|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
   |
Posted - 2015.12.01 19:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
Summa Militum wrote:I feel that the Armor Hardener Module for vehicles should be used to allow vehicles to escape to safety. What I see now, specifically from Tanks, is they will activate the Armor Hardener Module and then continue to go about slaughtering everyone near them.
I suggest reverting Tanks and Dropships back to what they were before they were nerfed, remove passive Armor Repair from Tanks and Dropships, and decrease substantially the amount of time a Armor Hardener Module can stay active.
What are your thoughts?
I fundamentally disagree with your assertion on what the module should do.
In the present meta HAV do not nearly have enough RAW HP to sustain themselves in combat long enough to use the Armour Hardener Module solely as a means of escape from combat, nor in my mind should it be a tool specifically designed for such.
The armour hardener module to me represents a tactical active module designed to be used to extent the vehicles ability to operate while under fire for a short duration by mitigating a set amount of damage. However that damage mitigation should not be in excess of 20% per module. Moreover the HAV should have enough raw HP to avoid the almost instantaneous death mechanics of modern AV.
There should also be no restriction of module usage for vehicles unless infantry want to get used to the idea of combat with one armour repairer or shield extender. I've already seen multiple players establish in this thread that a tank with one modern hardener is not difficult to engage. There is no reason why under the only model vehicle modules should be restricted in number per fitting.
I suggest reverting vehicles back to how they were pre- Uprising 1.7 though keeping the positive advancement along the vein of ammunition and such.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.12.02 00:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
Summa Militum wrote:True Adamance wrote:Summa Militum wrote:I feel that the Armor Hardener Module for vehicles should be used to allow vehicles to escape to safety. What I see now, specifically from Tanks, is they will activate the Armor Hardener Module and then continue to go about slaughtering everyone near them.
I suggest reverting Tanks and Dropships back to what they were before they were nerfed, remove passive Armor Repair from Tanks and Dropships, and decrease substantially the amount of time a Armor Hardener Module can stay active.
What are your thoughts? I fundamentally disagree with your assertion on what the module should do. In the present meta HAV do not nearly have enough RAW HP to sustain themselves in combat long enough to use the Armour Hardener Module solely as a means of escape from combat, nor in my mind should it be a tool specifically designed for such. The armour hardener module to me represents a tactical active module designed to be used to extent the vehicles ability to operate while under fire for a short duration ... I put in bold the words "short duration". The armor hardener allows for a long duration of blasting people away while receiving heavy damage. People complain about how indestructible the gv.0 is on a regular basis because of what armor hardeners allow them to do. Also, I am under the impression that tanks were nerfed. I am suggesting reverting the tanks back to where they were before the nerf and instead nerfing the Armor Hardener Module.
Not that I disagree but a Hardener shouldn't become the de facto 'escape tool' because its duration is too short. In fact the duration of the module is relatively fine. What is not fine is the 40% of incoming damage it essentially allows you to ignore.
Moreover if it is relegated to an escape tool only what do you propose to offer pilots to allow them a modicum of survivability without it? The current meta essentially means all non hardened vehicles need to vacate the battlefield or risk being insta-blapped by high alpha AV reminiscent of a Tiger H1 taking a HE round to the ammo stores.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.12.02 02:09:00 -
[3] - Quote
Summa Militum wrote:
I would suggest the pilots move their vehicles regularly throughout the match instead of camping in one spot for several minutes at a time. Incorporate the art of committing drive by shootings. Try taking cover behind buildings when being shot at. Give tankers and especially Assault Drop Ships a warning siren that goes off whenever someone is attempting to lock onto them.
Honestly, if I were able to surf a tank and place a nanohive on top of it I probably wouldn't be complaining right now.
Tanks aren't and frankly shouldn't be designed for drive by shootings and Defilade is a core concept of modern tank warfare and I encourage any ground based vehicle pilot to learn how to apply the concept correctly.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.12.02 03:01:00 -
[4] - Quote
Summa Militum wrote:True Adamance wrote:Summa Militum wrote:
I would suggest the pilots move their vehicles regularly throughout the match instead of camping in one spot for several minutes at a time. Incorporate the art of committing drive by shootings. Try taking cover behind buildings when being shot at. Give tankers and especially Assault Drop Ships a warning siren that goes off whenever someone is attempting to lock onto them.
Honestly, if I were able to surf a tank and place a nanohive on top of it I probably wouldn't be complaining right now.
Tanks aren't and frankly shouldn't be designed for drive by shootings and Defilade is a core concept of modern tank warfare and I encourage any ground based vehicle pilot to learn how to apply the concept correctly. So how about you tell me what to do. What do I do when I am on a team with a bunch of idiots who do not have the common sense to try to destroy the tank that is slaughtering our team? I want to be able to drop my own Warbarge strike from the Warbarge I have. Upon me getting 1000 WPs I should be able to summon from the heavens above my vengeance to strike down on anyone who brings out a gv.0 in Pubs.
The simplest way is to build up infrastructure and spawn points around a point you want to control and ignore the HAV in question. There aren't exactly a huge number of maps upon which HAV have a grand effect and can control entire points.
Nothing pisses and HAV pilot off more than being completely ignored. For example I played a few matched against Duna and his lot 3-4 HAV on the field more often than not and they lost every game because we just sat on the points and didn't press them.
The other is simply a matter of meta but with the proliferation of AV capable soldiers on the rise your team will eventually reach a critical mass of AV. As long as they aren't trying to engage an HAV from open ground your team has the edge in pressing back vehicles of all kinds.
But this is getting off topic. The OP was about Hardeners which I have expressed my opinions about.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.12.02 04:07:00 -
[5] - Quote
TheEnd762 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Nothing pisses and HAV pilot off more than being completely ignored. I dunno. Getting jihad jeeped pisses them off pretty good.
That hasn't happened in a very long time.... in hind sight even back in the day it wasn't so bad because you could shot off the remote explosives with that pin point blaster.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.12.06 22:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:Nah, for the armor vehicles, the delay is well justified.
But, for Shield Hardeners - YES reduce delay, they deserve it!
There is a huge logical difference between those two, and shields are still underhand currently.
Tank vs Tank.... maybe but they more than make up for it when you stick gunners onto them..... vs infantry well I haven't lost a shield HAV yet even when under fire from 3 AVers.
The shield HAV is now essentially as OP vs AV as it was last build in the same way as it was last build..... just more so with an extra 1300 shielding.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.12.08 21:57:00 -
[7] - Quote
Baal Omniscient wrote:Change hardner duration to 10 seconds, change damage reduction amount to 45%, make repairs stronger but active, add a very low base repair rate on hulls (around 90-120 seconds to heal from empty to full on an unfitted hull).
Hardners become an escape module instead of a farming one, repairs return to requiring attention but due to small native reps you don't need to waste an active repair to top off your health before re-engaging. Increase the top speed of tanks slightly but increase acceleration time and cut the effect of speed mods in half.
Alternatively... Make tanks incapable of firing with hardeners active.
I have to completely oppose both of these suggestions. Not because they are wrong but because they push HAV in a direction I don't think would be health either for infantry players nor HAV pilots.
Rebalancing Hardeners to such incredibly low durations on serves to push vehicles pilots further into a corner where the only viable means to engaging infantry whatsoever is to play hit and run from the back of the map. It's doesn't much matter if the hardener yield is more powerful the active duration means that for every ten seconds of viability/survivability vs modern AV you have the remaining 50 seconds of the minute in down time out of the combat area.
Without a decent amount of RAW HP a modern vehicle simply cannot withstand the effects of AV fire in a meaningful way enough to have an effect on the map and with the majority of maps favouring objectives placed in area HAV cannot even fire into they are then even further reduced in role versatility.
As for not being able to fire with Hardeners on........ well there's already a glitch that does that and frankly such a change would make HAV absolutely useless as in their current form they cannot withstand any amount of meaningful AV fire without their hardeners.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.12.10 22:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
Summa Militum wrote:sullen maximus wrote:Summa Militum wrote:Lightning35 Delta514 wrote:Mmmm.....The problem is double hardened. Make it so we can only got one hardener.
It's quite easy to destroy tanks with only one. You are right about the slag jetting part but (idk if you tank or not) Thad part of the tank survival procedure, which involves firstly taking out the treat. The reason it's op is again cuz 2 hardeners. If we were to be restricted to 1, AV to tabks would be much more balanced and there would be a better change of infantry wiping out tanks.
I have been destroyed with team work. (4swarmandos all locked in and killed me).
It shouldn't take 1 person to destroy a well fitted 1m isk tank but they shouldn't be invincible to more than 2 AV-ers.
It, again, all comes down to the double hardened fitting. I disagree that 1 person shouldn't be able to take out a tank. If I hop on top of a tank and he starts moving I should move with the tank since I am standing on top of it. I should be able to hop on top of a tank, throw down a nanohive, and then repeatedly throw AV grenades down on the tank until it either blows up or the person driving the tank gets out to try to kill me. **** this easy mode ********. My issue with a tank earlier today was within a different scenario though. I ran up behind a tank and hit it with three AV grenades. The tank took substantial damage then drove off about 30 meters in one direction while I ran to a supply depot about 20 meters in the opposite direction to restock my AV grenades. When I went back after the tank I noticed his hardener was activated so I waited for the hardener to die down before engaging again. Finally when the hardener deactivated I go up to attack the tank just to find out that the tank was able to repair all of its armor during the timeframe of the hardener being activated. I hit the tank with 3 more AV grenades and the tank drove off about another 30 meters. The entire time this is happening the tank is slaughtering my teammates who were at that particular objective point. Now I find myself in the situation where the Supply Depot is 50 meters away from me with the tank being 80 meters from it; that's 130 meters I have to quickly travel in enough time to attack the tank again before he is able to reactivate the hardener. This is ********. It's a tank.....if he dies it will take 5 games to make back what the one vehicle cost.... so no you in your lone suit shouldn't be able to single handed take it out. I disagree.
Then Tanks need to be cheaper. They aren't worth 5+ profitable battles.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.12.11 00:45:00 -
[9] - Quote
Summa Militum wrote:
I might disagree.
I am currently pumping a lot of SP into Tanks right now so I can create an expensive and powerful tank to use to do a cost-benefit analysis on them.
Simply consider the economics of HAV units.
An investment at its highest tier of game-play at roughly 1.143 or 4-6 100% profit conflicts. Any losses while deploying these vehicles sets you back a further 4-6 games.
To earn the same amount as an infantryman would take even longer.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
|
|
| |
|