|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Casius Hakoke
Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation
119
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 14:25:00 -
[1] - Quote
I have to say I agree with the more tank less gank approach to balancing HAV's. I have limited use with the missile turrets, but one thing I could see would be instead of just an across the board reduction to dps of HAV turrets, maybe change the efficiency of the turrets depending on what is being shot at. Say infantry would have a 50% efficiency dealing 50% less damage per shot to them, but you could still have 100% efficiency against other vehicles and installations.
Not sure how much of a difference it could be, those are just some numbers off the top of my head. I have been a big blaster user, so that is my primary experience with HAV turrets. Just my 0.02 isk.
Edit: The efficiency could actually vary depending on the frame size of the infantry you are shooting at, so it would be very difficult to kill a moving scout while a waddling heavy would have a higher efficiency rating. |
Casius Hakoke
Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation
121
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 15:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
BelleMorte MORTIMOR wrote:i also feel that missile and rail guns should be able to aim to the upper extremes and blaster need at least 45% vertical enhancment
Definitely. I felt like the last build had the best variation when it came to the elevations a turret could aim at. Before I could not aim down far enough to kill infantry standing right next to my treads, but now that is the best place for me to kill them. I know most of us feel its a bug and not intended, but I'm not real sure if CCP has said that is a bug or if it was an intended change. |
Casius Hakoke
Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation
121
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 15:56:00 -
[3] - Quote
Another thing that just came to mind if people won't mind me using EVE as a reference. In EVE just like here different turrets have different tracking speeds. The larger the turret the slower it can track targets. Like I said I have very little experience with Missile turrets and I'll say it right now I suck with Railgun turrets.
But, bear with me here, for blasters the naming convention in EVE from smallest to largest caliber is Electron, Ion, Neutron. With Electron having the fastest tracking speed and Neutron the slowest tracking speed within there respective classes of small, medium and large. What I would like to suggest as a way to balance HAV's DPS versos infantry/vehicles could be by using tracking speed, if you plan on fighting mostly infantry fit Electron or similar for rails or missiles, if you plan on mostly supporting your team by fighting installations and other vehicles then start fitting larger caliber guns.
Seeing as how CCP has decided to lower the amount of bonus powergrid we can get from skills this could help with fitting issues as well, sense smaller normally means less powergrid and cpu use and larger means more powergrid and cpu use. This could help and give more choices about the balance between tank and gank for HAV's.
If you think the idea is ****, just let me know, I didn't really think it out to much, just posted it to get some feed back on it. |
Casius Hakoke
Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation
121
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 15:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
CaoticFox wrote:Casius Hakoke wrote:I have to say I agree with the more tank less gank approach to balancing HAV's. I have limited use with the missile turrets, but one thing I could see would be instead of just an across the board reduction to dps of HAV turrets, maybe change the efficiency of the turrets depending on what is being shot at. Say infantry would have a 50% efficiency dealing 50% less damage per shot to them, but you could still have 100% efficiency against other vehicles and installations.
Not sure how much of a difference it could be, those are just some numbers off the top of my head. I have been a big blaster user, so that is my primary experience with HAV turrets. Just my 0.02 isk.
Edit: The efficiency could actually vary depending on the frame size of the infantry you are shooting at, so it would be very difficult to kill a moving scout while a waddling heavy would have a higher efficiency rating. i understand ur reasoning, but... seriously? my tank can destroy an installation, but not a scout??? where is the believability in that? FUTURISTIC... not just EVERY 1 is equal... its a TANK! any of you ever faced one in real life? obviously NOT. u RUN!!! u dont go get a missile launcher and 1v1 it... u call in air support... u call in a "special team" .... TANK!!!
I believe what I was talking about has more to do with tracking speed for the scouts and heavy variety. Just throwing stuff out there, we all need to do some serious thinking cap talking if we want our HAV's to be more like tanks than wet paper bags.
Edit: Combine tracking speed variety between turrets of different calibers and efficiency rating and there might be something there, but it would need to be tested a lot.
Once again using an EVE comparison, a battleship has a hell of a time hitting a moving frigate unless it is moving in a strait line away or towards the battleship. Or if its sitting still, same difference, but if its orbiting at close range, good luck killing it with large turrets. CCP has done about the same with heavies vs other suits with heavies turn speed, but that might be a bad comparison as there has been a lot of talk of what heavies have turned into, which I can't really comment on because I wouldn't know the first thing about it.
Edit #2: This is where signature radius could come into play, if you like to stack shield mods, and lets be honest most infantry love too, it would make you take more damage as lets say the HAV's built in computer could account for you being infantry better because it can see you better because of the extra sig of your suit. Would be a round about buff to armor tanking for infantry. |
Casius Hakoke
Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation
121
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 16:08:00 -
[5] - Quote
BelleMorte MORTIMOR wrote:Casius Hakoke wrote:CaoticFox wrote:Casius Hakoke wrote:I have to say I agree with the more tank less gank approach to balancing HAV's. I have limited use with the missile turrets, but one thing I could see would be instead of just an across the board reduction to dps of HAV turrets, maybe change the efficiency of the turrets depending on what is being shot at. Say infantry would have a 50% efficiency dealing 50% less damage per shot to them, but you could still have 100% efficiency against other vehicles and installations.
Not sure how much of a difference it could be, those are just some numbers off the top of my head. I have been a big blaster user, so that is my primary experience with HAV turrets. Just my 0.02 isk.
Edit: The efficiency could actually vary depending on the frame size of the infantry you are shooting at, so it would be very difficult to kill a moving scout while a waddling heavy would have a higher efficiency rating. i understand ur reasoning, but... seriously? my tank can destroy an installation, but not a scout??? where is the believability in that? FUTURISTIC... not just EVERY 1 is equal... its a TANK! any of you ever faced one in real life? obviously NOT. u RUN!!! u dont go get a missile launcher and 1v1 it... u call in air support... u call in a "special team" .... TANK!!! I believe what I was talking about has more to do with tracking speed for the scouts and heavy variety. Just throwing stuff out there, we all need to do some serious thinking cap talking if we want our HAV's to be more like tanks than wet paper bags. Edit: Combine tracking speed variety between turrets of different calibers and efficiency rating and there might be something there, but it would need to be tested a lot. solution a balanced tank wouldnt have to sricfice nearly as much and should be able to fitt for example conscirpt tracking ehnacer number 2
You are correct, also I added another edit. The weird ideas are flowing today it seems. |
Casius Hakoke
Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation
121
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 16:16:00 -
[6] - Quote
BelleMorte MORTIMOR wrote:for example caldari havs should have low powered slots equal to their high in advanced tier so should gallente
adv hav caldari 5 highowered slots 4 lowpowered 450 cpu (not sure about this stat didnt refernce anything just rough shod numbers) 2200 pg (like a skilled up gunlogi base) enough pg to deck it out in a shield fashion but not enough to ever put armor with armor reps on low powered the low owered on a caldari hav like this one's lowpowered slots would most likely be used for turrent enhancement maybe a cpu or pg bonus
I could definitely see that as an advanced HAV, like you said though, not real sure on the numbers for powergrid and cpu, but probably a step in the right direction to add some type of actual progression to the HAV skill trees. |
|
|
|