Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
kellyn whiteheart
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
54
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 21:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
there was a guy not long ago that posted a great way to balance tanks and he used BF3 as an example. in BF3 tanks one shot infantry. BUT they are also very easily killed and that works for BF3. in dust i think they should do the opoosite. make tanks harder to kill but do much lower damage. and maybe make it so there weapons do bonus damage to other vehicles. that way when theres mostly infantry on the ground tanks are used to absorb damage and provide cover fire and if the enemy team deploys a tank they r good at fighting each other. the only major balance will be AV weapons that infantry use. because if 1 tank shows up you dont want every1 calling a tank. tanks should be used to spearhead attacks on objectives that are heavily fortified.
i know there is nothing real specific here but its a thought and i got my info from another thread that i cant find.
thoughts...? |
Relyt R
Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 23:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
I agree with nerfing weapons and buffing health, but i would like to see that across all aspects of the game |
I-Shayz-I
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
172
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 21:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
As long as this game stays in the balancing realms of Halo and not CoD.
With halo, you have to actually shoot the guy for quite a while before he goes down. In CoD, it's like 3 bullets kill. Then again, CoD doesn't have shields, and halo has things like rocket launchers and energy swords... |
Th3rdSun
L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising
323
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 22:00:00 -
[4] - Quote
Honestly,probably the single easiest way for CCP to balance tanks is to put an ammo supply on vehicles,that way they can't just sit on top of a hill just blasting down on people the whole match.
|
Tiel Syysch
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
633
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 22:11:00 -
[5] - Quote
I've asked for high hp, low damage vehicles I don't even know how many times now. |
Bhor Derri
Legion of Eden
95
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 11:11:00 -
[6] - Quote
Umm NO! nerfing weps and buffing armor will not change much just increase the duration of fights making the game slowwer -1 |
Pranekt Tyrvoth
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz RISE of LEGION
177
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 11:39:00 -
[7] - Quote
No. Tanks are fine as they are now. Dropships are fine as they are now. |
Waruiko DUST
G I A N T
90
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 14:38:00 -
[8] - Quote
Tanks and Dropships aren't fine as they are now, but I agree this isn't the answer at all. |
Sev Alcatraz
Tritan-Industries Legacy Rising
185
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 15:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
it a tank.
it kills things efficiently.
it is meant to take a beating.
infantry should have a hard time killing a tank they shouldn't say "oh a tank *blam*"
my tank is worth over 3 million your dropsuit is worth about 100 thousand. it'snot getting blown up by a random with swarms in one hit |
Pranekt Tyrvoth
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz RISE of LEGION
177
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 15:03:00 -
[10] - Quote
Sev Alcatraz wrote:it a tank.
it kills things efficiently.
it is meant to take a beating.
infantry should have a hard time killing a tank they shouldn't say "oh a tank *blam*"
my tank is worth over 3 million it not getting blown up by a random with swarms in one hit
People have this misconception that they should be able to (at all times) 1v1 everything or kill everything with ease. If it doesn't have significant shields/armor, if it doesn't have enough power to make a difference on the battlefield, it isn't a heavy assault vehicle, nor is it a 'tank' of any kind.
Whining about things because you don't do what is required to effectively counter them is laziness and shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded. Optimizing yourself to be able to neutralize said threats is the answer, not calling for nerfs.
I have little trouble with tank and even less trouble with dropships. |
|
Laurent Cazaderon
Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation
1155
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 15:32:00 -
[11] - Quote
Relyt R wrote:I agree with nerfing weapons and buffing health, but i would like to see that across all aspects of the game
Not regarding infantry. We're pretty tough as it is.
Regarding HAVs, they're not overpowered. They just have the ability to use an OP turret : missiles. Without that, i wouldnt hesitate to say that they might need a HP buff. Why ? because without missile, they would actually need to get close using blasters and thus be exposed to way more danger. And an HAV should have a solid survivability.
Now, they also should have a high fire power, but for the sake of the game it should require skill. not spamming an area with endless missile like it is now. Kills the fun and makes HAV user look like they're EZ modders. |
Tmills6
Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic
23
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 18:58:00 -
[12] - Quote
+1 as an old tank driver I'd be willing to drive a tank again once they get some more hp. and I've been saying for a while it's the turrets not the hp that is OP |
lordjanuz
Norwegian Dust514 Corporation
88
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 20:22:00 -
[13] - Quote
Tanks and DS is not the problem, we just need more things that we can skill to kill them, drones, mines, web, installations, and what is fun, it will come.
I agree that it must be a team effort to take down a 2 mill tank/DS not one man with militia equipment.
I am not worried, and just as it is said, I dont fly DS and drive tanks.
Thoose DS is damn hard to fly, all kudos to thoose manage it. |
Shiro Mokuzan
GunFall Mobilization Covert Intervention
106
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 21:05:00 -
[14] - Quote
Missile turrets are overpowered, but tanks themselves need a defense buff, IMO. they don't last long at all unless they hide in the back and snipe with missiles. |
Nomed Deeps
The Exemplars
91
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 21:22:00 -
[15] - Quote
I think alot of the problem is all of the AV weapons have delays to fire yet tanks can spew constant, unlimited fire from three different points. Therefore, even if there are multiple forge gunners, the forge gunners can all be wiped out by one tank before their forges are fully powered to fire. The delay in AV weapons also give tanks time to repair where tanks can too easily run into red zones to repair. Therefore, I think AV weapon delays should be severely lessened or removed. At the very least increase tank reload times with limited rounds. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 21:51:00 -
[16] - Quote
Nomed Deeps wrote:I think alot of the problem is all of the AV weapons have delays to fire yet tanks can spew constant, unlimited fire from three different points. Therefore, even if there are multiple forge gunners, the forge gunners can all be wiped out by one tank before their forges are fully powered to fire. The delay in AV weapons also give tanks time to repair where tanks can too easily run into red zones to repair. Therefore, I think AV weapon delays should be severely lessened or removed. At the very least increase tank reload times with limited rounds. The only way tanks can spew "constant unlimited fire" is with Missile Turrets.
Another of the problems everyone has with them.
If they had a reload delay after each shot, or after a certain number of missiles, it wouldn't be so bad, and they'd be better balanced against the other weapons.
Railguns have charge time, Blasters overheat, Missiles... just keep killing.
EDIT: I'm not sure if I'm in favour of limited ammo for vehicles, by the way. But having a limit to how many missiles you can spam in one go would be nice, and a reload delay after a specific number of shots would work. |
Vance Alken
Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
94
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 21:57:00 -
[17] - Quote
IMO tanks (and all vehicles for that matter) should just have an ammo supply. (except lasers ofc)
No stupid BF3 'magazine' **** either, gotta resupply at the supply stations. |
Shiro Mokuzan
GunFall Mobilization Covert Intervention
106
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 07:59:00 -
[18] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Nomed Deeps wrote:I think alot of the problem is all of the AV weapons have delays to fire yet tanks can spew constant, unlimited fire from three different points. Therefore, even if there are multiple forge gunners, the forge gunners can all be wiped out by one tank before their forges are fully powered to fire. The delay in AV weapons also give tanks time to repair where tanks can too easily run into red zones to repair. Therefore, I think AV weapon delays should be severely lessened or removed. At the very least increase tank reload times with limited rounds. The only way tanks can spew "constant unlimited fire" is with Missile Turrets. Another of the problems everyone has with them. If they had a reload delay after each shot, or after a certain number of missiles, it wouldn't be so bad, and they'd be better balanced against the other weapons. Railguns have charge time, Blasters overheat, Missiles... just keep killing. EDIT: I'm not sure if I'm in favour of limited ammo for vehicles, by the way. But having a limit to how many missiles you can spam in one go would be nice, and a reload delay after a specific number of shots would work. I think what missiles need is a lockon time before they fire, and that lockon time should dependent on the target's signature size. |
Drommy Hood
Tritan-Industries Legacy Rising
242
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 08:52:00 -
[19] - Quote
Nerf missile splash
That is all |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 12:32:00 -
[20] - Quote
Shiro Mokuzan wrote:I think what missiles need is a lockon time before they fire, and that lockon time should dependent on the target's signature size. That could get VERY interesting... |
|
Governor Odius
Doomheim
177
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 12:40:00 -
[21] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Nomed Deeps wrote:I think alot of the problem is all of the AV weapons have delays to fire yet tanks can spew constant, unlimited fire from three different points. Therefore, even if there are multiple forge gunners, the forge gunners can all be wiped out by one tank before their forges are fully powered to fire. The delay in AV weapons also give tanks time to repair where tanks can too easily run into red zones to repair. Therefore, I think AV weapon delays should be severely lessened or removed. At the very least increase tank reload times with limited rounds. The only way tanks can spew "constant unlimited fire" is with Missile Turrets. Another of the problems everyone has with them. If they had a reload delay after each shot, or after a certain number of missiles, it wouldn't be so bad, and they'd be better balanced against the other weapons. Railguns have charge time, Blasters overheat, Missiles... just keep killing. EDIT: I'm not sure if I'm in favour of limited ammo for vehicles, by the way. But having a limit to how many missiles you can spam in one go would be nice, and a reload delay after a specific number of shots would work. When they implement capacitor I bet we'll see something like that. Spray missiles too fast your cap runs dry and you can't do anything for a while until it recharges.
Will be especially tough on people who rely on blue dots to man the small guns. Blue dots won't care about your cap, they'll just spam missiles. Then you can't shoot with a decent ROF or even activate any mods. |
steadyhand amarr
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
338
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 13:25:00 -
[22] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Shiro Mokuzan wrote:I think what missiles need is a lockon time before they fire, and that lockon time should dependent on the target's signature size. That could get VERY interesting...
That's not a bad idea tbh would give forgers a chance and keep missles useful Could still have dum fire missles their but at reduced damage
|
EnglishSnake
Zumari Force Projection Caldari State
1012
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 14:09:00 -
[23] - Quote
steadyhand amarr wrote:Garrett Blacknova wrote:Shiro Mokuzan wrote:I think what missiles need is a lockon time before they fire, and that lockon time should dependent on the target's signature size. That could get VERY interesting... That's not a bad idea tbh would give forgers a chance and keep missles useful Could still have dum fire missles their but at reduced damage
A lock on time?
Really bad idea
Thats like a BC trying to lock onto a frig, would take forever aswell as the other turrets not requiring a lock on either so why bother with missiles at all
Forge gunners already have a chance as it is, they have never had it so easy |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 15:17:00 -
[24] - Quote
EnglishSnake wrote:steadyhand amarr wrote:Garrett Blacknova wrote:Shiro Mokuzan wrote:I think what missiles need is a lockon time before they fire, and that lockon time should dependent on the target's signature size. That could get VERY interesting... That's not a bad idea tbh would give forgers a chance and keep missles useful Could still have dum fire missles their but at reduced damage A lock on time? Really bad idea Thats like a BC trying to lock onto a frig, would take forever aswell as the other turrets not requiring a lock on either so why bother with missiles at all Forge gunners already have a chance as it is, they have never had it so easy I DON'T agree with the suggestion of dumbfire dealing reduced damage, and I don't even like the idea of being able to lock onto infantry (unless Swarms can do it too - also with a lock speed penalty).
But if they made vehicle Missile Turrets which can be dumbfired OR locked on at the user's discretion, and deal full damage when dumbfired, but without the precision they currently have so they lose effectiveness vs. infantry over longer ranges, would you support that? Because I think it would be interesting at least, and has potential. Also, IF they introduce dropsuit locking, then the lock speeds should be FASTER for Missile Turrets than for Swarm Launchers, because as you said, doing otherwise would be a ridiculous over-nerf.
Locking onto a well-dampened Scout should take about as long as the worst-case scenario with a Militia Swarm Launcher in the current build. And Swarm locks on infantry should take significantly longer than that. |
EnglishSnake
Zumari Force Projection Caldari State
1012
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 18:15:00 -
[25] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:EnglishSnake wrote:steadyhand amarr wrote:Garrett Blacknova wrote:Shiro Mokuzan wrote:I think what missiles need is a lockon time before they fire, and that lockon time should dependent on the target's signature size. That could get VERY interesting... That's not a bad idea tbh would give forgers a chance and keep missles useful Could still have dum fire missles their but at reduced damage A lock on time? Really bad idea Thats like a BC trying to lock onto a frig, would take forever aswell as the other turrets not requiring a lock on either so why bother with missiles at all Forge gunners already have a chance as it is, they have never had it so easy I DON'T agree with the suggestion of dumbfire dealing reduced damage, and I don't even like the idea of being able to lock onto infantry (unless Swarms can do it too - also with a lock speed penalty). But if they made vehicle Missile Turrets which can be dumbfired OR locked on at the user's discretion, and deal full damage when dumbfired, but without the precision they currently have so they lose effectiveness vs. infantry over longer ranges, would you support that? Because I think it would be interesting at least, and has potential. Also, IF they introduce dropsuit locking, then the lock speeds should be FASTER for Missile Turrets than for Swarm Launchers, because as you said, doing otherwise would be a ridiculous over-nerf. Locking onto a well-dampened Scout should take about as long as the worst-case scenario with a Militia Swarm Launcher in the current build. And Swarm locks on infantry should take significantly longer than that.
Depends
How would the missiles work? would they be able to turn and track a target like the SL does but obv not go around cover because its OP tbh
Also depends on lock on time
Sometimes its easier to hammer the spot than to lock on that way your keeping them in cover and not wasting time if they do pop out only to lose lock
Lock itself would be good for long distance but the majority of the time you can dumbfire from certain spots and hit the target but then again would it be OP towards dropships and bolas dropping off vehicles
I wouldnt really be too fussed but i dont think missiles should cause diff damage if its locked or dumbfired because am i carrying 2 diff missiles? no so the diff damage is a stupid idea but for the launcher itself i think atm its not needed as of yet |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 18:44:00 -
[26] - Quote
EnglishSnake wrote:How would the missiles work? would they be able to turn and track a target like the SL does but obv not go around cover because its OP tbh Obviously, that needs fixing on Swarms anyway. But yes, tracking. If you didn't get that, would would be the point of locking on?
Quote:Also depends on lock on time Like I said, I think it would be too hard a nerf if they took as long as Swarms to lock on. And as mentioned, there would be the lower-precision dumbfire option, so you could spread missiles over an area without having to lock.
Quote:Sometimes its easier to hammer the spot than to lock on that way your keeping them in cover and not wasting time if they do pop out only to lose lock
Lock itself would be good for long distance but the majority of the time you can dumbfire from certain spots and hit the target but then again would it be OP towards dropships and bolas dropping off vehicles And hopefully that will be how it works. You're not likely to land a direct hit, but you might be able to keep the target in cover or get a few lucky hits near enough to catch them with splash - if you're close, splash should be pretty likely to land where you want it to. This would only change your approach to long-range fire, because you couldn't reliably hit a target from great distance, you'd be spraying the entire area randomly, missing more often than you hit anything unless you can get a lock.
Quote:I wouldnt really be too fussed but i dont think missiles should cause diff damage if its locked or dumbfired because am i carrying 2 diff missiles? no so the diff damage is a stupid idea but for the launcher itself i think atm its not needed as of yet Agreed. Not saying it's needed, just that it could be interesting and a good way to both make missiles unique AND improve balance on them. |
Galasdir
Commando Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.15 00:16:00 -
[27] - Quote
I think an easy fast way to balance this is giving missile turrets longer reload times... Good enough so a bunch of people could counter the tank if it's sniping... |
GamerEvan77
One-Armed Bandits Orbital Rights
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.15 02:33:00 -
[28] - Quote
Th3rdSun wrote:Honestly,probably the single easiest way for CCP to balance tanks is to put an ammo supply on vehicles,that way they can't just sit on top of a hill just blasting down on people the whole match.
I never thought about this, but it's actually a very good idea. I agree. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 :: [one page] |