DUST Search - My proposition to balance vehicles, turrets, and AV

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

My proposition to balance vehicles, turrets, and AV

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.15 05:45:00 - [1] - Quote I sent this in to some members of CCP, and others have asked me for it and thought itGÇÖd be worthwhile to post for the community at large. Here are my thoughts on what to do with the current state of vehicles, turrets, and AV. Some edits have been made from the original email, largely because I canGÇÖt attach an excel sheet here to reference all the changes. Sorry if thereGÇÖs anything that I forgot to edit that makes it sound weird. Fair warning - this is going to be a long post. Alright, so I've messed with numbers quite a bit, which are all on post 4. What I have is a huge reduction in damage for the vehicle turrets, because I'm basing them on not being able to oneshot people at max turret skill, except for things like railguns, which the small will be able to oneshot weaker suits with some skill investment, and the large will possibly drop some heavies. The numbers, though, are balanced around max skill, which current numbers don't feel like they are (you can build a large missile tank that hits for something like 7600 damage per shot vs armor, small missiles that hit for >500 splash damage [IGÇÖve found much higher damages since typing this up, such as 900 splash damage per hit, even more fair], totally dumb and it doesn't feel like you guys are aware of things like that, so some current stuff is waaaay broken). The numbers are also close to infantry weapon damage ranges (not necessarily intentional, just what they came out to doing from what I felt would be a good starting position on damage): - Small missile hits like mass driver splash - Small blaster hits like AR - Small rail hits like pistol - Large missile hits a little harder than a proto mass driver - Large blaster hits like HMG - Large rail hits kinda like an infinite clip sniper rifle The numbers for the above comparisons are the adjusted damage/minute values taking reloads into consideration (they donGÇÖt include SP investment for damage bonuses on the handheld weapon side of things, though). I'd honestly be fine, in theory, with blasters and rails losing their overheat, considering missiles don't have them. I think in the long-term, having reload functions on the turrets would be a possibility if it's needed, I'm not a fan of the proposition that comes up every now and then of them having finite ammo. So for the numbers, I think it's easy to read and doesn't need much explanation. The damage is listed as dpm, not dps, and there are 2 values there. The first is base damage, the second following the comma is max skill damage (this is present in both per round damage and dpm values). Railguns have just the turret op, hybrid turret op, and hybrid turret prof skill bonuses. Blasters have the 3 skills plus marauder for gallente tank use. Missiles have those 4 skills plus 2 20% damage modules taken into consideration, for caldari tank use and having the low slots "available" to dump damage mods into easily (a lot of people seem to on caldari vehicles). The large turrets are all 1.56x the strength of the corresponding small turret in terms of dpm, I tweaked numbers slightly to get them in-line with each other for the most part, 2 ended up being the same so I just made the 3rd as well. So, all the damage values are basically balanced around the modified damage, rather than things getting wildly out of control once people skill into them like now. Missiles took the biggest hit overall, but everything dropped pretty drastically. I tweaked a couple rate of fires, I think mainly for missiles, both large and small got slower, largely because of their ability to just keep you staring at your feet from the damage jerk. The railgun RoF also is just a combination of the charge+cooldown time, they should be the numbers we have now.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.15 05:45:00 - [2] - Quote I've got some proposed ranges in there as well, and I'm not sure how you are able to tweak the falloff, if you can do it how I want. Basically the numbers there, such as the blaster one... 150 (100%) GÇô 200 (75%) GÇô 250 (50%) GÇô 275 (0%) ...means that up to 150m it'll do 100% damage, then by 200m you'd hit for 75%, then by 250m you'd hit for 50%, then it'd drop to 0% by 275m. The * on the missiles and railgun means max range, have them blow up at that distance. They don't need infinite range, that's part of the problem with them that'll never be balanced if they can shoot forever. I'd be fine with small turrets being the same or slightly lower range, I only have numbers for the large turrets. I've also only got the standard variants listed, so for things like the railgun that takes longer to charge but hits harder could still be a variant based off these new numbers. As for balancing hp, I think the easiest way to do this would be to cut AV damage by 50%. Again, being balanced around max skills and damage module use. Right now, it just hits too hard vs everything. All vehicles need more hp, and this would be the easiest way to do it without breeding super tanks. I forget what the numbers were, but it was something like 8-9 proto swarms or so to drop a max-fit armor tank with the 50% damage decrease, which I feel is a good place, because that's not much with coordinated teams, which is where the balance should come, restrict vehicle usage in public games to balance that if needed. That's swarms, forges, and grenades that need to take a hit to their damage. I think the REs and proximity mines are good for their damage and won't be a problem since they require you to drive over where they placed them in advance, instead of them taking the damage to the vehicle. One thing that does need to be balanced for vehicles - the active hardener should only allow either one to be equipped at a time, or only one active at a time, however that's possible or how you want to handle it. We came across a Sagaris earlier that had I think 2 active hardeners and 3 repairs, and it was nearly impossible to bring down, and we only did because he apparently went braindead and charged out into the open and we just pooped on him with a dropship nonstop. He was invincible otherwise when he hid behind cover, and that kind of fit would be a problem with lowering all AV/vehicle damage overall. So, limit the active hardeners in some way that they can't have 2 going at once, especially since that stacks with missile resistance for shield tanks. I think the small missiles end up in a nice place, though, doing ~140 splash damage at max skill with 2 damage mods, ~115 without the marauder bonus which is where it'd be on an LAV/dropship. I think that's a good spot, since it's significant enough that it'd make an impact on someone, but not so bad that you'd be oneshotting heavies like we do right now. With the damage back-loaded, meaning you get more of your damage after the skill investment instead of being able to just rampage from the get-go, it also prevents the nonsense of free LAV missile platforms, if they're dealing much lower damage. It'll be a problem in public games forever if they're hitting as hard as they do now - no SP or ISK investment just spitting missiles across the map at people. Overall, this will make the vehicles much more support (I hope). LAVs and dropships won't be full on assault vehicles, and a tank will function like a high hp dropsuit that has 3 people fused together in it, focus-firing all their guns. It'll hit about as hard as an infantry weapon with only the driver in it, but it'll be 3 guns in one with passengers, which will make it more effective and able to assault, but the damage won't be so high that it can just pound people into the ground without having resistance. The damage drop will also prevent a bunch of run and gun kind of tactics, which I personally feel shouldn't be as effective as they are. They will still happen, but they'll be more "soften up a group" and less "kill everything in the area." I think the damage may be coming down too much and possibly relying on SP too much, but values are based on current skills giving the bonuses they do. If you want to remove damage from the skills, and do something like turret turn speed instead, then I'd bump up the base damage to compensate.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.15 05:45:00 - [3] - Quote Other kinda related issues: 1. Resists are still useless at their current values. I have the math that shows it. 15% or lower does not outperform the bonus you get from simply adding more raw hp (at least for armor vehicles anyway, Noc says shield resists are as useless). 25% was too much, but only for shields really, since most AV is missile-based, and shields get a damage reduction vs those as well. Maybe 18-20% as the highest to make them viable? I'm currently regretting the 120k SP I have in armor adaptation L2 right now, because it does nothing for me. 2. Afterburner module has too high fitting cost, unless you want only one dropship to be able to use it, and not be able to fit much of anything else when doing so. 3. Militia swarms either need to go, or we need a militia forge to have more balanced AV options, otherwise shields will have an advantage in public games. 4. Shield modules are way more expensive than armor modules. Like upwards of 5x the ISK cost. Bring shields down, not armor up. 5. Please remove burning armor. It doesn't make any sense, and forces everyone to active armor tank or risk being punished for barely surviving. It's not a fun mechanic, it doesn't make the game any more enjoyable to play whenever it happens, regardless of what side of it I'm on. 6. Not related, but frag grenade damage needs to go down. It's kinda related to the tank thing in that it's not fun to be oneshot, which is why vehicle damage needs to come down. I personally think frag grenade damage should range 100-400 damage, not whatever it is now, which I think is 3/400-6/700. It was more passable with the old suit hp levels, but it's not ok anymore. 7. Railgun turret needs to be instant hit again to compensate for its turn speed and to make it stand out from missiles. 8. Swarm pathing is still broken. It feels like it's trying to follow the path the vehicle it's locked onto is taking, rather than trying to hit the vehicle. They literally fly at dropships, go past them, then turn around and follow the path the dropship is taking until it hits. They're acting really weird this build. 9. Small turrets on ground vehicles still jerk all around. Dropship turrets are fine and just have to compensate momentum, it doesn't feel like compensating momentum on ground vehicles, they still feel like they just spazz the hell out and fire off to the side. It's not a natural correction to pick up, nor is it consistent, like it is with dropships. The jerking around is the worst it has ever been with any build from my experience. I honestly really want to be able to see how things go with these kinds of changes following the tournament (just because there should be no balancing during the tournament period). You may not agree with them, but it's for science! They're just number changes, just let people know on the forums that there's gonna be a drastic change for temporary testing, and if things go horribly wrong, revert the numbers. As things are now, though, there needs to be something drastic done. Missiles are the biggest offenders, but all turrets are wildly out of control with damage output, which is making all vehicles kind of ridiculous and impossible to balance. If the damage goes down, the hp has to go up, and AV damage is absurd as well right now because everyone complains tanks are too hard to kill, so it just kinda screwed everything. It's all about things being fun, and it's not fun to die in one hit, especially when all these people are going to be running expensive dropsuits, to just lose one if you're touched kinda slightly by a vehicle isn't fun.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.15 05:45:00 - [4] - Quote turret / damage (splash) , max skill damage (splash) / RoF / dpm (splash dpm) , max skill dpm (splash) LARGE Standard missile / 45x4 (30x4) , 105.8x4 (70.6x4) / 3.3 / 3272 , 7698 (2181 , 5132) Adv missile / 49.5x4 (33x4) , 116.4x4 (77.6x4) / 3.3 / 3600 , 8468 (2400 , 5645) Proto missile / 54x4 (36x4) , 127x4 (84.7x4) / 3.3 / 3927 , 9238 (2618 , 6158) Range : 200 (100%) GÇô 300 (75%) GÇô 400 (50%) Standard blaster / 25 , 41.7 / 428.6 / 10715 , 17891 Adv blaster / 27.5 , 45.9 / 428.6 / 11786 , 19681 Proto blaster / 30 , 50.1 / 428.6 / 12858 , 21470 Range: 150 (100%) GÇô 200 (75%) GÇô 250 (50%) GÇô 275 (0%) Standard rail / 350 , 487 / 2.8 / 7500 , 10436 Adv rail / 385 , 535.7 / 2.8 / 8250 , 11479 Proto rail / 420 , 584.4 / 2.8 / 9000 , 12523 Range: 300 (100%) GÇô 450 (75%) GÇô 600 (50%) SMALL Standard missile / 70 (50) , 164.7 (117.6) / 2 / 2100 , 4940 (1500 , 3528) Adv missile / 77 (55) , 181 (129.4) / 2 / 2310 , 5434 (1650 , 3881) Proto missile / 84 (60) , 197.6 (141.1) / 2 / 2520 , 5928 (1800 , 4234) Standard blaster / 8 , 13.4 / 857.1 / 6856 , 11449 Adv blaster / 8.8 , 14.7 / 857.1 / 7542 , 12594 Proto blaster / 9.6 , 16 / 857.1 / 8228 , 13739 Standard rail / 160 , 222.6 / 2 / 4800 , 6679 Adv rail / 176 , 244.9 / 2 / 5280 , 7347 Proto rail / 192 , 267.2 / 2 / 5760 , 8015 Other weapons base dpm values GÇô adjusted for reloads GÇô standard / proto AR GÇô 13846 / 16615 Sniper GÇô 9250 / 11100* SMG GÇô 12307 / 14769 Pistol GÇô 7411 / 8894 HMG GÇô 19662 / 23595 Mass Driver GÇô 6750 / 8100 (3450 / 4140 splash) *not adjusted for reloads If you want to compare current dpm values for turrets, at proto level, standard variants - base / modified by skills: LARGE Missile - 48672 (30576) / 114496 (71926) Blaster - 58503 / 97688 Railgun - 37374 / 52005 SMALL Missile - 17062 (9750) / 40136 (22935) Blaster - 23398 / 39069 Railgun - 16533 / 23005
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 369	Posted - 2012.11.15 07:48:00 - [5] - Quote This thread is full of win.
Umbat Boki Circle of Huskarl Minmatar Republic 157	Posted - 2012.11.15 08:20:00 - [6] - Quote I think you wrote mainly about corp-corp battles. There is also random matches. Also economic aspect needs to be analysed imo.
Baal Roo Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 811	Posted - 2012.11.15 08:37:00 - [7] - Quote Here, have all my likes
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1155	Posted - 2012.11.15 11:57:00 - [8] - Quote Overall a pretty good job and good view of infantry\vehicle balance. i'd support the idea of reconsidering Turret damage any day ! But, i'm surprised you didnt add a HP buff to vehicles with those corrections, dont you think it might be very much needed then ? Also, aside from OP turrets and everything. Numbers wont fix vehicle infantry dynamics. I'm convinced now that level design should. Outposts are nothing like outposts, we should see huge buildings with room for battles in it. Where vehicles can't go. If i attack a biomass facility, i expect to fight inside it at some point and not just on the parking lot...
Ty 'SweetCheeks' Borg Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 192	Posted - 2012.11.15 13:42:00 - [9] - Quote I agree with pretty much all points here tbh, it's what I'm experiencing and it's also what I felt was needed to change. Basically nerf turret damage and nerf AV, correct?. This way you don't need to touch the tanks HP as it stands. I totally agree that the resistances and hardeners are a bit out of wack. I don't really like the idea of only having one hardener as in the passive resistances current state, they're simply not worth bothering with on either armour or shield tanks. When they got nerfed previously I saw this and thought to myself that 20%,18% and 15% would've been alright, but they nerfed the crap out of them instead making more extenders the better option. There's also the fact that there's no armour hardener at all, leaving armour tanks without even more love. Tanks need to be able to tank damage and shouldn't be one shot death machines. Not only is it pretty boring to one shot most infantry, but I'm now at a point where I one shot most tanks as well. I'm not sure about anyone else but I hate getting one shotted by cheap crap whilst running infantry. The same should apply to tank fights, there should at least be a bit of a scrap instead of who saw who first. I'd like tanks to be total bullet magnets tbh, allowing the ground troops to do their job whilst the tank keeps a good number of guys busy. As it stands you don't need gunners at all to be effective and I can go around pretty much dominating and one shotting people left, right and centre. I don't actually mind the finite ammo idea at all. I played Planetside for a good 3 years and I'm used to this mechanic. Tanks should have to leave the fight and reload tbh. Infantry has to, so should we. I'd like to see some sort of vehicle supply depot where we can change loadouts, whilst maintaining the same HP. This way you don't gain the exploit of swapping a damaged suit out like we see on infantry happening a lot. I feel this removes a much needed element from the game and that's dedicated logistics. I'd also be more than happy letting my gunners gun and just give me the option to drive. It worked beautifully in Planetside and you ended up forming dedicated tank crews, spotting targets and calling out hazards. Maybe allow the driver to pan around the vehicles like when driving an LAV 3rd person so he can assess his position better. Good post Tiel
Nova Knife Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 789	Posted - 2012.11.15 14:27:00 - [10] - Quote I am Nova Knife and I approve this thread. Couple this with map redesigns as Cazaerdon suggests and it will go a long way towards making the vehicle/infantry dynamic more fun!

Sephirian Fair ZionTCD Legacy Rising 48	Posted - 2012.11.15 17:28:00 - [11] - Quote Yes, definitely. This is what needs to occur for a stable state of balance to come about. You can't balance around instant kill mechanics. Having tankier vehicles with lesser damage makes for much more tactical options during combat, rather than the current who sees who first wins sort of deal currently. Great post.
Free Beers Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 1041	Posted - 2012.11.15 17:50:00 - [12] - Quote I'm going to stop peeing in your tank and calling you biased skytt. As as avid Swarm and AV guy I support this. The most important thing is the fun factor, because in dust like EvE fair is really irrelevant. I think this could bring the fun back.
Kharga Lum Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 33	Posted - 2012.11.15 18:10:00 - [13] - Quote Definitely worth a test, for science!
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.15 18:14:00 - [14] - Quote Umbat Boki wrote: I think you wrote mainly about corp-corp battles. There is also random matches. Also economic aspect needs to be analysed imo. Yeah, the balancing point in my opinion should be around the higher-level gameplay. We can't balance around one guy in a pub half-assedly trying to kill vehicles, otherwise when we reach something like the tournament, we have people insta-killing vehicles left and right with coordination. Balance should be around the upper level of SP investment and player skill, and if needed, artificial restrictions such as vehicle limits or level of gear (standard or advanced gear only lobbies) to balance the pub games to preserve the fun aspect. I'm not sure how to balance the economic aspect. Currently, vehicles aren't worth it financially. I think the current prices are good as prices for vehicles, as in they hurt to lose, but they're not impossible for someone without corp backing to obtain. Those prices just need to be worth it, since right now if you face more than random guys who don't know what they're doing, you're not going to keep the vehicle alive enough games to have it pay for itself. Laurent Cazaderon wrote: Overall a pretty good job and good view of infantry\vehicle balance. i'd support the idea of reconsidering Turret damage any day ! But, i'm surprised you didnt add a HP buff to vehicles with those corrections, dont you think it might be very much needed then ? The HP buff is in there as a nerf to AV. I feel all vehicles need more hp, and that seemed like the most beneficial way to do that. I played with numbers a bit before settling on that as the way to do it, such as bumping only hull hp, or bumping only module hp, and they often led to super tanks, where on paper I could see them being a huge problem and certain builds being practically invincible (such as 8k+ hp and 3 heavy reps).
Cyn Bruin Imperfects Negative-Feedback 653	Posted - 2012.11.15 19:59:00 - [15] - Quote Please give some feedback or at least acknowledge you saw this well thought out post CCP, that beta tester is putting in some work for you guys.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.15 20:06:00 - [16] - Quote Cyn Bruin wrote: Please give some feedback or at least acknowledge you saw this well thought out post CCP, that beta tester is putting in some work for you guys. I had actually emailed this directly to Wolfman, and he said he passed it around to the dev team, so they should have seen it unless they just did a mass print out session to light it on fire.
Cyn Bruin Imperfects Negative-Feedback 653	Posted - 2012.11.15 21:27:00 - [17] - Quote Tiel Syysch wrote: Cyn Bruin wrote: Please give some feedback or at least acknowledge you saw this well thought out post CCP, that beta tester is putting in some work for you guys. I had actually emailed this directly to Wolfman, and he said he passed it around to the dev team, so they should have seen it unless they just did a mass print out session to light it on fire. They printed it out, left it on the printer and then took that printer into a field and beat the crap outta it with a baseball bat, boots and rap music playing in the background. Or maybe this was just some movie i'm thinking about... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PywI0BOxJpI ^^ this is what happened to your idea because it made to much sense...
Free Beers Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 1041	Posted - 2012.11.15 22:15:00 - [18] - Quote Cyn Bruin wrote: Tiel Syysch wrote: Cyn Bruin wrote: Please give some feedback or at least acknowledge you saw this well thought out post CCP, that beta tester is putting in some work for you guys. I had actually emailed this directly to Wolfman, and he said he passed it around to the dev team, so they should have seen it unless they just did a mass print out session to light it on fire. They printed it out, left it on the printer and then took that printer into a field and beat the crap outta it with a baseball bat, boots and rap music playing in the background. Or maybe this was just some movie i'm thinking about... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PywI0BOxJpI ^^ this is what happened to your idea because it made to much sense... I nominate this for best post ever
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.15 22:49:00 - [19] - Quote I stopped reading when you said it should take a tank-mounted anti-tank weapon to one shot a heavy.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.15 23:15:00 - [20] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I stopped reading when you said it should take a tank-mounted anti-tank weapon to one shot a heavy. The idea is that there shouldn't be oneshots existing anywhere, but the nature of the railgun being anti-vehicle would possibly still manage oneshots on some of the lower to mid-range suits. Thanks for being constructive, though.

Sytonis Auran Valor Coalition RISE of LEGION 52	Posted - 2012.11.16 00:10:00 - [21] - Quote Tiel Syysch, that's a pretty thorough analysis. Its going to be interesting if they can get the balance right. I'd like to see HAV's maintain their ability to draw fire by multiple enemies. They will need sufficient defense to do this, whether through the overall reduction in damage across the board you suggest or an increase in tank.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.11.16 00:37:00 - [22] - Quote Personally, I don't think Small turrets should one-shot Heavies (except Proto turret or Advanced + damage mods against Miliita/Standard heavy suits). But Large Turrets should be comfortably one-shotting any infantry. They should also be comfortably MISSING said infantry more often than they hit though. It shouldn't be possible to reliably place a string of missiles on top of a Heavy suit from halfway across the map.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.16 02:07:00 - [23] - Quote Tiel Syysch wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I stopped reading when you said it should take a tank-mounted anti-tank weapon to one shot a heavy. The idea is that there shouldn't be oneshots existing anywhere, but the nature of the railgun being anti-vehicle would possibly still manage oneshots on some of the lower to mid-range suits. Thanks for being constructive, though. Because it's AV means it should be VERY difficult to hit infantry with it (which it is)- the problem with your idea to weaken the AI capabilities of AV weapons is that doing so little damage you don't one shot infantry also means you'll barely do damage against vehicles. Trying to kill infantry with these is almost like no-scoping infantry with a chrage sniper. my 2 cents
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.16 02:29:00 - [24] - Quote after actually reading more, my main argument is that this would make vehicle vs vehicle very very slow- possibly making it next to impossible for vehicles to destroy eachother if the drivers know what they're doing.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.16 02:57:00 - [25] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: after actually reading more, my main argument is that this would make vehicle vs vehicle very very slow- possibly making it next to impossible for vehicles to destroy eachother if the drivers know what they're doing. Who's to say vehicles are supposed to be the primary anti-vehicle weapon? Your swarm and forge buddies aren't going to disappear with these changes. A tank user trying to solo it with just the main gun will run into issues against another tank at these damage output levels, but that'll be his fault for not having passengers. And to your above post, the weapons hit essentially like infantry weapons, and people seem to be able to kill infantry with things like ARs, HMGs and Mass Drivers, so it's not going to be that much harder using similar damage output from a vehicle. The objective is to get away from the drive-by oneshot everything nonsense that we have now, and the only way to do that is to drop damage to the point of not being able to oneshot people.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.16 03:08:00 - [26] - Quote Tiel Syysch wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: after actually reading more, my main argument is that this would make vehicle vs vehicle very very slow- possibly making it next to impossible for vehicles to destroy eachother if the drivers know what they're doing. Who's to say vehicles are supposed to be the primary anti-vehicle weapon? Your swarm and forge buddies aren't going to disappear with these changes. A tank user trying to solo it with just the main gun will run into issues against another tank at these damage output levels, but that'll be his fault for not having passengers. And to your above post, the weapons hit essentially like infantry weapons, and people seem to be able to kill infantry with things like ARs, HMGs and Mass Drivers, so it's not going to be that much harder using similar damage output from a vehicle. The objective is to get away from the drive-by oneshot everything nonsense that we have now, and the only way to do that is to drop damage to the point of not being able to oneshot people. the drive-by-oneshot stuff is the issue with missiles. not vehicles as a whole. What this thread is mainly suggesting is to make vehicles work like oversized infantry- a clunky, easy to hit, harder to hit with version of infantry.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.16 03:35:00 - [27] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: the drive-by-oneshot stuff is the issue with missiles. not vehicles as a whole. It's a problem with all turrets. I can build a large blaster that does over 400 damage per round. Guess how long you'll last against that as infantry, assuming I don't get a headshot since blasters are capable of headshot bonuses. Only one suit (a 100% hp-fit proto heavy) would survive a shot by the weakest large rail with minimum SP investment. The damage isn't only a problem vs infantry, the vehicles kill each other way too quickly as well. It's wholly a matter of who shoots first right now, because it's only the first to 1-3 shots that wins the encounter.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2012.11.16 06:06:00 - [28] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: after actually reading more, my main argument is that this would make vehicle vs vehicle very very slow- possibly making it next to impossible for vehicles to destroy eachother if the drivers know what they're doing. Wouldn't that justify their price then finally? I support these changes because it gives vehicles a role that won't overshadow infantry, but rather support them. It makes them big, mean platforms to spearhead an assault with. It would make infantry feel more like they are in the heavy duty armor they supposedly wear. It would increase the skill required to dominate the battlefield with a vehicle dramatically. Combine this with the fixes I proposed for swarm launchers, and a general reduction in AV damage AND increase in resists values, and overall you have longer, more interesting fights for both sides. OHK weapons are not fun for anyone, and tank turrets START at OHK territory and only get stronger. +9000 Skytt
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1155	Posted - 2012.11.16 09:37:00 - [29] - Quote Ty 'SweetCheeks' Borg wrote: I agree with pretty much all points here tbh, it's what I'm experiencing and it's also what I felt was needed to change. Basically nerf turret damage and nerf AV, correct?. This way you don't need to touch the tanks HP as it stands. I totally agree that the resistances and hardeners are a bit out of wack. I don't really like the idea of only having one hardener as in the passive resistances current state, they're simply not worth bothering with on either armour or shield tanks. When they got nerfed previously I saw this and thought to myself that 20%,18% and 15% would've been alright, but they nerfed the crap out of them instead making more extenders the better option. There's also the fact that there's no armour hardener at all, leaving armour tanks without even more love. Tanks need to be able to tank damage and shouldn't be one shot death machines. Not only is it pretty boring to one shot most infantry, but I'm now at a point where I one shot most tanks as well. I'm not sure about anyone else but I hate getting one shotted by cheap crap whilst running infantry. The same should apply to tank fights, there should at least be a bit of a scrap instead of who saw who first. I'd like tanks to be total bullet magnets tbh, allowing the ground troops to do their job whilst the tank keeps a good number of guys busy. As it stands you don't need gunners at all to be effective and I can go around pretty much dominating and one shotting people left, right and centre. I don't actually mind the finite ammo idea at all. I played Planetside for a good 3 years and I'm used to this mechanic. Tanks should have to leave the fight and reload tbh. Infantry has to, so should we. I'd like to see some sort of vehicle supply depot where we can change loadouts, whilst maintaining the same HP. This way you don't gain the exploit of swapping a damaged suit out like we see on infantry happening a lot. I feel this removes a much needed element from the game and that's dedicated logistics. I'd also be more than happy letting my gunners gun and just give me the option to drive. It worked beautifully in Planetside and you ended up forming dedicated tank crews, spotting targets and calling out hazards. Maybe allow the driver to pan around the vehicles like when driving an LAV 3rd person so he can assess his position better. Good post Tiel Nice input from a well known HAVer. With a damn freakin strong one ! Seriously though, it's nice to hear that it is as boring for the guy inside the HAV as it is for the guys outside the HAV. And i especially agree with you regarding HAV being bullet magnet. Imo, a fight between HAV should last a while, even if there's a difference in tech. See if the lowered skilled HAV as a chance to outmaneuver its opponent, or keep him busy until one or two FG guys can add up to the fight and make it swing to an unexpected result. Also, even if the weaker HAV ends up being blown up more often than not, it would allow infantry to go back to its business while those two hardass shoot at each other. About vehicle needing to resupply, it's an obvious YES for me. If infantry needs to resupply, if EVE ships need to resupply, and if Dust's vehicles uses same tech as both ship and infantry (and they are), well they should need to resupply. EDIT: didnt read NOC's last post before posting and he pointed out the same better vehicle fight mechanics, so +1. Also, wanted to add that OHK between vehicle ( or with vehicle against infantry ) is really dumb compared to infantry fights that tends to last longer than many shooters.
EnglishSnake Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 1012	Posted - 2012.11.16 13:24:00 - [30] - Quote I do think Large turrets should whack anything in scout/assault and maybe for balance sake 2/3 a proper fit heavy or give it some kind of resistance perk to the suit when fighting tanks As for tank fights atm it is who sees who 1st then about driver skill Before tanks or AV can be changed the basics have to be sorted out, all HAV turrets move at the same rate and have armor active resist mods at least, AV SL remove that extra damage buff to armor and fix the tracking so they do not go around cover to hit that HAV, damage mods for tank have the same damage modifier bonus for all turrets, give a reload function to missiles on par with the other turrets small and large How would the game play out when the enemy hide on that hill and spam SL at the tank but all it does is hit the hill the tank is behind and it doesnt fly around it and cause damage? it would force the SL users to actually move out and try to co-ordinate an attack and not just sit up on a hill, the tank users would feel more confindent about being more aggressive and not getting whacked anymore when they use cover, armor tanks would finally be used and so would the different turrets so we can see what happens against shield and railgun vs armor and blaster or what ever combinations ppl come up with If the basics are fixed then we can see how tanks are balanced against each other and also against AV and we should see more variation at least but still expect QQ threads because an AR cant kill a tank (yet)



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.