|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation
1085
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 06:11:00 -
[1] - Quote
Yep, you read that right. I think tanks and dropships are in good spots right now. I'm coming up on 10m SP invested in HAV's and currently drive Gunnlogi's. Dropships will not benefit from a pure HP buff as many are suggesting, nor will tanking magically be made easier with the introduction of advanced and prototype tanks.
What's wrong with the current game is AV being out of whack.
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ THE ENTIRE WALL, I INCLUDED A TL;DR.
Firstly, I think swarms and plasma cannons are in a good spot right now. Swarms require you to stay out in the open while you obtain your lock, which gives enemies a chance to pop you. This comes with the bonus of having missiles track your target. These things also fly slow enough to give an aware vehicle pilot time to react. Plasma cannons trade the benefit of tracking to allow you to pop out of cover, fire, and quickly get back into cover. These weapons do a good amount of damage, and, when used in groups, spells doom for the vehicle, while used solo drives tanks away and provides a deterrent should they want to come back. These weapons should be used as a benchmark for other AV weapons.
Forge guns do a lot of damage out to a great range. I don't mind that they can hit pretty hard, but there needs to be a decay effect over distance (much like the optimal / falloff of Eve). You should not be able to two-shot a dropship barely within render range, however if said dropship is hovering right over you, he should feel the pain. The same would apply when forging tanks. You shouldn't be able to apply full damage from your redline into his.
I know that forge gunners do suffer drawbacks for their power, such as sacrificing your ability to fight infantry, a reduction in already non-existent move speed, limited ammo pool with small clips, as well as being lit up like a Christmas tree when charging, among other things not mentioned. I'm not going into the whole "WTF Y DO FORGIS DO MOAR DAMG THAN BIG RAIL?!", because comparing numbers to numbers does no justice to either side. Tbh, I think the damage on forges right now is fine. It's the range that's the issue. The long range of forges makes all of the downsides to forging moot, since you don't need to deal with infantry (aside from snipers), you're usually in a good spot to see the field ('dem roof camps), and there's usually a friendly nanohive nearby. I'd like to see forgers have to either fire from a closer range to apply their full damage (not melee range, still fairly long, not sure what a good exact number would be), or if they choose to use long range, suffer a damage reduction.
AV grenades do need a nerf. These do enough damage to render AV builds completely useless, since any idiot with a grenade slot can throw these homing bastards into a vehicles face and do massive amounts of damage. They also require very little SP investment for their effectiveness, and are usually seen as a bonus for getting those proto flux / locus grenades. These things should work as a deterrent instead of allowing any infantryman to both run anti-infantry weaponry and pop any tank that comes into view. These nades are the only AV weapon I think should be directly damage nerfed.
Rails basically follow the same thought pattern I use earlier in this post, in that they shouldn't be able to reach out and touch you from across the map and two shot you. I've shot down my fair share of dropships with my rail tank, and it is far too easy. Direct HP buffs will not save you from being knocked across the sky by a lone railer.
The main reason dropships are "fragile" right now is because the maps are too small. You're being forced to play the entire match within range of all AV weaponry on the field at any given point in time, meaning as soon as you take off, everyone knows. The problem isn't your HP, it's forge / rail range. Swarms can be dealt with by good pilots, or tanked for a short time by more expensive fits. When CCP does deliver larger maps, I think you'll see your chances of surviving the round with your dropship intact will increase dramatically, especially if they're coupled with what I've suggested.
TL; DR - Vehicle HP is fine. Forges / rails need a falloff range. Swarms and plasma cannons should be used as benchmarks for AV weaponry. AV nades are disgusting and should be nerfed. Dropship HP buffs will not save you, nor will ADV / PROTO tanks.
Come at me bro. |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation
1085
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 06:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:If people didn't use PROTO AV (which is dirt cheap) against STD HAV's, there wouldn't be a problem. Tbh, I don't know that we'll be seeing ADV or PROTO tanks. With the current skill progression, you get the standard all-around vehicle, which then splits up into various roles. This applies to all vehicles. I know dropsuits follow the same pattern, however they get upgrades for every two levels put into the skill (1, 3, 5). I could be wrong (and hopefully I am), but with the current tree layout and the announcement of more vehicle roles (destroyers and bombers, among others not mentioned), it looks like lateral movement at best.
I also don't believe price is a great balancing factor. My Gunnlogi fits run me about 1.4m per tank, and I have no problem being taken out by proto AV. What comes with the tank is the battlefield presence you bring. When you're seen on the field, there's always a few guys on the other team that switch to AV fits, just to take you out. This makes the infantry's' job easier, since they have less AR's / SR's to worry about. Yes, the tank / AV pricing is vastly different, but just existing at that point in time changes many factors of the fight, often in your teams favor.
Kinky Burrito wrote:I agree with pretty much everything you said. The only thing is that any av nade nerd would have to come with a nerf to free lavs. Whether it be removing them or lowering their ehp. We need less of them in matches, not more.
I was in IRC last night and CCP is aware of the current murder taxi problem and are looking into ways to resolve it. Nerfing HP was one suggestion, among others. |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation
1086
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 07:02:00 -
[3] - Quote
Colonel Killar wrote: What about the PG nerf?
As far as PG goes, I've found that I have plenty to make both a tanky tank and a glass cannon tank. I think that more than what we currently have is a bit overkill and would allow us to reach across both isles and make uber tanks. The 15% PG mods in the lows make a world of difference.
What we have right now makes you focus on one aspect. I would hate to see tanks turn into godmode pubstompers with instagib rifles. You pick an aspect to add on to (EHP, damage, mobility, others I missed), or you try to be a jack of all trades with a bit of everything, but can be outdone by a specialist.
Colonel Killar wrote:Should have explained that one. What I ment is that unlike the HAV, you can keep on throwing them out. Also, For the most part, it's because the ridiculous pricing of the turrets. They need to drop those back down, because doubling those didn't help lower the price of vehicles; it made it higher. 1m for a proto turret does seem pretty high. I mean, I spend 1.4m per tank I throw out, so that's 200k for the tank itself plus 200k for mods, which is pretty out of whack. I'd like to see both a reduction in large turret prices, but with the addition of more modules that may be more expensive than we currently have, such as previously mentioned chaffs for dropships or a projected shield for tanks.
I can see what you mean when comparing the number of proto suits you can field compared to the price of one tank, or even the mass of standards you could deploy. While I still don't think that "because this costs x, it should be capable of destroying at least x", I do see that there is a discrepancy between suit numbers vs. tanks. I can't really come up with a way to balance this out aside from working with the team to point targets and having infantry work on AV while you give them reason to keep rolling AV. |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation
1086
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 07:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
Syther Shadows wrote:that fall out range will kill all rail tanks ~
in a fight close range rail losses to almost everything (apart from installations)
its like saying snipers should only do 10% damage at long range ~ Well, who says that you have to be within fisticuffs range to apply full damage? My main point is that forges / rails apply full damage at all ranges. By adding some kind of falloff (rails hitting out farther than forges), DS pilots can operate at extreme distances and not have to worry about being two-shotted from any point on the map. People are asking for raw HP, which will not save them. If you're hovering over a point and a forge gunner slaps you, it's going to hurt. If you're both in opposing redlines and he slaps you, it should feel like a mosquito just tried to kamikaze into your windshield, instead of the current rhino plowing into your ship.
Pent'noir wrote: I tried plasmas before the reset and found them to be much too weak given their range and slow plasma balls. I had to be very close to the tank, which isn't all that great for a weapon that does the least amount of dmg and need to reload after every shot. Swarms are the bees knees for light av weapons.
To have the plasma be used as an efficient av weapon, the dmg would have to be better than the swarm launcher given it's huge limitations. I will eventually go back and train plasma again because I really want to use it on my suicide fit, but I'm also hoping that it will be fixed.
I just compared a proto plasma cannon to a proto swarm in terms of raw damage.1155 damage per shot from the plasma, 330(stealth nerf?) x 6 = 1980. As you pointed out, there is a pretty large discrepancy between the two. The proto swarm is very good at its job, and there are plenty of them out there, while the plasma cannon is a rare sight to behold.
Rather than straight-up buff the plasma cannon, I'd prefer to see a buff / nerf combo. Reduce the swarm damage and increase the plasma damage. I won't give exact numbers because people will think that those numbers are absolutely what I believe, but it seems as though those two final damages should be swapped with one another, and even then 1980 is a bit high per-hit. Tracking missiles should have to sacrifice damage for their tracking, while dumbfire missiles that require proper aim and long reloads should be doing a considerable amount of damage. Granted, when being used solo, it should not be an "I win" button against tanks, however when used in groups it should be devastating.
EDIT; Is that a typo I see, or was the clip size on swarm launchers really reduced to 3 rounds? |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation
1086
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 07:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
medomai grey wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:If people didn't use PROTO AV (which is dirt cheap) against STD HAV's, there wouldn't be a problem. If people didn't use Proto Turrets against STD Drop Suits, there wouldn't be a problem. Jokes aside. In the real world, a single AV shot can destroy a tank. Because this is a game, it would be incredibly un-balanced if you could one shot tank. So it take multiple hits from AV to pop a tank. The biggest factor that makes tanks crap is that there are too many crap pilots who don't understand the strengths and weaknesses of their own tank. I have seen far too many tanks destroyed because they tried to "tank" AV fire. Even after CCP gave tanks a major buff in HP, crap pilots still flock to the forms to ***** that their tank doesn't have enough HP or that AV is too powerful. This speaks volumes about how much Dust tank pilots suck. Community, I call on you to buff to tanks with better pilots so that forums aren't drowning in crappy pilot tears. CCP can't do it, only you can. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. No amount of buffs / nerfs will save a bad pilot.
I've also seen on more than one occasion a fellow tank sitting there eating swarms. Even if it isn't going to pop your tank immediately, if you see an AV player coming after you, you either find cover and wait for infantry to take him out, or find cover and wait for infantry to take him out. Tanks are not pubstoming meatgrinders. |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation
1098
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 18:39:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:The only thing I would add to your post, Pig, is something I've said in many other threads.
Swarms and Plasma Cannons should have their damage reversed, and Swarms should get a major buff to flight speed.
Then we need to have an effective unguided AV weapon for each race that is used for their Starter fits, so that use of seeker weapons requires an SP investment.
Swarms are then great for putting damage on fast moving vehicles like Dropships and LAVs without also just wrecking them with one hit, and the unguided AV weapons have the power necessary to take down heavier vehicles, but only if you aim well.
Other than that, love the post. Actually, someone pointed out to me the huge damage discrepancy between these two weapon systems earlier in the thread, and I wholeheartedly agree that the damage should be swapped on these two weapon systems. I compared the two prototype versions of these weapons, and swarms win by a large margin.
Skihids wrote:A good start would be a proximity warning for a charging FG, AB on L3, and your favorite resist/boost module on a hotkey.
I don't like the proxy warning on charging forges. These guys already light up like a Christmas tree light when charging. I think a proxy warning would give the unaware pilot too much information, as the current system rewards those who are observant.
That said, I wouldn't mind a lock-on warning for swarms. I'd prefer a lock warning for dropships only, but as soon as you give one guy a new toy, the other will throw a shitfit until he gets it too.
reydient wrote: 1.) use rail weapons need the drop off over distance in damage but not a damage nerf 2.) all pilots need a HOT KEY SYSTEM- we have so many useless buttons but we have to bring up a radial menu to active the correct module , while we are trying to get away. So no our view is obstructed and we just activated the wrong module.
Correct. Rail / forge damage as it is works fine. The falloff is all that is needed, so you hit your max damage out to a good range, then after that the damage would decrease over extreme distances, which is where I usually get to blow up dropships.
As for the hotkey system... I'm on the fence for that. It does obstruct your view, and you do sometimes pick the wrong module, but this is really the first time tanks in a game could do anything aside from blap. Plus, good tankers should know where on the wheel their modules are and it should take a fraction of a second to activate the required module. Hotkeys would work on a KB/M setup, however that would gimp the DualShock players in that the wheel wouldn't be needed for KB/M, so selection time is non-existent.
radient wrote:I agree 100 percent-Dropships are fine in regards to HP. I also agree, the issue is that there is NO " proto vehicles." Right now with the exception of the logi LAV's we see that there is a clear violation of Newtons third law.
Proto AV weapons should be designed to defeat protovehicles- but currently we lack proto vehicles
I'm not sure that we're getting proto vehicles. The current tree setup gives us a basic vehicle, proceeding into vehicle specializations. The basic tank breaks off into Enforcers and Destroyers, the basic LAV branches into Scouts and Logistics, and dropships branch into Logistics, Assault, and Bombers.
Again, I'm not sure vehicles are going to be following the same pattern as dropsuits, where one is a direct improvement over another, but instead we'll have the general vehicle, followed by role-specific vehicles. If this is true, comparing proto AV to vehicles would be a moot point since they both follow their own progression routes. Eve Online actually reworked most of their ships in a "Tiericide" effort to remove the tiering of ships (this ship is better than this, which is even better than this) and put in place role specific ships (Incursus for brawling, Tristan is a mini drone boat, Maulus for EWAR, etc.).
Besides, the tanks we have right now are plenty survivable, and this is coming from a Gunnlogi pilot. |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation
1106
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 21:11:00 -
[7] - Quote
reydient wrote:^
You have good points,
1.) I would only really want the OPTION of the HOT KEY, not a mandatory hotkey system, that way each pilot can maximize his or her play style.
2.) I compared proto vehicles to proto weapons only so that CCP may be aware that there is not a balance between AV and vehicles , but with that said , I believe good pilot skills are better than good pilot skill points- However even with good skills its been super tough these days. So people have skills that are far superior than the gear, and while most of my corp reveres me as a good pilot, I know that my skills could be far greater as a pilot.
3.) i do like the damage reversal idea of swarm and plasma.
This is a great post. I more than support you and I hope that the minority of players that are pilots can come together and make a difference. I think this post says what most of us feel, we don't want a buff we just want a fair chance ! 1. Even having the option of the hotkey means that if you choose not to take it, the guy that did won't have to mess with the wheel. I agree that the wheel could use some tuning, but straight-up hotkeys would give KB/M too much power in terms of ease of use.
2. Totally agree. No amount of modules will save a bad pilot. The current situation has good pilots hiding most of the match rather than supporting infantry because of one rooftop camper with eyes on the world.
3. I'd reduce the one-shot damage of the proto plasma to something like 1700 after the swap, but yea, you should have to sacrifice something to obtain the tracking of swarms. Sometimes they do donuts in the air, which is weird :v
Omen Astrul wrote:1. Nerf AV dmg (so it's a deterrent not the best AV weapon) 2. Change forge gun slightly (slower projectile speed or add falloff) 3. Make dropships faster and more maneuverable 4. ??? 5. Profit from balance
1. AV damage in its current state is fairly balanced, except for the swarm / plasma swap. AV grenades are my primary gripe, since it allows any idiot with a grenade slot extremely potent AV capabilities, and even comes with a homing crutch for bad aimers.
2. I don't mind the projectile speed, but a falloff range would bring the balance pilots are looking for (and is actually the primary focus of my original post :D), while leaving AV intact.
3. Dropships in their current state are in a good spot, aside from the cramped maps forcing you within range of all on-field AV. I'd like to see them get knocked around less by small arms fire though.
4. !!!
5. \o/ |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation
1113
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 21:38:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:I think AV grenades are fine if you have to actually hit your target with them.
Can you prime them like other grenades? I realize they contact detonate, but removing the seeker function from them in exchange for allow you to hold them out and ready before throwing might make them easier to use without being faceroll. No need to prime them. Throw them near the vehicle and they will seek the target, then explode on impact.
If they didn't home in, that'd be pretty cool (but leave a homing variant in there at the cost of damage). Add a condition on the grenade so that it does normal damage to vehicles and massively reduced damage to infantry. I know it's not "realistic", but we're not shooting for realism - we're going for balance. |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation
1113
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 21:42:00 -
[9] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:TheAmazing FlyingPig wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:I think AV grenades are fine if you have to actually hit your target with them.
Can you prime them like other grenades? I realize they contact detonate, but removing the seeker function from them in exchange for allow you to hold them out and ready before throwing might make them easier to use without being faceroll. No need to prime them. Throw them near the vehicle and they will seek the target, then explode on impact. If they didn't home in, that'd be pretty cool (but leave a homing variant in there at the cost of damage). Add a condition on the grenade so that it does normal damage to vehicles and massively reduced damage to infantry. I know it's not "realistic", but we're not shooting for realism - we're going for balance. Not at all. Have it be a shaped charge grenade. Basically, have it do massive damage on contact, but it only detonates on contact with vehicles, and its splash is nonexistent. Ya know, shaped charge didn't even cross my mind. That's as close to perfect as we could get. Fluff it up a bit with space talk and we're set :D |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation
1116
|
Posted - 2013.06.22 00:46:00 -
[10] - Quote
Xocoyol Zaraoul wrote:medomai grey wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:If people didn't use PROTO AV (which is dirt cheap) against STD HAV's, there wouldn't be a problem. If people didn't use Proto Turrets against STD Drop Suits, there wouldn't be a problem. Jokes aside. In the real world, a single AV shot can destroy a tank. Because this is a game, it would be incredibly un-balanced if you could one shot tank. So it take multiple hits from AV to pop a tank. The biggest factor that makes tanks crap is that there are too many crap pilots who don't understand the strengths and weaknesses of their own tank. I have seen far too many tanks destroyed because they tried to "tank" AV fire. Even after CCP gave tanks a major buff in HP, crap pilots still flock to the forms to ***** that their tank doesn't have enough HP or that AV is too powerful. This speaks volumes about how much Dust tank pilots suck. Community, I call on you to buff to tanks with better pilots so that forums aren't drowning in crappy pilot tears. CCP can't do it, only you can. This is actually antiquated, if we are talking about cutting-edge technology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnAmPEjsOGwhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Fist_(countermeasure) There are also other forms of Aggressive Defensive Systems, as well as internal defenses that make it significantly harder to destroy modern Main Battle Tanks. Even turret jamming is not as common as it once was, though still an appreciable problem. Irregardless, disabling a modern MBT is much more difficult then it was in the cold war era. This area is what I spend my life/job/freetime around. Modern warfair is significantly more complicated then it was a mere decade or two ago. Take for example the new acoustic systems that have been deployed for a while that can triangulate an identify a shooter along with his weapon type and range and location in actual combat time. As my last note: This universe that we play in has magical shields that negate 100% of all damage until the shield buffer is destroyed... Realism be damned. Gameplay >> Realism That's a pretty sweet video. Technology's scary kitten :v |
|
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation
1117
|
Posted - 2013.06.22 00:55:00 -
[11] - Quote
Baal Roo wrote:I always find it funny when someone tries to claim that one of the "trade offs" for forge guns is that they are weak against infantry.
They are OHK against any infantry unit in the game, how is that possibly "weak against infantry?" They are one of the better anti-infantry weapons in the game. especially in the average mid-range encounter. Let's not even talk about how easy it is to "forge gun snipe" infantry from above. It's easier than using a regular sniper rifle. There will always be outliers in any given situation. Some people are very good at aiming their forges at other people, most are not. If you miss the first shot and the other guy sees you, you're going down. I would certainly hope a gigantic ball of railrape is a one hit kill against infantry, but it can't rapid fire, can't deny areas, and slows you to a crawl (if heavies aren't at that point already).
This is beside the point of the thread though. I would like to continue discussing AV weaponry in terms of its intended role. |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation
1125
|
Posted - 2013.06.22 15:30:00 -
[12] - Quote
Lookin' for some more feedback :v |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation
1156
|
Posted - 2013.06.23 20:18:00 -
[13] - Quote
Xender17 wrote:+1 so I could -1 Care to explain why you disagree? I'm completely open to other opinion. |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation
1164
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 04:05:00 -
[14] - Quote
Tbh, I think the lack of a vehicle lock is intended. CCP, with 1.2, is introducing a way to kick players from a PC match before the game starts. They said that they want people to earn the corporations trust in order to be able to AWOX in a match, but they didn't want the corp leaders to have absolute control during a match. This means that they want some element of sabotage and espionage present in their game.
The lack of a vehicle lock means that someone is able to steal your vehicle and turn it against you. I see no problem with this.
I would, however, like to stay on the topic of AV and not derail the thread into vehicle locks. |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation
1165
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 04:31:00 -
[15] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:TheAmazing FlyingPig wrote:The lack of a vehicle lock means that someone is able to steal your vehicle and turn it against you. I see no problem with this.
So are you saying that random blueberries stealing your vehicles is ok, or that you think anyone who doesn't play PC doesn't get a say? I've never been part of a corp (though I have searched for one before), and I've had a tank or two stolen from me in the past. I see no problem with them taking it from me.
However, now that I think about it, there is literally no reason (aside from trolling) to AWOX a pub match, since the match doesn't matter, and even if you do get the vehicle, FF is off. Maybe have a sort of vehicle lock for matchmaking-based game modes, and everything outside of that use the current mechanics.
That said, I would really like to stay on the topic of the current AV balance and the suggestions made in this thread. |
|
|
|