Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sgt Buttscratch
G I A N T EoN.
359
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 19:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
So with my 3x I became a sketchy tanker, some moments were glorious, others eh... but here's what I found
problem 1: Proto AV available: YES Proto HAV available: NO
I think its out right stupid to have proto AV and not vehicles yet, this isn't something that shouldnt be removed, we just need proto tanks/Drop ships, **** LAV's.
Problem 2: narrow minded and thoughtless design process. Vehicles: Armor on vehicles should offer more than just HP, its that simple. right now the difference between using 60mm plates and 180mm plates is HP at the cost of movement speed and equipping costs. It should have been(level STD/ADV) 60mm plates: STD:680/-10ms/10% damage resistance ADV:782/-10ms/10% damage resistance 120mm plates: STD:1360/-18ms/20% damage resistance ADV:1564/-18ms/20% damage resistance 120mm plates: STD:2720/-25ms/30% damage resistance ADV:3128/-25ms/30% damage resistance
Current armor is one dimensional garbage. Tanks weak spots should be underneath, and also the 2 small turrets(separate targeting, and damage resist). A fully stacked tank should be able to pull 100%+ damage resistance, for short bursts(armor+hardeners+DCU+ skill). If a tank is met by AV no boosts going, it should die, but fully protected should laugh at all non organized attacks.
The down side would come from the adding capacitors: The tank runs all its goodies off a capacitor, with CPU/PG removed. Better capacitor, better fittings. Downside coming from capacitors lifespan, capacitors would have a set lifespan, before the tank needs to take off a regenerate which should take X mins. A capacitor could also over load from damage taken, so even tho the tank is beasting through damage, it's capacitor is loosing lifespan at X% per X amount of damage being resisted.
AV: Damage from various items is messy my order of damage from least to most would be(at proto): Swarmer AV grenade Forge gun Prox mines
Swarmers: Should be high effective versus standard LAV, moderate veruses LLAV's, lesser versus HAV's(good HAV's) AV grenade: should remain at current damage. Forge gun: remain at current damage, they also have the ability to catch vehicles off guard in a nasty way. Prox mines: Should do 3-5k damage each, also there should be variants, 15m radius/3k dmg, 3m radius/5-6k dmg, EMP, will shut a HAV or LAV module/capacitor system down.
TL;DR, TANK's should be tanks, and tank. but with well a focused and tactical approach, they should go down.
Disclaimer: Idea's could be very flawed, I am new to tanking, and this is what I saw/experienced, mixed with a few chats with eve players. |
Void Echo
Internal Error. League of Infamy
374
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 20:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
the 2 best things about this post are: 1. you pointed out like many of us already have that there are no advanced or prototype HAVs. 2. you admitted that you are new to tanks |
The-Errorist
BetaMax Beta CRONOS.
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 05:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
So you're suggesting that AV grenades should should stay at current damage and make the light weapon, Swarm launcher, do less damage to tanks? This would make the AV grenade even more powerful compared to the Swarm Launcher.
AV grenades should do less damage to tanks. |
Sgt Buttscratch
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
360
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 05:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
AV grenades should do damage. but as stated in my op, tanks armor should be adjusted, to gain more resistance to damage, so harderners dont put you up to 50-60%, they take you to you closer to 100%, meaning you can tank almost all AV when fully beafed up. Get caught out and boom |
The-Errorist
BetaMax Beta CRONOS.
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 05:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
Sgt Buttscratch wrote:AV grenades should do damage. but as stated in my op, tanks armor should be adjusted, to gain more resistance to damage, so harderners dont put you up to 50-60%, they take you to you closer to 100%, meaning you can tank almost all AV when fully beafed up. Get caught out and boom This sounds ok. Also you should post something about shield tanking. |
The-Errorist
BetaMax Beta CRONOS.
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 05:44:00 -
[6] - Quote
Also the resistances for the plates is a little too much. With those bonuses, an armor tank would not need to use active defense. |
Sgt Buttscratch
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
360
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 05:54:00 -
[7] - Quote
The-Errorist wrote:Also the resistances for the plates is a little too much. With those bonuses, an armor tank would not need to use active defense.
Eh, the idea is, all your equipment goes on a capacitor that can be over loaded leaving you with just that resistance, hardeners, reps, DCU would all fail when capacitor does. Which is overloaded when tank either spends too long in action, (guns heat should also slowly overload capacitors), or when you recieve too much damage. The concept would need some niggling, maybe removing the other resistance plates, to stop OTT resistances when without power. In doing this we avoid nerfing anything, but try to bring tanks into the name they hold, and make AV, a tactical, and co-ordinated attack. I also gave up my turret gunners to be killed. (also prox mine would over ride all of this, hitting tanks directly from bottom, for max damage.)
Shields would work the same ish. I would need a shield tanker to adapt the idea, I only run armor tanks. I do know that shield tanks need a lil love tho. I never have an issue with the majority of the ones I face(yes i'm sure there a good few who'd **** me up). |
The-Errorist
BetaMax Beta CRONOS.
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 06:20:00 -
[8] - Quote
I re-read the parts about the capacitor and better understand what you're proposing.
Since shield extender modules and armor plates would bring extra resistance with it, they would need to have low resistance with a stacking penalty so that people cant just only stack tons of 60mm plates or shield extenders for a ton of permanent resistance. For example, 3 of those armor plates would give 30% damage reduction and with max armor upgrades, a tank would still have 40% damage reduction when their capacitor overloads.
Shifting over 6-7% resistance of shield extenders and armor plates to the active and passive hardeners would solve that problem. |
Cyrille Fodeux
Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 06:21:00 -
[9] - Quote
There should be more different versions of AV nades though. 1. Basic AV nade: medium damage, targeting, the current one with less damage 2. higher damage, less throwing distance, no targeting, no splash 3. higher slpash rad and damage, targeting, less damage, also damages passengers
They would need to be used more tactical and would also give more variety. 1 is for fast vehicles, 2 for stronger vehicles, 3 for all |
The-Errorist
BetaMax Beta CRONOS.
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 06:25:00 -
[10] - Quote
Cyrille Fodeux wrote:There should be more different versions of AV nades though. 1. Basic AV nade: medium damage, targeting, the current one with less damage 2. higher damage, less throwing distance, no targeting, no splash 3. higher slpash rad and damage, targeting, less damage, also damages passengers
They would need to be used more tactical and would also give more variety. 1 is for fast vehicles, 2 for stronger vehicles, 3 for all What you are suggesting more or less already exist in Dust. 1- AV grenade 2- Basically a Packed AV grenade 3- Sleek AV grenade. |
|
Sgt Buttscratch
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
360
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 06:30:00 -
[11] - Quote
The-Errorist wrote:I re-read the parts about the capacitor and better understand what you're proposing.
Since shield extender modules and armor plates would bring extra resistance with it, they would need to have low resistance with a stacking penalty so that people cant just only stack tons of 60mm plates or shield extenders for a ton of permanent resistance. For example, 3 of those armor plates would give 30% damage reduction and with max armor upgrades, a tank would still have 40% damage reduction when their capacitor overloads.
Shifting over 6-7% resistance of shield extenders and armor plates to the active and passive hardeners would solve that problem.
But on 2nd thinking, I also mentioned this in last post/edit. When a tanks capacitor fails, maybe to stop the op nightmare it could create, all equiped items should fail, including plates. leaving you with just base skill resistances. Creating risk. |
The-Errorist
BetaMax Beta CRONOS.
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 06:33:00 -
[12] - Quote
Sgt Buttscratch wrote:The-Errorist wrote:I re-read the parts about the capacitor and better understand what you're proposing.
Since shield extender modules and armor plates would bring extra resistance with it, they would need to have low resistance with a stacking penalty so that people cant just only stack tons of 60mm plates or shield extenders for a ton of permanent resistance. For example, 3 of those armor plates would give 30% damage reduction and with max armor upgrades, a tank would still have 40% damage reduction when their capacitor overloads.
Shifting over 6-7% resistance of shield extenders and armor plates to the active and passive hardeners would solve that problem. But on 2nd thinking, I also mentioned this in last post/edit. When a tanks capacitor fails, maybe to stop the op nightmare it could create, all equiped items should fail, including plates. leaving you with just base skill resistances. Creating risk. I didn't think you meant also plates. It doesn't really make sense for armor plates and shield extenders to fail too. EVE ships don't lose armor/shields from their plates and extenders when their capacitor fails, why should that happen in Dust? |
The-Errorist
BetaMax Beta CRONOS.
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 06:40:00 -
[13] - Quote
Cyrille Fodeux wrote:There should be more different versions of AV nades though. 1. Basic AV nade: medium damage, targeting, the current one with less damage 2. higher damage, less throwing distance, no targeting, no splash 3. higher slpash rad and damage, targeting, less damage, also damages passengers
They would need to be used more tactical and would also give more variety. 1 is for fast vehicles, 2 for stronger vehicles, 3 for all For number 3 you have both higher damage and less damage. Anyway I support what you probably meant: higher splash rad and targeting range, less damage, also damages passengers. |
Sgt Buttscratch
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
360
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 06:43:00 -
[14] - Quote
The-Errorist wrote:Sgt Buttscratch wrote:The-Errorist wrote:I re-read the parts about the capacitor and better understand what you're proposing.
Since shield extender modules and armor plates would bring extra resistance with it, they would need to have low resistance with a stacking penalty so that people cant just only stack tons of 60mm plates or shield extenders for a ton of permanent resistance. For example, 3 of those armor plates would give 30% damage reduction and with max armor upgrades, a tank would still have 40% damage reduction when their capacitor overloads.
Shifting over 6-7% resistance of shield extenders and armor plates to the active and passive hardeners would solve that problem. But on 2nd thinking, I also mentioned this in last post/edit. When a tanks capacitor fails, maybe to stop the op nightmare it could create, all equiped items should fail, including plates. leaving you with just base skill resistances. Creating risk. I didn't think you meant also plates. It doesn't really make sense for armor plates and shield extenders to fail too. EVE ships don't lose armor/shields from their plates and extenders when their capacitor fails, why should that happen in Dust?
"Disclaimer: Idea's could be very flawed"
fair enough. it is a work in progress though, just deleted them cells. I have a general Idea, my knowledge of eve is minimal, my friend was mentioning how capacitors would be better than PG/CPU reqs on tanks. I liked how it sounded, and I'm kinda interested on how to get that into dust instead of the lack luster sub par tanks available. |
Aizen Intiki
Ghost Wolf Industries Alpha Wolf Pack
78
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 06:45:00 -
[15] - Quote
Lower the values of the resistances, trash your idea of how the cap should work, and get rid of PROTO AV until We get PROTO vehicles. Fixed the game vehicle side.
Peace, Aizen |
Sgt Buttscratch
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
360
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 06:48:00 -
[16] - Quote
I don't want anything removed, AV shouldn't be punished because we are(2 wrongs dont make a right!!).
The idea is to change the way tanks work, and also the manner in which AV is spammed(mostly by a single player). and try make tanks a force to be reconed with, and those who skill AV, to become tactical assaults against. |
The-Errorist
BetaMax Beta CRONOS.
47
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 06:49:00 -
[17] - Quote
Sgt Buttscratch wrote:"Disclaimer: Idea's could be very flawed"
fair enough. it is a work in progress though, just deleted them cells. I have a general Idea, my knowledge of eve is minimal, my friend was mentioning how capacitors would be better than PG/CPU reqs on tanks. I liked how it sounded, and I'm kinda interested on how to get that into dust instead of the lack luster sub par tanks available. Just giving some friendly criticism to make the great idea better. |
The-Errorist
BetaMax Beta CRONOS.
47
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 07:03:00 -
[18] - Quote
As you stared, since its a PG/CPU replacement, having the just the resistance of plates/extenders only stay instead of keeping HP bonuses when the capacitor would need to recharge, would be good. Having it be based on what the cap would allow would make balancing easier. |
Aizen Intiki
Ghost Wolf Industries Alpha Wolf Pack
79
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 07:07:00 -
[19] - Quote
Sgt Buttscratch wrote:I don't want anything removed, AV shouldn't be punished because we are(2 wrongs dont make a right!!).
The idea is to change the way tanks work, and also the manner in which AV is spammed(mostly by a single player). and try make tanks a force to be reconed without killing AV
It doesn't kill AV. It makes it on a even playing field. If you give someone the ability to easily best another party even though they work harder, that person will most likely take it. In video games, that's a big no-no. This makes it on a even playing field and is working as intended. Now, if the pilot suits made it to where if you had, say a fully loaded HAV, you could technically run the modules almost active all the time, then I would say keep PROTO in, but that's if the team size gets increased in competitive matches (PC) by a squad or two, as running a full HAV makes your team lose a lot of..... movement.
Peace, Aizen |
Cyrille Fodeux
Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 07:14:00 -
[20] - Quote
The-Errorist wrote:Cyrille Fodeux wrote:There should be more different versions of AV nades though. 1. Basic AV nade: medium damage, targeting, the current one with less damage 2. higher damage, less throwing distance, no targeting, no splash 3. higher slpash rad and damage, targeting, less damage, also damages passengers
They would need to be used more tactical and would also give more variety. 1 is for fast vehicles, 2 for stronger vehicles, 3 for all For number 3 you have both higher damage and less damage. Anyway I support what you probably meant: higher splash rad and targeting range, less damage, also damages passengers.
I meant higher splash damage and lower direct damage. The splash damage would damage passengers and thus should be higher.
|
|
The-Errorist
BetaMax Beta CRONOS.
49
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 07:19:00 -
[21] - Quote
Aizen Intiki wrote:Lower the values of the resistances, trash your idea of how the cap should work, and get rid of PROTO AV until We get PROTO vehicles. Fixed the game vehicle side. Peace, Aizen I don't think proto vehicle are ever gonna come. Their probably just be standard and specialized versions of those vehicles, proto pilot suits, and proto modules for the suit.
Tanks and LAVs can already fit all proto stuff, so its like proto. |
Aizen Intiki
Ghost Wolf Industries Alpha Wolf Pack
83
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 08:41:00 -
[22] - Quote
The-Errorist wrote:Aizen Intiki wrote:Lower the values of the resistances, trash your idea of how the cap should work, and get rid of PROTO AV until We get PROTO vehicles. Fixed the game vehicle side. Peace, Aizen I don't think proto vehicle are ever gonna come. Their probably just be standard and specialized versions of those vehicles, proto pilot suits, and proto modules for the suit. Tanks and LAVs can already fit all proto stuff, so its like proto.
The reason why they can is because vehicels go down the EVE path of modules, having higher tiered things fit easier. These hulls aren't PROTO. They don't scale well against PROTO weapons well at all. And No, A actual PROTO vehicle against a STD vehicle and the PROTO vehicle (unless piloted by a idiot with worse skills) Will ROFL stomp athe STD vehicle. Be quiet.
Peace, Aizen |
CharCharOdell
Shining Flame Amarr Empire
302
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 08:45:00 -
[23] - Quote
The real interesting part of the OP was the bit about capacitors. If those are added, there's no reason I shouldnt be able to have 90% damage resistance for a few seconds if i want my capacitor to allow me that, in exchange for losing the ability to fire my laser turret.
the vehicle nerfs right now, i hope, are just placeholders for other things. Maybe there will be energy vampires, webifiers, electronic warefare to counter real proto tanks when we can be battleships and absolutely wreck everything in our path short of another well fitted tank. Let's be real here, a proto tank, to survive vs 3 proto ushukone forges, would need around 15,000 HP with duel reppers, and multiple hardeners. |
Void Echo
Internal Error. League of Infamy
396
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 08:49:00 -
[24] - Quote
Sgt Buttscratch wrote:I don't want anything removed, AV shouldn't be punished because we are(2 wrongs dont make a right!!).
The idea is to change the way tanks work, and also the manner in which AV is spammed(mostly by a single player). and try make tanks a force to be reconed without killing AV
before we change anything and the tanks get nerfed AGAIN, we need advanced and prototype tanks in the market |
Chances Ghost
Inf4m0us ROFL BROS
263
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 09:13:00 -
[25] - Quote
my favorite part of the thread is that the guy thinks that its possable to code for 100% damage resistance.
no, just no, the math doesnt work like that and to do so you would have to recode the entire damage system for every weapon in the game.
not only that but it will be abused |
Sgt Buttscratch
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
364
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 16:07:00 -
[26] - Quote
Chances Ghost wrote:my favorite part of the thread is that the guy thinks that its possable to code for 100% damage resistance.
no, just no, the math doesnt work like that and to do so you would have to recode the entire damage system for every weapon in the game.
not only that but it will be abused
The damage would be taken, just transfered to the capacitors hp/heat bar. It isn't far fetched or impossible, would just need some reworks.
@Void. I'm not in anyway trying to say we don't need the proto tanks. Its about making tanks, tank.. |
Sgt Buttscratch
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
364
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 16:08:00 -
[27] - Quote
CharCharOdell wrote:The real interesting part of the OP was the bit about capacitors. If those are added, there's no reason I shouldnt be able to have 90% damage resistance for a few seconds if i want my capacitor to allow me that, in exchange for losing the ability to fire my laser turret.
the vehicle nerfs right now, i hope, are just placeholders for other things. Maybe there will be energy vampires, webifiers, electronic warefare to counter real proto tanks when we can be battleships and absolutely wreck everything in our path short of another well fitted tank. Let's be real here, a proto tank, to survive vs 3 proto ushukone forges, would need around 15,000 HP with duel reppers, and multiple hardeners.
The loss of turret is a weird deal, could also be better, maybe sit at 70% ish resistance, choose to shut weapons down and gain the 20% for a short while. |
Harpyja
DUST University Ivy League
216
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:02:00 -
[28] - Quote
This is what I just read:
"My armor HAV isn't winning enough. Please make it a NUKE-ALL-BUT-ME button"
You haven't even tried a shield HAV. Those things are utter garbage as of right now when compared to armor HAVs. |
ladwar
Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn
803
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 19:27:00 -
[29] - Quote
Sgt Buttscratch wrote:So with my 3x I became a sketchy tanker, some moments were glorious, others eh... but here's what I found
problem 1: Proto AV available: YES Proto HAV available: NO
I think its out right stupid to have proto AV and not vehicles yet, this isn't something that should be removed, we just need proto tanks/Drop ships, **** LAV's.
Problem 2: narrow minded and thoughtless design process. Vehicles: Armor on vehicles should offer more than just HP, its that simple. right now the difference between using 60mm plates and 180mm plates is HP at the cost of movement speed and equipping costs. It should have been(level STD/ADV) 60mm plates: STD:680/-10ms/10% damage resistance ADV:782/-10ms/10% damage resistance 120mm plates: STD:1360/-18ms/20% damage resistance ADV:1564/-18ms/20% damage resistance 120mm plates: STD:2720/-25ms/30% damage resistance ADV:3128/-25ms/30% damage resistance
Current armor is one dimensional garbage. Tanks weak spots should be underneath, and also the 2 small turrets(separate targeting, and damage resist). A fully stacked tank should be able to pull 100%+ damage resistance, for short bursts(armor+hardeners+DCU+ skill). If a tank is met by AV no boosts going, it should die, but fully protected should laugh at all non organized attacks.
The down side would come from the adding capacitors: The tank runs all its goodies off a capacitor, with CPU/PG removed. Better capacitor, better fittings. Downside coming from capacitors lifespan, capacitors would have a set lifespan, before the tank needs to take off a regenerate which should take X mins. A capacitor could also over load from damage taken, so even tho the tank is beasting through damage, it's capacitor is loosing lifespan at X% per X amount of damage being resisted.
AV: Damage from various items is messy my order of damage from least to most would be(at proto): Swarmer AV grenade Forge gun Prox mines
Swarmers: Should be high effective versus standard LAV, moderate veruses LLAV's, lesser versus HAV's(good HAV's) AV grenade: should remain at current damage. Forge gun: remain at current damage, they also have the ability to catch vehicles off guard in a nasty way. Prox mines: Should do 3-5k damage each, also there should be variants, 15m radius/3k dmg, 3m radius/5-6k dmg, EMP, will shut a HAV or LAV module/capacitor system down.
TL;DR, TANK's should be tanks, and tank. but with well a focused and tactical approach, they should go down.
Disclaimer: Idea's could be very flawed, I am new to tanking, and this is what I saw/experienced, mixed with a few chats with eve players. its clear you haven't tried shield tanks... just wait, its even worse. armor HAVs have the good life of tanks. i'll wait for you to go ahead and try. |
ladwar
Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn
805
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 19:29:00 -
[30] - Quote
Sgt Buttscratch wrote:Chances Ghost wrote:my favorite part of the thread is that the guy thinks that its possable to code for 100% damage resistance.
no, just no, the math doesnt work like that and to do so you would have to recode the entire damage system for every weapon in the game.
not only that but it will be abused The damage would be taken, just transfered to the capacitors hp/heat bar. It isn't far fetched or impossible, would just need some reworks. @Void. I'm not in anyway trying to say we don't need the proto tanks. Its about making tanks, tank.. i think that would work better on shield HAVs, but hey im waiting of PS4 to come out. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |