Certs & Customization - how it might look - Page 3

2coolforu · 2011-07-13, 01:27 PM

I'd like to see the armor upgrades be towards a certain type of damage - while weakening Resistance against a different form of damage, the ERA and SLAT armor upgrades would be defense against infantry based rocket launchers and other foot-mobile AT Weaponry. Whereas the Tank-Hunter variant would have armor that made it weaker against infantry, stronger against tank weapons and slow its speed.

**Malorn** · 2011-07-13, 01:32 PM

I could see some modifications giving a better bonus, like the one I illustrated where splash damage was reduced but damage increased. Idea is that the tank is more effective against other vehicles and tanks, but only if you hit. The downside is that the effectiveness against infantry is decreased (direct hit already kills infantry so the damage doesn't help and the reduced splash makes direct hits pretty much the only option).

Were you to go in a tank vs tank battle against that sort of equipped tank, it would in fact be a 20% damage increase in favor of that tank in a tank vs tank fight. But in an infantry vs tank fight that modification is worse than your standard tank. So again, tradeoffs.

I'm not sure what Matt meant about the 20% difference. I'm hoping its referring to tradeoff bonuses not exceeding 15-20% and not passive flat bonuses. I hope he can clarify that at some point soon.

However, I can see where resource cost can justify some power differences. You get what you pay for, right? If you use expensive resources on a tank I would hope that tank is worth it and performs a bit better.

But that's not really the same thing as a flat increase. I didn't have any skills that were like "1% more vanguard damage per rank, 5 ranks". I don't think those skills should exist in PS2 (for reasons I outlined in detail in another thread).

ZeroOneZero · 2011-07-13, 01:44 PM

Those are all cool and everything, but what are the limitations? 3 upgrades per vehicle? Otherwise tanks are going to be the next "BFRS".

Nice upgrade for tanks would be thermal vision. Detect infantry hiding behind trees and stuff.

-Pretty much everyone is going to spec up for anti-emp shielding crap, after all you don't wanna get EMPed after finishing pimping out your new tank just to get molested by 2 infantry.

Nice ideas though. I like RPG factors in a FPS game.

Dreamcast · 2011-07-13, 01:44 PM

Yeah I hope that gets clear up....I don't want a regular basic skill tree where you incrase damage,speed,etc without sacrificing something.

It should be like your ideas.

krnasaur · 2011-07-13, 01:45 PM

he said a maxed out vet will have a 20% combat advantage, where with tradeoffs I think it would be where a 20% buff was negated by a 20% nerf would still be a 0% overall increase.

I think that he means just a 20% pure buff

**Malorn** · 2011-07-13, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by ZeroOneZero

Those are all cool and everything, but what are the limitations? 3 upgrades per vehicle? Otherwise tanks are going to be the next "BFRS".

There are two limitations:
1) that the upgrades are mostly tradeoffs, and some cancel each other out (armor-for-speed vs speed-for-armor).

2) Resources.

Most of those upgrades would cost you resources, some more expensive than others.

If you're rich in resources you can pull those specialized tanks all day long. If not, then you'd have to be careful what you pick.

And if you want to run those upgrades more, send your squad/outfit to secure the resource type they require

Volw · 2011-07-13, 01:59 PM

Downside and balancing fact of an expensively upgraded vehicle is ... that everyone will put them as their primary target.

**Malorn** · 2011-07-13, 02:01 PM

that being the case you might switch it over to the Juggernaught upgrade (more armor, less speed) so you can soak up that damage.

though I think ideally most every vehicle you see would have some sort of upgrade, whether it be a swapped out weapon or a bit different handling characteristics.

LostSoul · 2011-07-13, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Volw

Downside and balancing fact of an expensively upgraded vehicle is ... that everyone will put them as their primary target .

Two sides on the targeting, one offensive other defensive. If its expensive and you cannot afford to lose it you better protect it.

ZeroOneZero · 2011-07-13, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

There are two limitations:
1) that the upgrades are mostly tradeoffs, and some cancel each other out (armor-for-speed vs speed-for-armor).

2) Resources.

Most of those upgrades would cost you resources, some more expensive than others.

If you're rich in resources you can pull those specialized tanks all day long. If not, then you'd have to be careful what you pick.

And if you want to run those upgrades more, send your squad/outfit to secure the resource type they require

Good to hear

. I really hope they make each faction have different upgrades for their vehicles.

Rbstr · 2011-07-13, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by krnasaur

he said a maxed out vet will have a 20% combat advantage, where with tradeoffs I think it would be where a 20% buff was negated by a 20% nerf would still be a 0% overall increase.

I think that he means just a 20% pure buff

That simply isn't likely.
Partly because of math, subtractive % ends up a bigger factor...Say you start at 100 then get a 20% bonus and then a 20% nerf. You end up at 96. (this is why ROF bonuses are better than damage bonuses, when they're the same %, from a DPS point of view)

The other reason is the 20% may be entirely situational. 20% at short range, at long range, against tanks, infantry, vampires, whatever.

Personally I don't want resource costs to play a factor in whether or not I can spawn X# my custom tank. Just resource control to effect whether the certain upgrades are available at all, if even that.

Bags · 2011-07-13, 02:33 PM

I'm tired of these mother fucking vampires in my mother fucking plane.

Vancha · 2011-07-13, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

That simply isn't likely.
Partly because of math, subtractive % ends up a bigger factor...Say you start at 100 then get a 20% bonus and then a 20% nerf. You end up at 96. (this is why ROF bonuses are better than damage bonuses, when they're the same %, from a DPS point of view)

Didn't they try this with the cycler or something, and it ended up being the opposite? Despite the ROF increase being better on paper, the burst damage of low-ROF/high-damage ended up being better (not in strict DPS, just generally better)?

Edit: Or were you talking in terms of a pure ROF/damage buff without any nerf?

**Malorn** · 2011-07-13, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Personally I don't want resource costs to play a factor in whether or not I can spawn X# my custom tank. Just resource control to effect whether the certain upgrades are available at all, if even that.

Its possible they do the resourcing like Civilization did the strategic resources. As long as you own the hex you have access to the resource, and then a given upgrade requires that you have access to the resource. Different upgrades reqiure different combinations of resources with the common upgrades requiring common resources and the expensive upgrades requiring expensive resources.

But I dont' think they'll do it that way given they had talks of a market and economy. I think it'll be resources over time, which is good becuase it rewards people who don't throw away that custom tank, but could also lead to the sort of risk aversion we saw in EVE online where nobody wants to fight anyone and they just horde money and ships.

2coolforu · 2011-07-13, 03:07 PM

-accidental post