Antonius Dacinci
Bragian Order
Amarr Empire
65
   |
Posted - 2012.09.11 06:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
Let me explain the basic principle of whats going to happen in the next 2 years, for what people are aware of planned features, first, not only do tanks have to be this powerful and more but they are also going to be one of the smaller vehicles in our arsenals when the full on warfare is implemented. Our tanks are designed to be Heavy ASSAULT Vehicles, meaning their role is to be on the front line taking hits and yes causing 50 kill streaks if they are smart and prepared, but you know why? because when the game releases it is very probable that there are going to be planetary battles where noone is actually defending, people are mercenaries, our factions are just set up as a stand in for more advanced features. There was a passing comment once about faction warfare which is basically what we are playing.
So this goes onto the other half where we have 9/10th of the game to go so all balance has basically been thrown out the window, so really stop trying to suggest vague and overarching balance concerns and actually do some number crunching.
Things I've noticed while number crunching with tank turrets.
Missile launchers DPS is the same as a Railguns, and in fact more on the rapid fire ones but without cool down penalties, of course there are different balance issues but blunt and simple how come missile launchers just get a raw better deal? (Maybe because railguns are for sniping but I dunno)
Blaster turrets have 4 massive problems, their muzzle flash is so large you cant use in first person, their damage is too dispersed to actually take out infantry like they are supposed to, their range is too short to be a proper weapon against the range anti vehicle weapons are being used against you, and they do less damage AND even heat faster then railguns, so they can't take out tanks either.
Railguns are well pretty good guns, they are very effective vs tanks, but maybe a bit too effective vs infantry, so I dunno what to make of that, they might need their AoE damage or range nerfed by about 20% to make it so they aren't terrorizing the whole feild but this is without having proper full cost powerarmour so any values are expected to be balanced against top of the line stuff.
And these all build into the biggest and most significant problem with all these idiots trying to say tanks are OP, sure you can't exactly kill them but of course your going to die to one shot on them when they have 8x the SP you have and their vehicles cost 500x as much. If you tally up the costs of good equipment and the SP to equal that of a even a low level tank, your going to have enough firepower and durability to survive direct tank shots which are uncommon but you can very easily survive AoE damage.
So seriously enough with these bloody tanksareop topics and actually talk about numerical balancing what can be done. (I would love to see blasters damage doubled) |
Antonius Dacinci
Bragian Order
Amarr Empire
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 06:30:00 -
[2] - Quote
Lasers vehicle and infantry : Dedicated anti shield weaponry, Physical guns including artillery : Dedicated anti armour weaponry.
Armour hardeners and of course the resistance stats coming with them.
Timesplitter just saying, there's a few of us tank pilots who basically just hunt other tanks.
Fielding number of tanks I don't think is the problem but I do agree on number problems, simply stated, we need a disposable vehicle such as a motorcycle which costs close to 0 vehicle points, we need cheaper anti vehicle tanks whos weapons are less effective versus infantry, we need LAVs to be balanced out slightly because they actually have the ability to use advanced logistics modules for infantry and tanks. We also need to solve some "Persistence" issues which is causing almost all of these problems. I think it would be interesting to see the discussions on OP tanks if the devs remove instant battle and have ONLY corp vs Corp. |