Depends on the build not everyone’s willing to hide a wheel. Similarly if your using different sized wheels to change the firing angle it also can increase the effect of loosing a single. I prefer driving vehicles that still look like vehicles so it’s mostly traditional wheel placements. If I’m using all the same size wheel I can normally make do with 3 and still get around but I have to watch how I turn. I don’t do meta builds a lot of players won’t do it either.
That’s still 50% and your already stating the wheel build with loose them sooner. Again your issue is that your slow. Just moments ago you wanted to lower the durability and grip on them. With some of the tracks that are the nearly the same ride height you can hide a inner track like you do with the wheel meta but it only works with a few of the tracks.
Small tracks are really their own problem. It’s just really hard to say what to do about them. They are low power drain, have good resistances for their size. Size is another boon for them. So players can really pile on a fair number of them. Maybe their power drain needs to go up so it would reduce the maximum number available for use on a build.
I remember when they came in they really pushed everything around. The only reason they blew everything away though was because there wasn’t anything to really fairly compare it too. All the other wheels at the time were rare and the only track near it’s speed was the small track which still hadn’t gotten it’s buffs yet.
Normally when I lose a bigfoot to a cannon it’s from the dual Mammoth bots they hit just a little harder then the tsunamis. Recently mostly my fault as I’ve been under armoring them for the art of it (it has that speedbuggy look lol).
That’s true though the triples and quads have never handled better and I played them when they were horrible. I think some of the issue with the duals is they weren’t stable enough to start with. They always had this odd front to back roll to them when maneuvering.
Hovers when outnumbered by more then two are hard to pull to a win. Even a damage hover can be hard to pull to a win in a even fight. Doesn’t even be a sealclubber version they are just that frail at times.
Some of the issues that hurt the larger tracks are exacerbated by the existing flaws of heavy cabs, max speed limitations on both, as well as the poor tonnage to mass ratio of the tracks. Solving the speed issue would be easier with a medium or light cab do the higher speed cap but do to the poor T&M ratio they don’t end up very tankish. If they didn’t have that inherited max speed cap with the heavies it would be easy to suggest a mode to remove the speed governor like I was talking to Zarrurer about. The resistances on the larger tracks probably should be higher this is just to compensate for hitbox. It doesn’t seem right that all the tracks almost have the same resistances. The rotation speed should also be faster as well, as that can compensate a lot for the slower rotational speed that turreted cannons have. Those generally have to turn slow or they loose precision in aiming though.
The other issue with the larger tracks is the team generally doesn’t stick around to protect the track users as it’s a hindrance to the speed of the rest of the group. What your left with is normally traditional spiders to group with do to speed similarities but those have declined in number since the release of bigrams that can keep up with the rest of the pack.
I agree with Dirty Hamster, the bigger tracks (armored tracks especially) have lackluster tonnage/weight ratios. Hardened Tracks seem to outclass the bigger tracks in tonnage/weight ratio and speed.
BTW: 7 Hardened tracks is lighter than 2 armored Tracks, while having almost 5000 KG more tonnage than the latter.
yeap, two armoured tracks aren’t enough for my heavy build, they are just equivalent to 6 hermits (i should have gone with a 8 wheeler instead of a 6 wheeler, my build is slightly overweight)
But the problem with smaller tracks, they just aren’t reliable, one can see a lot of weird behaviour, perhaps put that behaviour in check with larger and more stable tracks while adding armour?
That will be my next step.
I find the Hardened Tracks to be quite stable. I use them for my high PS Worm build and my Hard raid build. Small tracks are fast but they’re very unstable and easy to push over.
I never had tracks until now. But i test them a lot
the first tracks that i liked was tank tracks (i tried armoured tracks on my build, i was expecting more).
after that tonnage disappointment i’m thinking in putting hard tracks, not only for armour but also for the safety in redundancy.
well you could always say the damage resistance is only active while they are moving. or the charge lasts alot less time while stationary. think about it, you want to activate it when you are MOVING and not staying still. its more of a defense mechanic not a “stay still and tank damage” type of ability.
i just pushed a guy with 2 goliaths a bunch of triangle tracks on a machinist cabin. im using a howl with 2 train plows, 6 bigfoots , 2 porcs, 2 arbiters and a apollo… im VERY sure i shouldnt be able to move that thing an inch let alone a centimeter with my tiny build.
while i agree with this if you nerfed bigfoots it would be pretty bad. they are a very big tire and one of the biggest in the game. i use them all the time on my builds cause they are perfect to fit extra stuff under the build.
i use porcs and i have to hit it with like 4 porcs to take off a wheel. the main issue is i see people using them and they have like 8 bigfoots on their cars. youd be surprised how stupidly durable they are. back when i ran a shotgun build if i hit them from the side id instantly take off a wheel or two depending on how hard i hit them. but even then it didnt really slow them down. the big bulky builds were more maneuverable then my fast smaller build somehow.
That’s their fault, not game balances. Even 6 wheel builds blown down to 4 wheels are very stable if weight is distributed properly.
Yeah I jumped the gun on that one. I want tracks to have handbrake steering, and they should have less grip. Drifting with tracks would be cool as hell. Some genuinely need to be faster and should receive more speed and a durability nerf.
Take their grip and resistances away. They will inherently become more stable with less grip anchoring them while cornering.
There was nothing fair about bigfoots at all. Epic weapons then didn’t get that much more powerful over rares when compared with how good bigfoots are to rare wheels. Bigfoots are still powercreep and they killed dewheeling as a strategy.
The large auger builds did not work properly because the old driving mechanics for augers involved a front and rear half working in opposite. When you lined up augers front to back, this opposition from front to back is now alternating opposed to being polar. You can get a hint if you look at how the front and rear drums have opposite threads and rotation. If targem added two new augers for the front and rear separately, large auger builds would have driven around like the old 2 auger builds, which were the most fun I’ve ever had in a driving game. It was more fun driving the old augers than it is flying a helicopter in BF4.
This is because Targem has overbuffed the hell out of everything except hovers, slow tracks, and augers, and now there’s no room for even sealclub hovers.
Increase their weight and power drain and that would balance them. They are a big wheel and do need durability, but they are too mobile and light for their HP and size.
Loosing two out of six is still a large difference then loosing half of them.
The grip might be interesting, I’m not sure if they should lose much in resistance though. I wouldn’t mind seeing if a little bit of suspension play would fix there spin out issues too. Makes it really hard to do narrow builds with them.
I’m aware how they work.
That would have just been needlessly more parts. They really just need to clean up the code for them so a single pair just works like they use to while 3 or more applies the later fix. There’s all sorts of funky over laps that can go on with them.
This simple 3-step list contains our essential recommendations for a smooth bug and issue tracking process.
Step 1 - Log bugs and assign them to teammates
There is a famous saying: “What gets measured gets managed.” That’s why it’s important to log all bugs in an issue management system. If the details of a bug don’t make it into a bug tracking system, then a portion of them will not be fixed in a timely manner.
Bug and issue tracking only work when bugs are assigned to be fixed by a teammate. You can have a mile-long backlog of bugs that will never be fixed until they are assigned to someone to do the work. So make sure that you assign every bug to a fixer, with priority and due dates attached. A good bug tracker tool will have these features included.
track a new bug or issue
Step 2 - Have a tester verify the issue is fixed
Software development requires accountability. No one’s going perfectly - the best coders in the world still need a 3rd party to test the application and make sure it is working. Testing is one of the key core principles of best coding practices. You can bypass many other smaller steps in the bug management process, but you should never skip the testing phase. Doing so could mean significant errors, angry customers, and lost revenue.Make sure that whatever bug and issue tracking tool you use has a provision for testers to verify that an issue is fixed. This article is an example of a good issue workflow.
track a new bug or issue
Step 3 - Push all fixes live when ready
This is an often overlooked part of the bug fixing process. Sometimes you can work on multiple bugs and issues in the same day or week. In many circumstances, it can be counterproductive to push small fixes to production individually. You may want to set a batch of bug fixes live at the same time.From a bug and issue management perspective, you should also use the same workflow. For example, if you fix six bugs in a day that are all related to a larger problem, you may want to send all of those resolved issues to a tester at the same time. This prevents testers from being bombarded with individual testing requests. It’s better to send a batch of fixes for testing at the same time so that the tester understands their context. DoneDone’s release builds feature helps teams manage this process easily. It’s also a great way to reduce miscommunications and keep the team on the same page.
No, it would not work that way with augers because they drive with a front and rear half. The front half needs to oppose the rear half in thread pitch and rotation direction, that condition is met with ALL dual auger builds. Once you line augers up end to end you have completely disrupted that and now you have alternating drums, which screws up all steering because now the drums are fighting eachother. Two new auger parts would have fixed them for larger builds. That isn’t messy code, that’s just the parts physical driving mechanics.
Dual augers would not be able to rotate in place or strife if the front and back sections could not be independently controlled beyond the front and the back operating in opposition. If it can’t switch between the two set ups it’s a failure of the codes logic.
What about independently controlling the front and rear sections? What are you talking about? This is not a code failure, these are just the parts mechanics when the vehicle requires a front and a rear half working in opposition to one another. If Targem added a front and rear auger each the size of an existing auger, large builds would have worked PEFECTLY fine before they ever did the retarded change to augers where they drive like 60km/h omnis, because they completely neutered dual auger builds which were easily the highest skill cap movement parts in the game.
You’re over thinking it and lot listening that’s why you’re not getting it. The part’s mechanics are all dependent on logic coding. The models in the game are only actionable via that code. You don’t need the extra parts as the logic coding can dictate when a singular auger part has to work in unison or in opposition and further in which direction either sectional parts independent spin.
I don’t code but I know a lot of people would use a new set of augers that are a bit different from smaller augers. More suspension travel, size, and a useful perk. I doubt thats even possible with code logic because you can’t just change the direction the drums spin in, because the old augers drove with the thread travel direction, and the drum spin direction. You cannot separate the two with code.
I can tell, not trying to be mean. Parts in the game will not move at all with out logic being applied to them. There is no actual mechanicals inside the models normally, as that takes up extra render time. No need to render what you can’t see… A part turns as a code decides it will. If the code and the turn don’t match that’s just a graphical bug.
If there were new parts to be made out of them: I wouldn’t mind see a double front end mounting one but that’s way different then breaking them into just two parts. A separated small might be useful too but if the front was done as a individual secondary part it would have to be mirrored in a direction to be more unique unless your trying to solve for a length issue…
These would have to turn in sync with other portions that they line up with them. And again that type of logic is handled in the coding.
instead of making two new single drum auger that is as large as a whole meatgrinder, why not make it just one but let us “invert” it with the E key on the editor like we can with bigrams
