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

Tiel Syysch wrote:

lDocHollidayl wrote:

Proxy mines need to matter...they are terrible.
Nice post.

Grenades as a whole are fine..kind of. You do not see a spam of grenades because they are not OP. They currently only do full damage at the center...when you are at the edge of the splash you do not receive the full damage. Maps are huge and hitting a guy with a nade is hard enough. Please do not nerf nades.

In fact fix grenades so that terrain does not create such barriers. Let us have grenades that blow up 3D not 2D.

I'm honestly not sure what the damage is on grenades thanks to their useless damage listed in the info window. Aren't they kinda broken right now as a result of "fixing" their staying around forever? If the proto ones are hitting in the realm of 2000 damage, though, then it needs to come down. For flux grenades, 1800 vs shields is quite a bit, since shields are generally lower than armor, and you're looking at a max shield tank only in the realm of 6-8k hp maybe, which is essentially 3-4 grenades at that point. 2k damage vs armor is pretty awful to be on the armor side of things, since right now max fit is in the 10-12k range.

@Berserker

Yeah things are expected to be balanced around corp battles and tournament play, otherwise things are made pretty pathetic there if they're balanced around pubs. I'm totally fine with infantry-only lobbies and some kind of restrictions on vehicles in pubs to preserve the fun aspect there, since instant battle should be more fair and fun than "let me solo rampage in my invinci-gear."

I'm fine with SP being rebalanced too, but it's never going to be a good balancing factor. It's pretty easy right now to get a functional tank, but it's a huge grind to fully max it out, but if you just increase the SP, the power discrepancy will still be there, I'm just going to get it later and then still be stronger.

As for LAVs, I'd love to see them take collision damage equal to the hp of a person they run over, I've seen that proposed before. That'll cut down on them being used to squish people, and make them less of a problem not being able to oneshot them with a forge. Or, we could just cut the starter LAV's hp to compensate, I'm totally fine with that being a garbage vehicle and dying near-instantly to anything.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mavado V Noriega SyNergy Gaming 2283	Posted - 2012.11.16 16:23:00 - [31] - Quote I , Mavado, and SyNergy Gaming fully endorse this thread because its pure awesomesauce this along with noc's thread to fix swarms are the 2 most important threads along with fixing gunplay and giving dropsuits "special abilities" that CCP should be focusing on gameplay wise atm tbqh imvho
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.16 22:32:00 - [32] - Quote So.. why would anyone use an LAV after this happens? It only makes the gunner an easier target, if they're doing infantry-level damage. I think the best solution from this thread would be to make missiles do mass driver damage.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.16 22:56:00 - [33] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: So.. why would anyone use an LAV after this happens? It only makes the gunner an easier target, if they're doing infantry-level damage. There's rumors that LAVs are getting some kind of roof to protect the infantry inside LAVs won't be insta killed due to the AV nerf Properly skilling up in the turrets will still deal reasonable damage They're considering a supply depot kind of vehicle module and LAVs would be great as a mobile supply depot Remote repairs still exist They are still good transport for slower troops that need to move long distances
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.16 23:17:00 - [34] - Quote Would this be too late to mention I made a thread on this a while ago? https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=43677&find=unread
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.16 23:39:00 - [35] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Would this be too late to mention I made a thread on this a while ago? https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=43677&find=unread I actually saw that when it was posted, but it doesn't solve the problem that turrets hit way too damn hard, and vehicles without oneshotting everyone around them will be way too squishy. You say that the fix to missiles is lower their splash damage, when their direct damage is also wildly out of control (a large railgun with 5 damage mods has only 73% the damage output of a large missile with 2 damage mods). Railgun fix is to simply increase their range, when they also deal insane damage (to the point that upper end damage 3shots the highest vehicle hp you can create, in about 6-8 secs). There's way more problems with vehicles than you address, though I do like the idea of more swarms and some kind of flux variant to weapons. Myself and Noc have also proposed some ideas to fix swarms, which many of us agree are a problem weapon in their current form.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.17 02:48:00 - [36] - Quote Well, I'm not completely against your suggestion: it's just a little extreme for my taste. Turrets should always be at least slightly more powerful than weapons you can carry around of the equivalent tier, IMO.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.17 03:57:00 - [37] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Well, I'm not completely against your suggestion: it's just a little extreme for my taste. Turrets should always be at least slightly more powerful than weapons you can carry around of the equivalent tier, IMO. The only one hurt by it is the LAV. The dropship gets 2 guns and the tank gets 3. Trying to solo it with one person will make you weaker than having all your passengers filled. Also, LAV will only be hurt by the change if we never get the shotgun passenger able to fire from his seat, which I think they're going to add eventually. The turrets themselves don't necessarily have to out-damage infantry if there are multiple guns firing from the vehicle.
lDocHollidayl Imperfects Negative-Feedback 171	Posted - 2012.11.17 05:56:00 - [38] - Quote Proxy mines need to matter...they are terrible. Nice post. Grenades as a whole are fine..kind of. You do not see a spam of grenades because they are not OP. They currently only do full damage at the center...when you are at the edge of the splash you do not receive the full damage. Maps are huge and hitting a guy with a nade is hard enough. Please do not nerf nades. In fact fix grenades so that terrain does not create such barriers. Let us have grenades that blow up 3D not 2D.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.17 16:44:00 - [39] - Quote lDocHollidayl wrote: Proxy mines need to matter...they are terrible. I lost a 175,000 ISK LAV (full shields and armor) in under a second from proxy mines someone hid over the crest of a hill. They're fine. EDIT: if they make them stronger, then give people on the opposing team the ability to disarm them, and give vehicle scanners the ability to see them
Berserker007 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 206	Posted - 2012.11.17 19:40:00 - [40] - Quote @ Tiel : LOTS of info there to read through. Being 1/2 AV, i found what u wrote seems great EXCEPT for the 50% damage reduction to AV. Now i know you looked more toward tanks here (i think), and higher gameplay, but you need to figure pubs games as well into the balance factor. Ill take my game other day as an account, i solo'd a gungloggi myself w/ either 4-5 shots of my grimlock. In a pub since there is very little co-op b/t blueberries, reducing av damage would allow tanks more roaming ability, as ull require more av allowing enemy ar/hmg to run through them. In corp play this could work, but pub play would be greatly affected. Then u need to bring lav's into the pic. If you keep lavs as is, even w/ a proto av gun, it will require 2-3 shots to take out the starter fit lav which IS a problem, as w/ me putting in over 600k sp not to 1 hit a starter militia lav is a real problem. I find that the only real BIG problem w/ vehicles are the missiles (small and large), and damage mods not stacking and easy of getting them. The other thing id say need to bring in is the SP req needed for vehicles vs av. As not looking at core skilling fully but say they are even(like engy, shielding etc), to be an effective av against adv tanks, you NEED a proto gun. That means 610k sp, and u also need sharpshooter skilling at a minimum at lv 3, which i about another 300k. So you are looking at 950-1mil sp. Then look at tanks, its 310, for vehicle command, then lv 1 for adv (id sp req for it), so say yr at 360k sp now. Most will start w/ missles so it will be roughtly 180-200k sp, to get to lv1 large missile turrets. That is a minimum of say 600k sp, where av requires more (especially fg, as i think sl need to be more affected by sharpshooter). Jsut my. 02 isk, but agree whole hearted, that weapon damage needs to be looked at on vehicles

Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.17 19:56:00 - [41] - Quote lDocHollidayl wrote: Proxy mines need to matter...they are terrible. Nice post. Grenades as a whole are fine..kind of. You do not see a spam of grenades because they are not OP. They currently only do full damage at the center...when you are at the edge of the splash you do not receive the full damage. Maps are huge and hitting a guy with a nade is hard enough. Please do not nerf nades. In fact fix grenades so that terrain does not create such barriers. Let us have grenades that blow up 3D not 2D. I'm honestly not sure what the damage is on grenades thanks to their useless damage listed in the info window. Aren't they kinda broken right now as a result of "fixing" their staying around forever? If the proto ones are hitting in the realm of 2000 damage, though, then it needs to come down. For flux grenades, 1800 vs shields is quite a bit, since shields are generally lower than armor, and you're looking at a max shield tank only in the realm of 6-8k hp maybe, which is essentially 3-4 grenades at that point. 2k damage vs armor is pretty awful to be on the armor side of things, since right now max fit is in the 10-12k range. @Berserker Yeah things are expected to be balanced around corp battles and tournament play, otherwise things are made pretty pathetic there if they're balanced around pubs. I'm totally fine with infantry-only lobbies and some kind of restrictions on vehicles in pubs to preserve the fun aspect there, since instant battle should be more fair and fun than "let me solo rampage in my invinci-gear." I'm fine with SP being rebalanced too, but it's never going to be a good balancing factor. It's pretty easy right now to get a functional tank, but it's a huge grind to fully max it out, but if you just increase the SP, the power discrepancy will still be there, I'm just going to get it later and then still be stronger. As for LAVs, I'd love to see them take collision damage equal to the hp of a person they run over, I've seen that proposed before. That'll cut down on them being used to squish people, and make them less of a problem not being able to oneshot them with a forge. Or, we could just cut the starter LAV's hp to compensate, I'm totally fine with that being a garbage vehicle and dying near-instantly to anything.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.17 20:03:00 - [42] - Quote Tiel Syysch wrote: Or, we could just cut the starter LAV's hp to compensate, I'm totally fine with that being a garbage vehicle and dying near-instantly to anything. This doesn't make sense, but I don't really care about this- here's why (and also why it wouldn't make sense)- Starter fit LAVs already die near-instantly to everything. When people actually put money into them, however (bought an onikuma and put 150,000 ISK worth of modules on it), they should still be worth the cost.
Berserker007 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 206	Posted - 2012.11.17 20:18:00 - [43] - Quote Tiel Syysch wrote: lDocHollidayl wrote: Proxy mines need to matter...they are terrible. Nice post. Grenades as a whole are fine..kind of. You do not see a spam of grenades because they are not OP. They currently only do full damage at the center...when you are at the edge of the splash you do not receive the full damage. Maps are huge and hitting a guy with a nade is hard enough. Please do not nerf nades. In fact fix grenades so that terrain does not create such barriers. Let us have grenades that blow up 3D not 2D. I'm honestly not sure what the damage is on grenades thanks to their useless damage listed in the info window. Aren't they kinda broken right now as a result of "fixing" their staying around forever? If the proto ones are hitting in the realm of 2000 damage, though, then it needs to come down. For flux grenades, 1800 vs shields is quite a bit, since shields are generally lower than armor, and you're looking at a max shield tank only in the realm of 6-8k hp maybe, which is essentially 3-4 grenades at that point. 2k damage vs armor is pretty awful to be on the armor side of things, since right now max fit is in the 10-12k range. @Berserker Yeah things are expected to be balanced around corp battles and tournament play, otherwise things are made pretty pathetic there if they're balanced around pubs. I'm totally fine with infantry-only lobbies and some kind of restrictions on vehicles in pubs to preserve the fun aspect there, since instant battle should be more fair and fun than "let me solo rampage in my invinci-gear." I'm fine with SP being rebalanced too, but it's never going to be a good balancing factor. It's pretty easy right now to get a functional tank, but it's a huge grind to fully max it out, but if you just increase the SP, the power discrepancy will still be there, I'm just going to get it later and then still be stronger. As for LAVs, I'd love to see them take collision damage equal to the hp of a person they run over, I've seen that proposed before. That'll cut down on them being used to squish people, and make them less of a problem not being able to oneshot them with a forge. Or, we could just cut the starter LAV's hp to compensate, I'm totally fine with that being a garbage vehicle and dying near-instantly to anything. Yeah, i do realize this wasnt fully for pub play, but cant disregard it either, as if u were in my shoes, would u honestly want to put 1mil sp into av if they are useless in pubs, and soley have it for corp/tourny play? .As that 1mil sp could easily put me/others into other areas as we arent gana be doing corp/tourny play 24/7; and then if cant counter vehciles in pub play which is supposed to be "easy"/fun, why bring out any worthwhile dropsuits then? I know can do inf only games (if they have), but vehicles make things interesting. But yeah, this def is prob hardest balance issue ccp will need to face ; as AV struggle for sp to counter vehicles, whereas vehicles struggle to keep up isk
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.18 00:54:00 - [44] - Quote Maybe the best solution, or at least to the starter fit LAV problem, would be to buff both infantry and vehicle armor and shield modules. Keep in mind there are no militia shield extenders for vehicles.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2012.11.18 10:12:00 - [45] - Quote The should just make the free vehicle a simple transport (with no fitting slot options at all) and re-emphasize the A in LAV by adding a roof. SP investment in something you can easily be shot out of is not a good investment proposition.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.11.18 12:00:00 - [46] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Keep in mind there are no militia shield extenders for vehicles. Militia Shield Extender exists for vehicles, but doesn't have a BPO version. Militia Heavy Shield Extender not only exists, but has a BPO version as well.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.18 15:06:00 - [47] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: The should just make the free vehicle a simple transport (with no fitting slot options at all) and re-emphasize the A in LAV by adding a roof. SP investment in something you can easily be shot out of is not a good investment proposition. or when (or more likely if) LAVs get a roof, starter fit LAVs simply won't have one.
Va'len Irisian Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 2	Posted - 2012.11.18 17:41:00 - [48] - Quote Not so much a commentary on the post as I haven't read all the comments but I couldn't help but chuckle. Quote: tanks need to be able to tank damage and shouldn't be one shot death machines. Technically, and I understand the 'this is a game...needs to be fun for a large number of players...yada yada yada', dynamic here but technically...aren't tanks really, actually, more or less, one-shot death machines? I don't know, maybe its just me but I haven't run into too many situations in which I have actually been one-shotted. When it has happened, it has generally been at a spawn and I then spawn somewhere else.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1062	Posted - 2012.11.19 15:33:00 - [49] - Quote Also, why would a large blaster deal HMG damage if that's what autocannons are going to do?
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2012.11.19 18:01:00 - [50] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Also, why would a large blaster deal HMG damage if that's what autocannons are going to do? Autocannons are anti-air guns primarily. People seem to commonly confuse autocannons and Gatling cannons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocannon - these are not anti personnel weapons.

Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.11.19 18:13:00 - [51] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Also, why would a large blaster deal HMG damage if that's what autocannons are going to do? Autocannons are anti-air guns primarily. People seem to commonly confuse autocannons and Gatling cannons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocannon - these are not anti personnel weapons. Pretty sure YOU'RE the one thinking of the wrong kind of Autocannon. Try this link instead.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2012.11.19 18:22:00 - [52] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Noc Tempre wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Also, why would a large blaster deal HMG damage if that's what autocannons are going to do? Autocannons are anti-air guns primarily. People seem to commonly confuse autocannons and Gatling cannons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocannon - these are not anti personnel weapons. Pretty sure YOU'RE the one thinking of the wrong kind of Autocannon. Try this link instead. I'm missing your point. Unless we are going gyrojet territory, you can't scale an autocannon down to anti-infantry sizes. The "tiny" cannon on that page is over a decimeter diameter. That there is a "Gatling" variant means there is a fusion of autocannon and Gatling feed, not that the two things are normally the same, otherwise it wouldn't need specified would it? Edit: typo of decimeter as meter.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.11.19 18:25:00 - [53] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: I'm missing your point. Unless we are going gyrojet territory, you can't scale an autocannon down to anti-infantry sizes. The "tiny" cannon on that page is over a meter diameter. That there is a "Gatling" variant means there is a fusion of autocannon and Gatling feed, not that the two things are normally the same, otherwise it wouldn't need specified would it? 125mm is NOT 1m. 125mm = 12.5cm = 0.125m Also, how do you know they CAN'T make them smaller - there's nothing stating they can't, and plenty of reason to assume they just CHOOSE not to because smaller weapons aren't practical to use against spaceships.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2012.11.19 18:30:00 - [54] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Noc Tempre wrote: I'm missing your point. Unless we are going gyrojet territory, you can't scale an autocannon down to anti-infantry sizes. The "tiny" cannon on that page is over a meter diameter. That there is a "Gatling" variant means there is a fusion of autocannon and Gatling feed, not that the two things are normally the same, otherwise it wouldn't need specified would it? 125mm is NOT 1m. 125mm = 12.5cm = 0.125m Also, how do you know they CAN'T make them smaller - there's nothing stating they can't, and plenty of reason to assume they just CHOOSE not to because smaller weapons aren't practical to use against spaceships. Bah misread + typo equals fail. And yes, you can't scale them down due to the square-cube law. You basically need fission or better to get enough energy density in a bullet sized autocannon.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.11.19 18:56:00 - [55] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: Bah misread + typo equals fail. And yes, you can't scale them down due to the square-cube law. You basically need fission or better to get enough energy density in a bullet sized autocannon. Got a source for that which is both relevant to New Eden and capable of proving that our Dropsuits aren't already capable of the kind of power output we're talking about? Because with the ability to operate laser weapons, I'd say high energy requirements are par for the course.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.19 19:04:00 - [56] - Quote Still doesn't matter if blasters function like a machine gun, why would autocannons be another machine gun instead of a flak cannon type weapon to have a proper AA turret? Edit: And it's not that the blaster is "dealing HMG damage," it's dealing damage per minute comparable to an HMG. Those comparisons were just for comparison purposes, to give infantry an idea of damage output relativity to things they use.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2012.11.19 19:06:00 - [57] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Noc Tempre wrote: Bah misread + typo equals fail. And yes, you can't scale them down due to the square-cube law. You basically need fission or better to get enough energy density in a bullet sized autocannon. Got a source for that which is both relevant to New Eden and capable of proving that our Dropsuits aren't already capable of the kind of power output we're talking about? Because with the ability to operate laser weapons, I'd say high energy requirements are par for the course. Laser draws extra power from the suit to operate. Still, now we are talking about a fully automatic nuclear grenade launcher vs a plasma blaster. And this all goes back to an autocannon does NOT act like an HMG.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.11.19 19:09:00 - [58] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: And this all goes back to an autocannon does NOT act like an HMG. Again, source? That's not what the New Eden definition sounds like.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2012.11.19 19:16:00 - [59] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Noc Tempre wrote: And this all goes back to an autocannon does NOT act like an HMG. Again, source? That's not what the New Eden definition sounds like. You blatantly have ignored real sources. No point arguing with a fool. Autocannons are distinct from rifles by payload. They are not kinetic kill weapons (mass drivers in sci-fi lingo), they are explosive. The most iconic real life analog is the flak cannon. HMG fires bullets, autocannon fires shells. Shells can't be made tiny and still have enough energy density to be lethal due to square-cube law. Edit: Nothing from EVE wiki suggests they are anything but as I described them.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.11.19 19:27:00 - [60] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: Edit: Nothing from EVE wiki suggests they are anything but as I described them. Except the fact that several of the projectile options are non-explosive types, and the explosives specifically reference the kind of tech you're describing as being required for the charge to be effective in such a small projectile.



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