Two existing defensive powers can be reworked to be vehicle equivalents of blocks. But only with further additions:
People crying for nerfing dampening field, for supporting their stance, are "conveniently" missing some things:
1 - Character defense comes from combinantion of at least 3 factors: stats, passives and powers.
2 - Vehicles don't have stats and passives, active equipment mods equals only to powers. To the some extent passive mods can be considered an equivalent of stats and passives combined, but they don't have the same level of efficiency.
3 - Thus, vehicles with their defense powers as their only mitigation will NOT be between AT's and FF's no matter how hard one likes to argue. They will be, in terms of survivability, below archetypes, or rather on pair with the most squishy archetypes.
No matter the kind of vehicle and its bigger hitpoints. Especially since vehicles can't use even basic healing devices.
4 - This will be even more true when all faulty weapons will be toned down to 100ft to not break enemy's AI and with adjustments to combat speed. The hit-and-run tactic (which, btw, also breaks enemy's AI) also will not be possible.
It is ignorance to say that vehicles should fall between AT's and FF's when their main downsides are not attacks, but defense options. Options working now will not be as effective after the changes.
Solution to put it in line, imho, would be:
1 - Doing Dampening and Holographic fields into equivalent of vehicle block powers.
2 - Giving vehicles passives, the simplest way to do so is to handle passives just in the form of mods. A defense oriented passives for those who want tank vehicles. A purely DPS ones for paper-thin DPS vehicles. Also, support passives. No need for hybrid passives, since vehicles don't need to be universal.
3 - No need for stats or other adjustments, since existing defense mods can substitute for stats+gear equivalent just fine.
Then, when vehicles have actual defenses composed of the same factors as characters, it is more possible to put them in line.
As it is for now, nerfing existing vehicle defenses for the sake of the nerfs, without doing anything more, is to make people not using vehicles, or not opening lockboxes (unless made only for fancy rides).
So yes, "can't grasp" was very fitting term.
And once everything is done, the game can move away from the vehicles. Save from releasing an occasional new ride from time to time, just to keep the profit coming.
Two existing defensive powers can be reworked to be vehicle equivalents of blocks. But only with further additions:
People suggesting for nerfing dampening field, for supporting their stance, might be" missing some things:
1 - Character defense comes from combinantion of at least 3 factors: stats, passives and powers.
2 - Vehicles don't have stats and passives, active equipment mods equals only to powers. To the some extent passive mods can be considered an equivalent of stats and passives combined, but they don't have the same level of efficiency.
3 - Thus, vehicles with their defense powers as their only mitigation will NOT be between AT's and FF's no matter how hard one likes to argue. They will be, in terms of survivability, below archetypes, or rather on pair with the most squishy archetypes.
No matter the kind of vehicle and its bigger hitpoints. Especially since vehicles can't use even basic healing devices.
4 - This will be even more true when all faulty weapons will be toned down to 100ft to not break enemy's AI and with adjustments to combat speed. The hit-and-run tactic (which, btw, also breaks enemy's AI) also will not be possible.
It is in my opinion incorrect to say that vehicles should fall between AT's and FF's when their main downsides are not attacks, but defense options. Options working now will not be as effective after the changes.
Solution to put it in line, imho, would be:
1 - Doing Dampening and Holographic fields into equivalent of vehicle block powers.
2 - Giving vehicles passives, the simplest way to do so is to handle passives just in the form of mods. A defense oriented passives for those who want tank vehicles. A purely DPS ones for paper-thin DPS vehicles. Also, support passives. No need for hybrid passives, since vehicles don't need to be universal.
3 - No need for stats or other adjustments, since existing defense mods can substitute for stats+gear equivalent just fine.
Then, when vehicles have actual defenses composed of the same factors as characters, it is more possible to put them in line.
As it is for now, nerfing existing vehicle defenses for the sake of the nerfs, without doing anything more, is to make people not using vehicles, or not opening lockboxes (unless made only for fancy rides). <---make them what? Honestly, I don't know where this sentence was going
So yes, my opinion is "can't grasp" was very fitting term.
And once everything is done, the game can move away from the vehicles. Save from releasing an occasional new ride from time to time, just to keep the profit coming.
There, I added a lil green to make this far less hostile. So, interesting points but there's a few things I've been reading in this thread(and the archived ones as well) that have been a little puzzling to be to be honest. What is it on PTS that is beating you all down so badly? Where are these challenges that show how fragile that vehicles are and the necessity for these dodge in and dodge out tactics? What is actually keeping some people from just charging in and making everything dead? Have these examples actually been generated on PTS in light of these changes?
I mean this seriously. I've been running through zones with vehicles tricked out and, literally, pulling pieces off of them and into my inventory as I go to try and reach the point where I become weaker than some AT and such. I am just not seeing it. Unless it's a cosmic I'm rarely running into energy issues in most situations.
So, without the insults. Without the talking down. How about some actual testable situations on PTS that can be compared for data? Some people seem to struggle with these vehicles (nobody in particular) and I just want to see it.
Now, I'm not one of those people on the forums that instantly believes that just because something doesn't affect me directly that it doesn't exist(trust me, rare bugs and I meet often in this game) so I'm flat out asking. Show me some scenarios, data, and/or something that can be reproduced. Please.
Editing people's post to put your words into other's mouth makes you only looking snarky, not smart. My post was as hostile as it needed to be, thank you very much. Your etiquette is lacking (provided it was there, but I doubt).
And yes, following your ill-conceived suggestion will make people not buying vehicles, because why to bother with something as durable as the Inferno AT?
The AT is for free, after all.
And now try to run zones with not min-maxed vehicle, attacking every enemy. Everyone. Do a full leveling path. But remember - you are not allowed to hit-and-run (because after changes it will not be possible), no dampening field (or use it rarely, since you'd love it nerfed anyway, so no hyprocrisy). And no breaking enemy's AI as well.
On the same level as average AT operates.
Testing anything with an equivalent of a high end gear and max level is not a test.
And just because this game may be easy for some AT's it doesn't mean that average vehicle should have it harder (to artificially create challenge), especially since vehicles are more expensive than AT's. They should not be on the lower level of performance.
I mean this seriously. I've been running through zones with vehicles tricked out and, literally, pulling pieces off of them and into my inventory as I go to try and reach the point where I become weaker than some AT and such.
There are other similar examples which have appeared in this thread as well as the other ones in this process.
No, not really....because I'm completely calm in my postings. If you're going to be all condescending and hostile then you serve no purpose to me in this testing process since your reply was basically to lecture me, not even bother to read my post, and then tell me to do things I've already done. This is the PTS forums....I can go to the multiple other subforums here if I want to see that kind of thing.
Perhaps, just maybe, not everyone is out to get you with some kind of secret agenda?
Goodbye.
Now if anyone has any actual examples that can be reproduced then please, by all means, list them.
Oh, we're supposed to be using "hit and run" tactics with these vehicles? Huh, I always just pushed the hyperkinetic invulnerability button and then held my grav pulse/plasma beam spam and watched funny cat videos on youtube on my second monitor while i sat there, only glancing over to see if i needed to fly to the next group of mobs.
Guess I'm doin it wrong...
(Oh, also, Cross, no, stop making everything into a gatling gun! This is a Rail gun: http://youtu.be/NWZPp3aEjuM)
In B4 current railguns we have in real life are way better than what we get in this game (like all the munitions powers).
So, without the insults. Without the talking down. How about some actual testable situations on PTS that can be compared for data? Some people seem to struggle with these vehicles (nobody in particular) and I just want to see it.
I agree with this very much. Not just for vehicles, but any time someone tries to make a case that a power/mod/device/etc. is out of balance, and particularly that something needs to be nerfed, I think in order to be given much weight they should provide a specific repeatable circumstance and/or data, as opposed to vague anecdotes.
However, I don't really think the following statement is a very good example either in specificity or repeatability:
I mean this seriously. I've been running through zones with vehicles tricked out and, literally, pulling pieces off of them and into my inventory as I go to try and reach the point where I become weaker than some AT and such. I am just not seeing it. Unless it's a cosmic I'm rarely running into energy issues in most situations.
Personally, my general feeling about vehicles is that I was initially skeptical, but I eventually found some uses for them and ended up accumulating several, along with weapons and mods. Now I see efforts to try to make them less useful at the same time as trying to get us to invest more Q/Zen/whatever into upgrading them. I think Cryptic needs to consider what is the value proposition for vehicles, where do they fit into the game; are they intended to be just a gimmicky travel power/become device, or is it ok to expect them to shine in some specific circumstances where an AT/FF toon may not?
LTS since 2009. Author of ACT parser module for CO. Founder of Rampagers. Resident curmudgeon.
"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." -- W. Edwards Deming
Comments
Two existing defensive powers can be reworked to be vehicle equivalents of blocks. But only with further additions:
People crying for nerfing dampening field, for supporting their stance, are "conveniently" missing some things:
1 - Character defense comes from combinantion of at least 3 factors: stats, passives and powers.
2 - Vehicles don't have stats and passives, active equipment mods equals only to powers. To the some extent passive mods can be considered an equivalent of stats and passives combined, but they don't have the same level of efficiency.
3 - Thus, vehicles with their defense powers as their only mitigation will NOT be between AT's and FF's no matter how hard one likes to argue. They will be, in terms of survivability, below archetypes, or rather on pair with the most squishy archetypes.
No matter the kind of vehicle and its bigger hitpoints. Especially since vehicles can't use even basic healing devices.
4 - This will be even more true when all faulty weapons will be toned down to 100ft to not break enemy's AI and with adjustments to combat speed. The hit-and-run tactic (which, btw, also breaks enemy's AI) also will not be possible.
It is ignorance to say that vehicles should fall between AT's and FF's when their main downsides are not attacks, but defense options. Options working now will not be as effective after the changes.
Solution to put it in line, imho, would be:
1 - Doing Dampening and Holographic fields into equivalent of vehicle block powers.
2 - Giving vehicles passives, the simplest way to do so is to handle passives just in the form of mods. A defense oriented passives for those who want tank vehicles. A purely DPS ones for paper-thin DPS vehicles. Also, support passives. No need for hybrid passives, since vehicles don't need to be universal.
3 - No need for stats or other adjustments, since existing defense mods can substitute for stats+gear equivalent just fine.
Then, when vehicles have actual defenses composed of the same factors as characters, it is more possible to put them in line.
As it is for now, nerfing existing vehicle defenses for the sake of the nerfs, without doing anything more, is to make people not using vehicles, or not opening lockboxes (unless made only for fancy rides).
So yes, "can't grasp" was very fitting term.
And once everything is done, the game can move away from the vehicles. Save from releasing an occasional new ride from time to time, just to keep the profit coming.
There, I added a lil green to make this far less hostile. So, interesting points but there's a few things I've been reading in this thread(and the archived ones as well) that have been a little puzzling to be to be honest. What is it on PTS that is beating you all down so badly? Where are these challenges that show how fragile that vehicles are and the necessity for these dodge in and dodge out tactics? What is actually keeping some people from just charging in and making everything dead? Have these examples actually been generated on PTS in light of these changes?
I mean this seriously. I've been running through zones with vehicles tricked out and, literally, pulling pieces off of them and into my inventory as I go to try and reach the point where I become weaker than some AT and such. I am just not seeing it. Unless it's a cosmic I'm rarely running into energy issues in most situations.
So, without the insults. Without the talking down. How about some actual testable situations on PTS that can be compared for data? Some people seem to struggle with these vehicles (nobody in particular) and I just want to see it.
Now, I'm not one of those people on the forums that instantly believes that just because something doesn't affect me directly that it doesn't exist(trust me, rare bugs and I meet often in this game) so I'm flat out asking. Show me some scenarios, data, and/or something that can be reproduced. Please.
Join Date: Aug 2009 | Title: Devslayer
But I can do the same, look:
Now we're on the same level.
And yes, following your ill-conceived suggestion will make people not buying vehicles, because why to bother with something as durable as the Inferno AT?
The AT is for free, after all.
And now try to run zones with not min-maxed vehicle, attacking every enemy. Everyone. Do a full leveling path. But remember - you are not allowed to hit-and-run (because after changes it will not be possible), no dampening field (or use it rarely, since you'd love it nerfed anyway, so no hyprocrisy). And no breaking enemy's AI as well.
On the same level as average AT operates.
Testing anything with an equivalent of a high end gear and max level is not a test.
And just because this game may be easy for some AT's it doesn't mean that average vehicle should have it harder (to artificially create challenge), especially since vehicles are more expensive than AT's. They should not be on the lower level of performance.
There are other similar examples which have appeared in this thread as well as the other ones in this process.
No, not really....because I'm completely calm in my postings. If you're going to be all condescending and hostile then you serve no purpose to me in this testing process since your reply was basically to lecture me, not even bother to read my post, and then tell me to do things I've already done. This is the PTS forums....I can go to the multiple other subforums here if I want to see that kind of thing.
Perhaps, just maybe, not everyone is out to get you with some kind of secret agenda?
Goodbye.
Now if anyone has any actual examples that can be reproduced then please, by all means, list them.
Join Date: Aug 2009 | Title: Devslayer
Guess I'm doin it wrong...
(Oh, also, Cross, no, stop making everything into a gatling gun! This is a Rail gun: http://youtu.be/NWZPp3aEjuM)
In B4 current railguns we have in real life are way better than what we get in this game (like all the munitions powers).
Snark never dies.
I agree with this very much. Not just for vehicles, but any time someone tries to make a case that a power/mod/device/etc. is out of balance, and particularly that something needs to be nerfed, I think in order to be given much weight they should provide a specific repeatable circumstance and/or data, as opposed to vague anecdotes.
However, I don't really think the following statement is a very good example either in specificity or repeatability:
Personally, my general feeling about vehicles is that I was initially skeptical, but I eventually found some uses for them and ended up accumulating several, along with weapons and mods. Now I see efforts to try to make them less useful at the same time as trying to get us to invest more Q/Zen/whatever into upgrading them. I think Cryptic needs to consider what is the value proposition for vehicles, where do they fit into the game; are they intended to be just a gimmicky travel power/become device, or is it ok to expect them to shine in some specific circumstances where an AT/FF toon may not?
"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." -- W. Edwards Deming
If the devs could spawn some Exocets in the air above Defender for us to try chasing down it would really help to test the impact of that nerf.