| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 |
201. In regards to Minnmandos and Swarms - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
MINA Longstrike wrote: Pokey is incredibly reasonable, I don't really appreciate you trying to belittle him when he's trying to foster healthy discussion on something perceived by a reasonably large portion of the community to be a contentious ...
- by Doc DDD - at 2015.02.20 02:14:00
|
202. In regards to Minnmandos and Swarms - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
He is doing a poor job at fostering productive conversation if his response to input is to simply label it jiberish. You reap what you sow, I read what he writes and actually play the game. He unrest and numbers but notso much tthe application o...
- by Doc DDD - at 2015.02.20 02:08:00
|
203. In regards to Minnmandos and Swarms - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Mina longstrike; Careful, you are confusing Pokey. The minmando bonus affects swarms, comparing only to a completely unviable fit. Calmandos sniping have the added rail benefit. ( sorry to confuse you more Pokey ) Galmandos are great against...
- by Doc DDD - at 2015.02.20 01:55:00
|
204. In regards to Minnmandos and Swarms - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: gibberish Good job, you completely missed the point of the thread. This thread is not here to discuss "OMG SWARMS ARE OP AGAINST TANKS!" It's to discuss the relative differences between non-commandos...
- by Doc DDD - at 2015.02.20 01:37:00
|
205. In regards to Minnmandos and Swarms - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Exactly, 2 Swarmers = 4 garanteed hits If using minmandos, which are viable vs infantry, rounding down to 1800 damage per volley sets the vehicle being hit with 7200 damage in 2 seconds ( start from first swarm impact ). 10000 EHP down to 2800 i...
- by Doc DDD - at 2015.02.20 01:14:00
|
206. In regards to Minnmandos and Swarms - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Atiim wrote: Your DPS is misleading, as it takes longer than 1.05s to launch a volley, aside from that I'll wait until you're finished before commenting on the rest of your assertion. Though the thought of consuming a Pilot is, interesting t...
- by Doc DDD - at 2015.02.20 00:35:00
|
207. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
I made some fits with all skills maxed in proto fits that still goes over either cpu or pg, not sure if the 10% per level has been added to electrical and engineering yet, but dropping those at all would make the fittings even worse. I would rec...
- by Doc DDD - at 2015.02.19 14:20:00
|
208. Large Missile Turret Fitting - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
I am going to guess that the plan is to give missiles a bit more splash for a more deadly anti infantry strike.
- by Doc DDD - at 2015.02.18 23:36:00
|
209. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Shield boosters need to repair more shield over more time to be more useful then just stacking another extender. Especially if hardeners will be limited in effectiveness to only one. With current cpu/ pg costs, large proto shield boosters should...
- by Doc DDD - at 2015.02.18 14:27:00
|
210. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Thank you for the Eve lesson, but it really shows how different the games operate. Short of both games having 'shields and armor' we should really work on making what we have now fair ...
- by Doc DDD - at 2015.02.18 14:14:00
|
211. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Thank you for the Eve lesson, but it really shows how different the games operate. Short of both games having 'shields and armor' we should really work on making what we have now fair on both sides. ie, armor always has the advantage of a shield ...
- by Doc DDD - at 2015.02.18 04:34:00
|
212. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
And another thing, what we should try to avoid is a game where shield and armor vehicles are completely equal in every way with either the shield bar being really big or the armor bar being really big with non existent secondary defenses. If it co...
- by Doc DDD - at 2015.02.18 04:23:00
|
213. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Pokey Dravon wrote: Um no, I cite EVE because it works in EVE, and it's not working right in Dust. Give me a compelling answer to WHY there should be so many large differences. Convince me why the current system is better than how it works in ...
- by Doc DDD - at 2015.02.18 04:04:00
|
214. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Pokey: So when you are done advocating all the vehicles being nerfed to behave like those in EVE, will you move on to nerfing all the infantry to behave like the ships in eve? Get rid of passive infantry armor and shield reps because Eve? Rebal...
- by Doc DDD - at 2015.02.18 03:32:00
|
215. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I've offered a tangible solution regarding hardners and hull parity about 20 times. Well I wasn't talking about you but if the shoe fits, feel free to lace that ***** up and wear it. Doc DDD wrote:...
- by Doc DDD - at 2015.02.18 03:16:00
|
216. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
UHAVS ( 3 infantry ) are going to need built in perma hardeners ( at least 25% ) or else their TTK will be laughable versus any group of organized AV ( 3 infantry ). How long would it take 3 full proto commando swarmers to pop a full proto UHAV h...
- by Doc DDD - at 2015.02.18 02:56:00
|
217. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: How would you have range and be able to kill infantry? Against non noob infantry the rail won't do mich, missiles are lol. Well, small turrets should be tuned to deal with infantry, that's kinda wh...
- by Doc DDD - at 2015.02.18 01:35:00
|
218. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Not most people, just 3 people that spend more time posting on the forums then calling in a tank in- game. With one hardener, for 24 seconds shield hardners need the old 60% reduction, and armor tankers ne...
- by Doc DDD - at 2015.02.18 01:32:00
|
219. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: The current reason the gallente tanks are little used is due to poor cpu and next to useless hardeners. As per the request of the AV community, instead of increasing efficiency of using one hardner and dram...
- by Doc DDD - at 2015.02.18 00:42:00
|
220. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
So don't pay attention. It speaks volumes. That doesn't change the fact that shield tanks are being double nerfed at the same time armor tanks are being buffed. Both sides of the equation are being altered simultaneously. Meanwhile shield boos...
- by Doc DDD - at 2015.02.18 00:28:00
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |