I think you wrote mainly about corp-corp battles. There is also random matches.
Also economic aspect needs to be analysed imo.

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 ?

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Keep in mind there are no militia shield extenders for vehicles.

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.

tanks need to be able to tank damage and shouldn't be one shot death machines.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Projectile_ammunition

Hmm, the only ones that don't have an explosive component are direct energy conversion (proton and plasma).

Flak cannons are an autocannon, and there is more need for them to have a proper AA turret than there is for a redundant machine gun-like role which the blasters fill.

Weapons don't have to be single-purpose

They'd be better if they were, because then there'd be counters to a given playstyle since it can't do everything.

They'd be better if they were, because then there'd be counters to a given playstyle since it can't do everything.

Since when does "multi-purpose" mean "best at everything" though?

I never said "best."

I'm fine with things able to step into a role it's not intended for, such as railguns shooting infantry, they just need to be severely restricted in doing so. I want to see autocannons be the AA turret because we have no other dedicated AA turret out of any of the other categories. Let them attack other targets, but be pathetic in doing so. They don't have to only be able to shoot at aerial targets, but they can't overshadow any of the others if you branch out into using them in different roles (they shouldn't even be close). That's what I mean by single-purpose.

Re-read my suggestion for Autocannons.

Done right, it could provide pretty much exactly what you're asking.

Autocannons should be for anti-air, firing fast traveling, long range explosive rounds. Ideally, they would be a high-damage splash effect like a flak cannon, and have their rounds triggered to explode if passing within a certain proximity of aerial vehicles (like the AV grenade magnetic trigger). Direct damage should still be possible if used against ground vehicles, but should be on the lower end of damage output, and should really only act as suppression against infantry, not something that is going to wipe the floor with them.

What I'm asking is this:



Taken from the end of the 2nd post in this thread:

https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=34834

It's not a hybrid-purpose proposal. It's a desire to see a specifically AA weapon, because we need one (especially when faster aircraft come in). It can still spit out damage at other things if you're forced into a position to fight back, but you're not going to outdamage other people using really anything else. There's no need for the AA weapon to be capable of heavy anti-ground or anti-infantry support. It should ding things up, but never be the go-to weapon for those roles.

Weapons, especially vehicle turrets, need clearly defined roles. They need to excel at something and be capable of being countered by something else. Bring out your AA tank? Have fun dealing with ground forces. Bring out the AV one? Good luck when you're swarmed by infantry. Got the AI one? That AV tank or dropship is going to eat you.

Because we want people to use blasters for once.

Honestly, it doesn't sound significantly different from what I was suggesting.

Explosive weapon, auto-detonates at a certain range with a good blast radius and most of its damage as blast damage rather than direct damage. Main difference is that I suggested different variants of the weapon having different range and blast radius. Did you even read my post before reposting your own? You could have just pointed out that I was saying very similar things to what you were.

If you want people to use blasters, why does this thread suggest heavily nerfing them?