase, causing more trouble than they were worth integrated.
I want to see different suits get different default melee.
Scouts: NK.
Assault: rifle buttstroke.
Logi: strike enemy to infect with disassembler nanites that EAT YOU.
Commando: punching your breastplate out through your butthole.
Sentinel: grab and tear a piece of your suit off.
Imagine a gigantic, shiny bug zapper.
Embrace your destiny.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 00:22:00 -
[120] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:NKs used to be the default but no one used them because the charge mechanic never really got figured out by theplayerbase, causing more trouble than they were worth integrated.
I want to see different suits get different default melee.
Scouts: NK.
Assault: rifle buttstroke.
Logi: strike enemy to infect with disassembler nanites that EAT YOU.
Commando: punching your breastplate out through your butthole.
Sentinel: grab and tear a piece of your suit off.
Nah think about how we could get $300 CS:GO ultra rare knife skins!
"That means Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space."
- Unnamed Gunnery Chief, The Citadel
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 11:18:00 -
[121] - Quote
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.
"due to its nigh-invulnerability"
Until any form of AV, especially a rail (which to be fair was hella OP at the time) showed up, in which case, bye bye LDS. There was a reason why they were barely ever used in PC; hell, I only saw one other pilot using them in it other than myself, and like 4 LDS's in pubs period. Additionally, it could only tank like 1k-ish eHP. That would only in certain circumstances lengthen the ttk, and in those cases, unless you had a repairer on right then, you were generally screwed because of burn damage.
Also, it wasn't a free one, it literally was just using up a slot and resources; a forced module if you will.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 11:21:00 -
[122] - Quote
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
"Because it's New Eden" it's just like "Because it's [current year]" argument tbh; it's vague, and is general an excuse for foolishness to occur, because why the **** not?
No, JLAV's needs to die and stay dead.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 11:24:00 -
[123] - 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.
I still don't get why people think that light turrets should be able to punch way above its weight class. I get a medium turret, but this is a thing attached for mainly infantry razing/ vehicle protection, not blowing up big ****.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 11:26:00 -
[124] - 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.
My point wasn't that it was even effective really, just that it actually exists as a thing is just silly.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 11:28:00 -
[125] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Because when it comes to True HAV Balance, Nova Knives make for a far bigger problem and higher priority than perma-hardened blaster maddies and ineffective Swarms. Why not ask Rattati if you can trade out that unbearably offensive NK damage for a reasonable and fair limitation of 1 hardener per loadout? Bam! Instantly better HAV balance. No more NK QQ. Progress on two fronts. Happiness and high fives all around. But most importantly, instantly better HAV balance. Better HAV balance is the goal, right?
Okay, then for infantry, only one plate per loadout.
But we all know that won't fix ****, so let's cut it.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 11:30:00 -
[126] - Quote
Fristname Family name wrote:True Adamance wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Because when it comes to True HAV Balance, Nova Knives make for a far bigger problem and higher priority than perma-hardened blaster maddies and ineffective Swarms. Why not ask Rattati if you can trade out that unbearably offensive NK damage for a reasonable and fair limitation of 1 hardener per loadout? Bam! Instantly better HAV balance. No more NK QQ. Progress on two fronts. Happiness and high fives all around. But most importantly, instantly better HAV balance. Better HAV balance is the goal, right? Where did I express the idea that this would function to balance AV vs Tanks? Merely that the idea that a combat knife could meaningfully damage a tank.... is beyond laughable. Also it not necessarily a fair demand to limit modules unless you feel compelled to effect the same limitation on certain dropsuit modules which produce some of the most popular fittings. KNIVES ARE ONLY GOOD AV AGAINST RETARDS, IF YOU DIE IN A TANK TO KNIVES ITS CAUSE YOU STAYED STILL. the knives shoulld never be nerfed just cause a few good scouts managed to kill your dam tank, like honestly its a cqc weapon, if your being knifed you probably have RE's on you already and are gonna die anyway.... and also wouldn't you want to have the hardener cap and then bring back logi vehicles first so you can have those balanced as well rather than just get things 'balanced' and then new logi ds comes and then that turns out to be op with the mods or something like that. but also what exactly needs to be balanced? can i have a little list of what needs to be balanced so we can all see whatss 'wrong' at the moment?
He never said it was good AV. Nobody did. It's just stupid. It makes no logical sense why it exists.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 11:39:00 -
[127] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:True Adamance wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Because when it comes to True HAV Balance, Nova Knives make for a far bigger problem and higher priority than perma-hardened blaster maddies and ineffective Swarms. Why not ask Rattati if you can trade out that unbearably offensive NK damage for a reasonable and fair limitation of 1 hardener per loadout? Bam! Instantly better HAV balance. No more NK QQ. Progress on two fronts. Happiness and high fives all around. But most importantly, instantly better HAV balance. Better HAV balance is the goal, right? 1) Where did I express the idea that this would function to balance AV vs Tanks? Merely that the idea that a combat knife could meaningfully damage a tank.... is beyond laughable. 2) Also it not necessarily a fair demand to limit modules unless you feel compelled to effect the same limitation on certain dropsuit modules which produce (3) some of the most popular fittings. 1. Priorities, TA. Here we are in yet another HAV balance thread, and once again we find pilots scratching heads, dragging heels, and tiptoeing around serious and longstanding balance issues. Yet somehow, the same find the strength of mind to reach consensus on something that "the other side" has that they don't like ... something with little-to-no effect whatsoever on True HAV Balance. I'm glad you guys have made up your minds about Nova Knives, but just how many of these HAV "balance" threads will there be before real solutions for real problems are put forward? 2. Consider the cloak. It is truly bad, and yet dropsuits are limited to one per loadout. If CCP can find reason to limit something that's largely ineffective to one per loadout, why should they not do the same with something that's overly effective? Perhaps more importantly, if doing so would improve HAV balance -- which it would -- why would you and other pilots oppose it? Is it not the goal of this thread to find ways to improve HAV balance? 3. Let's assume that CCP oops'd one day and gave the best Assault suit in the game two light weapon slots. Would you expect that suit to account for some of the most popular fittings? Would you expect that suit to outsell and outperform available alternatives by wide margin? Sure, fixing the oversight would upset many an Assault user and put to pasture many a "most popular" overpowered fitting. But it'd still be the right thing to do. Right?
1: We've pretty much came to a "somewhat" consensus that the system needs a hell of a rework in order to actually function as intended. There's somewhat differing opinions on what that rework should entail, but a rework should be done. basically, we're biding our time until the overlord speaks.
2: That's a completely different thing lol. Like I said, you want a limit on your plates? your damage mods? I doubt it. hardeners are just another method of mitigation. I don't see why it should be limited.
Also, instead of screaming "HARDENERS HARDENERS" how about we look at the thing WE as the pilots have figured out months ago: Repairers.
3: Hardeners aren't a oversight, not sure what you're point is....
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 11:40:00 -
[128] - 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 up 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.
"Don't touch my permahardened Blaster Maddie. It's popular!"
That's not what a single pilot (I know of anyways) says. So you ****** up.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 11:58:00 -
[129] - Quote
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.
Top lel
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
18
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 14:32:00 -
[130] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Because when it comes to True HAV Balance, Nova Knives make for a far bigger problem and higher priority than perma-hardened blaster maddies and ineffective Swarms. Why not ask Rattati if you can trade out that unbearably offensive NK damage for a reasonable and fair limitation of 1 hardener per loadout? Bam! Instantly better HAV balance. No more NK QQ. Progress on two fronts. Happiness and high fives all around. But most importantly, instantly better HAV balance. Better HAV balance is the goal, right? Okay, then for infantry, only one plate per loadout. But we all know that won't fix ****, so let's cut it.
That's the type of plate that confers short-term invulnerability, right? If so, probably a good idea.
Dropsuit Usage Rates
|
|
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
18
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 15:02:00 -
[131] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:... instead of screaming "HARDENERS HARDENERS" how about we look at the thing WE as the pilots have figured out months ago: Repairers.
Over two years of broken tanks, hundreds and hundreds of "Let's fix HAV" threads, and guys have yet to make up your mind on what the actual problem is. But one thing's for sure ...
"Stacking Hardeners isn't the problem! Don't touch my permahardened maddie! It's popular!"
Dropsuit Usage Rates
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
18
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 16:32:00 -
[132] - Quote
From my vantage, Hardener Stacking is a problem. Here's why:
Assume that you've crept up undetected behind a stationary, hardened Blaster Maddie. When his hardener drops, you hit him with everything you've got. Lai Dais, Plasma Cannon, Proto Swarms. You call the mix and method. One of two most likely scenarios follow:
#1 - The Blaster Maddie hauls arse away, hoping and praying that another AVer does not engage.
#2 - The Blaster Maddie moves a few meters, clicks on another hardener, rotates turret and kills you.
Sadly, the second scenario is far from uncommon. This is why I think that Hardener Stacking is an issue. This is not good gameplay.
Dropsuit Usage Rates
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 18:46:00 -
[133] - 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~
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 20:34:00 -
[134] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Because when it comes to True HAV Balance, Nova Knives make for a far bigger problem and higher priority than perma-hardened blaster maddies and ineffective Swarms. Why not ask Rattati if you can trade out that unbearably offensive NK damage for a reasonable and fair limitation of 1 hardener per loadout? Bam! Instantly better HAV balance. No more NK QQ. Progress on two fronts. Happiness and high fives all around. But most importantly, instantly better HAV balance. Better HAV balance is the goal, right? Okay, then for infantry, only one plate per loadout. But we all know that won't fix ****, so let's cut it. That's the new type of plate that confers short-term invulnerability, right? Exciting! I agree with you. Probably a good idea to limit it to one per loadout. Wouldn't take infantry long to figure out that running more than one of those bad boys wholly negates the intended "windows of opportunity" design.
I like how people think that hardeners make Maddy's invulnerable, when the only thing that changed was repairers in the first place.
But like I said, we've gone over this stuff multiple times. This isn't new news. Well, maybe to you it is.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 20:47:00 -
[135] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:... instead of screaming "HARDENERS HARDENERS" how about we look at the thing WE as the pilots have figured out months ago: Repairers. Over two years of broken tanks, hundreds and hundreds of "Let's fix HAV" threads, and guys have yet to make up your mind on what the actual problem is. But one thing's for sure ... "Hardener stacking isn't the problem!"Given the spirit of what Devadander's trying to do here, why take cards off the table? Perhaps hardener stacking isn't at the root of the problem, but you can't deny its relative popularity and effectiveness. If hardener stacking doesn't work, why do so many do it and why would anyone oppose its limitation? If hardener stacking is popular because it works, perhaps it is working too well. How can you safely rule it out as a non-issue?
I've generally said the same thing over the last 2 years, give or take a few changes here and there to the current meta.
And you take nonfactors off the table, because IT'S NOT THE CAUSE OF THE ISSUE.
This is exactly why balance in this game is silly as it is. There's so much **** that doesn't make any sense. Look at the change from active reps to passive reps; nobody complained about hardeners. Nobody. Actually, scratch that, people complained that they were too weak in the case of shield hardeners, which nobody really talking about armor hardeners.
Then passive reps turns around, and everything turns to ****.
And So what if it's popular? It's highly popular in EVE too, lots of the time purely used, especially for solo ops where logistic support is rare. The thing that makes plates/extenders great in EVE, which also made it great in Dust is that it makes for a suitable environment to have logistic support in. That doesn't exist in Dust's current form, hence the popularity of solo fit optimization.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 20:50:00 -
[136] - 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"
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 my point is that we've had that **** since Dust's inception, and it wasn't deemed OP then, so I don't get why people are all of a sudden thinking that somehow is a good idea.
Also, I'd like to see what you'd have to say about the answers to my questions.
Top lel
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.22 21:06:00 -
[137] - 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~
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
18
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 00:40:00 -
[138] - Quote
Devadander wrote:
There will be no hardener limit.
That's a shame. Scenario #2 is a serious problem. So long as Scenario #2 is happening, HAV / AV interplay will remain broken. Limiting hardeners might furrow brows but it fixes the 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 activates 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!
Dropsuit Usage Rates
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
18
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 00:48:00 -
[139] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:
... hardeners aren't the problem ...
What I see in game simple. When caught off-guard and/or hit hard with AV, tanks which aren't hardened typically retreat and tanks which are hardened very often stand their ground. Perhaps there is a combination of factors at play, but the common denominator seems to be the hardener.
Dropsuit Usage Rates
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
635
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 02:00:00 -
[140] - 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
|
|
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 03:41:00 -
[141] - 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~
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
18
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 04:34:00 -
[142] - Quote
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. So long as Scenario #2 is happening, HAV/AV interplay will not be balanced. Limiting hardeners is the simplest and most assured solution. If the same can be accomplished by other means, then by all means, carry on.
Dropsuit Usage Rates
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 04:39:00 -
[143] - 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 -
[144] - 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~
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
18
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 05:33:00 -
[145] - Quote
Devadander wrote: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..Edit: because I'm not going to keep explaining stuff that has been laid out three-four pages ago
I've read the thread. Civil given the subject matter, lots of good ideas, much promise, etc. Kudos. But barring Thad's spreadsheet, I've yet to see anything in the way of specifics, hence my concerns. Let's not forget that flowery words and the best of intentions preceded Uprising 1.7.
I've contributed a specific problem scenario to the conversation. If you're telling me not to be concerned about the provided problem scenario -- that you've accounted for it in the plan you have in mind but not on paper -- then you're telling me this for the first time. Looking forward to seeing those numbers.
Dropsuit Usage Rates
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
18
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 05:34:00 -
[146] - Quote
Devadander wrote:
Edit: oh and if one person can easily kill an HAV, more than one (oh idk, a fireteam?) could wreck HAV before they left the line. Making gameplay for operators complete ****.
Sorry, not gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent.
Again, that's not what I'm asking for. Read carefully.
Dropsuit Usage Rates
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
18
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 05:42:00 -
[147] - Quote
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 you two years to nail down, and why didn't it make it into FoxFour?
Dropsuit Usage Rates
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
640
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 05:50:00 -
[148] - 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 -
[149] - 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
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 05:53:00 -
[150] - 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 -
[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 d*mn 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 bullsh*t. 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 sh*t 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 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 -
[154] - 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~
|
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 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 -
[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 d*mn 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] |