Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 04:01:00 -
[301] - Quote
D legendary hero wrote: *single tire rolls down face* MY fellow piolots and I salute 07
When you're happy, you let people drive over your head?
You must be swedish. They're always doing that World's strongest man stuff. |
Sgt Buttscratch
G I A N T EoN.
694
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 04:10:00 -
[302] - Quote
CCP Wolfman wrote:Buried in replies!
......
*Dropships will be scoring transport based WP rewards (and yes they have more HP).
Does this include remote repairs. People are using this and ending the match on 250 points, tho they have been an absolute life saver and team player through out the match. |
Minor Treat
The Enclave Syndicate Dark Taboo
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 04:29:00 -
[303] - Quote
Aderek wrote:Finity ammo! Thats very good news :|) But, where we can refill? In suply depot or HAV nanohives or nornal nanohives? :)
Good hunting! I'd imagine repair tools would be a form of ammo replenishment for Vehicles (or rather a specific type of repair tool for ammo replenishment). And Supply depot seems to make the most sense as well but It would be nice to see a new installation shaped like a gas station for replenishment for Vehicles. Gas station battles would hold a lot of purpose and make a new form of strategy between installation control of the battlefield. |
crazy space 1
Unkn0wn Killers
1585
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 04:30:00 -
[304] - Quote
THE TRAINSPOTTER wrote:ammo depletion makes perfect sense
i agree with it
It also allowed for laser based weapons in the future to use NO AMMO, since that is the advantage they hold. Right now it's like every weapon is an energy battery based weapon it makes no sense |
Minor Treat
The Enclave Syndicate Dark Taboo
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 04:30:00 -
[305] - Quote
I'd imagine repair tools would be a form of ammo replenishment for Vehicles (or rather a specific type of repair tool for ammo replenishment). And Supply depot seems to make the most sense as well but It would be nice to see a new installation shaped like a gas station for replenishment for Vehicles. Gas station battles would hold a lot of purpose and make a new form of strategy between installation control of the battlefield. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
503
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 04:57:00 -
[306] - Quote
CCP Wolfman wrote:Buried in replies!
Thanks for the comments guys. Remnant and I are reading and itGÇÖs given us things stuff to think about. I donGÇÖt have time to respond to everything right now but IGÇÖll quickly throw a few more details out there.
*When we say weGÇÖre establishing a foundation with the most necessary archetypes that doesnGÇÖt mean youGÇÖre only getting basic and standard. You will have access to proto modules.
*We will be going over AV damage values along with these changes.
*Dropships will be scoring transport based WP rewards (and yes they have more HP).
The obvious questions.
PRO shield extenders/boosters, and PRO armor plates/reppers? I'd love a 250mm plate that has 3800 armor but would obviously take a ton of CPU and PG.
With hardeners... to me, it sounds we might we 50% or greater that may last for a minute, with an expected longer cooldown.
Can you guys please try to keep us updated with this stuff, and maybe set a dedicated feedback thread, paying particular attention to us vehicle operators? This is a complete rework of two opposing professions, not a tweak here and a half a percent adjustment there. For many, including me, 1.5 is make or break as a vehicle operator.
Will that "repair module bug" be "fixed?" It's literally the only thing that prevents armor tanks from being blown up as they're running from an alpha's worth of damage from PRO AV. It's no fun if someone says they need help somewhere, and two of the enemy just so happen to have Lai Dai AV grenades. That's ~12,000 damage that cannot be recovered from, if those two each have 3 grenades. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
503
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 04:59:00 -
[307] - Quote
crazy space 1 wrote:THE TRAINSPOTTER wrote:ammo depletion makes perfect sense
i agree with it It also allowed for laser based weapons in the future to use NO AMMO, since that is the advantage they hold. Right now it's like every weapon is an energy battery based weapon it makes no sense That would likely be its own capacitor. |
Arkena Wyrnspire
Turalyon 514
2796
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 05:02:00 -
[308] - Quote
D legendary hero wrote:CCP Wolfman wrote: *We will be going over AV damage values along with these changes.
*Dropships will be scoring transport based WP rewards (and yes they have more HP).
*single tire rolls down face* MY fellow piolots and I salute 07
A tire ran down your face?
On the changes: It's very nice to see this, especially with dropships getting some love (at last! AT LAST!) but I do have a question. Some time ago a price slash was promised for dropships - will this be happening? |
Winsaucerer
The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine
200
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 05:12:00 -
[309] - Quote
Our Deepest Regret wrote: What I'm taking from that is that damage oriented tanks will focus on active modules. Defensive oriented guys like me will load up on passive modules to maximize survivability over killing power. I'm all about dat defense. WASTE YOUR BULLETS! WAAAAASTE THEEEEEM!!!!
What I read that to mean is: be uber-tanky for a short time, and quite vulnerable for the rest, OR be middle-of-the-road tanky all the time.
That is, the active version will be much tankier than your passive fit for its brief active period. I don't see anything that would suggest that you will be able to tank any better (or worse) than you currently can). |
Bojo The Mighty
Zanzibar Concept
1592
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 05:19:00 -
[310] - Quote
Winsaucerer wrote: From the OP: Armor has no native regen.
From the OP
Quote:Armor Repairers (P): Speed up HP recovery outside of combat
Used to make running repairs between battles (too slow to be of real use in the heat of battle)
it is (P) passive module *Notice how it says "too slow to be of real use in the heat of battle". Compared to the current armor rep module, this is definitely a description of a passive armor repair module. |
|
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1084
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 05:49:00 -
[311] - Quote
what I red is that your completely changing tanks and leaving av alone again, great...
your also nerfing every aspect of tanking in general.
im not against the ammunition part if we get a module that allows us to regenerate our ammo, put that in and its fine.
the rest if it "make vehicles fun", this is doing the exact opposite of that, if these stay the same to the update, I demand a respect. |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
80
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 06:00:00 -
[312] - Quote
Winsaucerer wrote: What I read that to mean is: be uber-tanky for a short time, and quite vulnerable for the rest, OR be middle-of-the-road tanky all the time.
That is, the active version will be much tankier than your passive fit for its brief active period. I don't see anything that would suggest that you will be able to tank any better (or worse) than you currently can).
Guess I'll just have to keep my fingers crossed then!
Hey, since we're in a vehicle thread, I'm curious about something in case anyone knows. Is it currently possible to fit a Madrugar to have three active hardeners and a rep? |
Bright Cloud
Namtar Elite Gallente Federation
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 06:23:00 -
[313] - Quote
Hmm so far i get it like this: -Shield extenders/armor plates massive nerf cause its stated as a "small" boost to HP so we will only get small/medium shield extenders. basically large extenders are dead.
-Hardeners: samne as now but with much longer cooldown time. Means armor hardeners get on the same lvl as shield hardeners
-Shield recharge changes: if the tanks wont have a passive recharge of like 100HP+ per sec its useless. And you are integrating recharge delay like with dropsuits. Sounds interesting but every twatt can prevent you from recharging shields with a AR. Which probs gets abused.
-Shield booster changes: i assume that they will be like the armor reps which we have now. But with longer cooldown (1 min+).
-Armor repairs: I so they become a passive thing now? But with massive nerf then previous. However the passive armor repair will continue to work even while beeing under fire. So its going to be a constant regen like we have now with shields. But the question is: how much per sec will they rep? This will be the key for balancing
-damage mods becoming active modules: bad idea i think they should stay passive and not another active module. We have allready enough mods that run active.
-Ammo introduction: you are only implementing that cause tankers allways destroy supply depots on sight.
-vehicle fitting/small turrets: so we can see dropships without turrets and due to the implemented WP's earning possibility you might see much more highly tanked logistic dropships.
overall im still not convinced about the changes. Looking at the module balance i believe that the base HP off tanks will be higher then it is at the moment cause plates/shield extenders will only give you a "small" bonus to the HP. We are talking here on a bonus between 500-1200 HP per module. |
Bojo The Mighty
Zanzibar Concept
1592
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 06:27:00 -
[314] - Quote
Bright Cloud wrote:Hmm so far i get it like this: -Shield extenders/armor plates massive nerf cause its stated as a "small" boost to HP so we will only get small/medium shield extenders. basically large extenders are dead. You interpreted that wrong. In relation to armor, shields will have less total ehp. It's like that now. Extenders give less health than armor plates per module. That's what he is saying. |
Rei Shepard
Spectre II
472
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 06:36:00 -
[315] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:what I red is that your completely changing tanks and leaving av alone again, great...
your also nerfing every aspect of tanking in general.
im not against the ammunition part if we get a module that allows us to regenerate our ammo, put that in and its fine.
the rest if it "make vehicles fun", this is doing the exact opposite of that, if these stay the same to the update, I demand a respect.
Making vehicles "Fun" does not neccesarely mean to make them OP for the ones driving them, witch is where they are right now if you have 20m sp into them, because my 20m SP i got into dropsuits seems to be irrelivant because you guys only look at how much SP i got into AV to rate my effectiveness vs yours and my 1m sp in AV is so low, you actually have a right to the "win" button because you got 19m sp more in there.
A tank right now can go trough 20-30 Infantry, this around 5-6 games if the Tanker inside is as good an Infantry guy who goes 20-3 regulry (completely solo, like me for instance(6KDR)). 100% on the field can kill infantry, but only 10% of it can hurt a vehicle at this point.
1 2m tank destroyed every 5 games = 400k isk spend per game 3 200k deaths per game is 3m over 5 games or 600k spend per game
And then that 1 death for a tanker, is too much for you guys to handle because it costs 2m!!!!!!
My guess is that after the vehicle rebalance with the limited ammo, vehicles will be used more to counter other vehicles or installations, or to cover infantry for a limited time and stop them from being the infantry lawnmowers that they are today.
Its not hard to check the numbers after a game, each game these days if its 24/0, a tank, 20/0 another tank, 32/0 hey look its that tank again, then you check their second best on the tank team and wow he had 3/3 ...next match a 7/4 guy ...take the tank away and that team would have lost severly.
Next day, aww look that tank is having soo much trouble another 25/0....lemme toss my proto nades at it ....ow ok that took it down to at least 60% ....shields...lets grab a hive and ....aww its already gone ...
Though if they are going to restrict small turret placements, i foresee only single man tanks driving around, each tanker is his own tank.
Tanks really need to be on Par with Infantry 1 vs 1, if said infantry is decked out into an AV role.
Tank > Infantry > AV Infantry > Tank
|
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1084
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 06:54:00 -
[316] - Quote
Rei Shepard wrote:Void Echo wrote:what I red is that your completely changing tanks and leaving av alone again, great...
your also nerfing every aspect of tanking in general.
im not against the ammunition part if we get a module that allows us to regenerate our ammo, put that in and its fine.
the rest if it "make vehicles fun", this is doing the exact opposite of that, if these stay the same to the update, I demand a respect. Making vehicles "Fun" does not neccesarely mean to make them OP for the ones driving them, witch is where they are right now if you have 20m sp into them, because my 20m SP i got into dropsuits seems to be irrelivant because you guys only look at how much SP i got into AV to rate my effectiveness vs yours and my 1m sp in AV is so low, you actually have a right to the "win" button because you got 19m sp more in there. A tank right now can go trough 20-30 Infantry, this around 5-6 games if the Tanker inside is as good an Infantry guy who goes 20-3 regulry (completely solo, like me for instance(6KDR)). 100% on the field can kill infantry, but only 10% of it can hurt a vehicle at this point. 1 2m tank destroyed every 5 games = 400k isk spend per game 3 200k deaths per game is 3m over 5 games or 600k spend per game And then that 1 death for a tanker, is too much for you guys to handle because it costs 2m!!!!!! My guess is that after the vehicle rebalance with the limited ammo, vehicles will be used more to counter other vehicles or installations, or to cover infantry for a limited time and stop them from being the infantry lawnmowers that they are today. Its not hard to check the numbers after a game, each game these days if its 24/0, a tank, 20/0 another tank, 32/0 hey look its that tank again, then you check their second best on the tank team and wow he had 3/3 ...next match a 7/4 guy ...take the tank away and that team would have lost severly. Next day, aww look that tank is having soo much trouble another 25/0....lemme toss my proto nades at it ....ow ok that took it down to at least 60% ....shields...lets grab a hive and ....aww its already gone ... Though if they are going to restrict small turret placements, i foresee only single man tanks driving around, each tanker is his own tank. Tanks really need to be on Par with Infantry 1 vs 1, if said infantry is decked out into an AV role. Tank > Infantry > AV Infantry > Tank, enganging multiple AV personel should mean certain death for a tank and vs 1 guy it should swing both ways.
how many times do I have to tell you infantry guys, I dont want tanks to be OP or UP... but my vision of tanks are guess what, tanks, not this **** we have right now.. I mean tanks, and no, 1 vehicle doesn't = 1 infantry, if the infantry guy was in a vehicle sized dropsuit then yeah I would agree.
tanks in my vision are meant to be anti-vehicle mainly with the occasional anti-infantry role if it were needed. but the way it is now, vehicles are ****.
I would reset all stats to 0 once we have adv and proto tanks and build from their, that way vehicles wont be the tanks they were in chromosome yet they wont be the **** piles they are now and AV wont be the OP force its been since the beginning of the game yet it will serve its role as a deterrent for smart tankers and destroy any stupid ones.
I know that when your talking about fun, your talking about your own fun, you dont care about vehicle users, or else you wouldn't have said that for tanks to be fun, doesn't mean the drivers need to be having fun... yes it does mean we need to have fun for tanks to be fun... were the ones that ******* use them. if we aren't having fun using our equipment, the equipment is not worth it.
tanks are far from OP but I understand its not your fault, its the fault of your infantry brothers for drilling that thinking into your head. |
Robert JD Niewiadomski
NULLIMPEX INC
447
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 07:04:00 -
[317] - Quote
Nihilus Warwick wrote:Robert JD Niewiadomski wrote:Will you include, in this "vehicle pass", an option to use infantry weapons/equipement by vehicle passengers not manning turrets?
Edit: For LAVs & DSes passengers. HAVs passengers are totally enclosed, so it would be suicidal to fire MD or nade inside it. Or... why not? Things happen... I would love to be able to fire from the passenger seat of an lav or drop ship. I'm a horrible shot, but at least I could provide some covering fire. SPRAY AND PRAY. With an option to remove all turrets from vehicles, this would allow to create interesting combinations: 1) Sniper LAV/DS 2) Forge LAV/DS 3) Swarms LAV/DS 4) Laser LAV/DS 5) Mass driver LAV/DS and so on... And more interesting dropship dogfights
With incoming aim assists it could be feasible to shoot out of dropships... |
Rei Shepard
Spectre II
472
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 07:12:00 -
[318] - Quote
Quote:how many times do I have to tell you infantry guys, I dont want tanks to be OP or UP... but my vision of tanks are guess what, tanks, not this **** we have right now.. I mean tanks, and no, 1 vehicle doesn't = 1 infantry, if the infantry guy was in a vehicle sized dropsuit then yeah I would agree.
tanks in my vision are meant to be anti-vehicle mainly with the occasional anti-infantry role if it were needed. but the way it is now, vehicles are ****.
I would reset all stats to 0 once we have adv and proto tanks and build from their, that way vehicles wont be the tanks they were in chromosome yet they wont be the **** piles they are now and AV wont be the OP force its been since the beginning of the game yet it will serve its role as a deterrent for smart tankers and destroy any stupid ones.
I know that when your talking about fun, your talking about your own fun, you dont care about vehicle users, or else you wouldn't have said that for tanks to be fun, doesn't mean the drivers need to be having fun... yes it does mean we need to have fun for tanks to be fun... were the ones that ******* use them. if we aren't having fun using our equipment, the equipment is not worth it.
tanks are far from OP but I understand its not your fault, its the fault of your infantry brothers for drilling that thinking into your head.
You talk about tanks being tanks, then if by all means pls, 1 Anti Tank Rocket and yer tank is Disabled, if technology continues as today Destructive force always wins againts its defence its designed to destroy.
I do agree that Tanks need to be more AV then anti personel, your infantry should be there to take care of us, not the tank taking care of us and infantry hunting down the AV guy.
And you are right, right now when the opposing team drops 4 tanks, the game is no longer any fun on my part, seems like fun for one, always requires it to take the fun from everyone else but then again most people are only having fun if they have the OP gun, OP suit, OP secret FOTM fit or a one man army called a Tank.
As i see it, tanks should be a rare sight on a battlefield, not a dime a dozen every match in a game thats about ISK. |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1084
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 07:24:00 -
[319] - Quote
Rei Shepard wrote:Quote:how many times do I have to tell you infantry guys, I dont want tanks to be OP or UP... but my vision of tanks are guess what, tanks, not this **** we have right now.. I mean tanks, and no, 1 vehicle doesn't = 1 infantry, if the infantry guy was in a vehicle sized dropsuit then yeah I would agree.
tanks in my vision are meant to be anti-vehicle mainly with the occasional anti-infantry role if it were needed. but the way it is now, vehicles are ****.
I would reset all stats to 0 once we have adv and proto tanks and build from their, that way vehicles wont be the tanks they were in chromosome yet they wont be the **** piles they are now and AV wont be the OP force its been since the beginning of the game yet it will serve its role as a deterrent for smart tankers and destroy any stupid ones.
I know that when your talking about fun, your talking about your own fun, you dont care about vehicle users, or else you wouldn't have said that for tanks to be fun, doesn't mean the drivers need to be having fun... yes it does mean we need to have fun for tanks to be fun... were the ones that ******* use them. if we aren't having fun using our equipment, the equipment is not worth it.
tanks are far from OP but I understand its not your fault, its the fault of your infantry brothers for drilling that thinking into your head. You talk about tanks being tanks, then if by all means pls, 1 Anti Tank Rocket and yer tank is Disabled, if technology continues as today Destructive force always wins againts its defence its designed to destroy. I do agree that Tanks need to be more AV then anti personel, your infantry should be there to take care of us, not the tank taking care of us and infantry hunting down the AV guy. And you are right, right now when the opposing team drops 4 tanks, the game is no longer any fun on my part, seems like fun for one, always requires it to take the fun from everyone else but then again most people are only having fun if they have the OP gun, OP suit, OP secret FOTM fit or a one man army called a Tank. As i see it, tanks should be a rare sight on a battlefield, not a dime a dozen every match in a game thats about ISK.
actually, irl tanks dont get killed by one person unless they pop a grenade inside the hull, look on youtube and youl see that tanks are tuff to kill, but this game is not meant to be based on real life..
and tanks are meant to kill everything, why else would they have a blaster turret, a missile turret and a rail turret all available for use?
if tanks should be a rarity then why do we see tons of vehicles in CCP's videos about dust? why are they available for personal use? why are they in the game if they aren't meant to be used?
you see, this is NOT meant to be an infantry only game, we have enough of those dull ass games.. |
Rei Shepard
Spectre II
472
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 07:31:00 -
[320] - Quote
Quote:actually, irl tanks dont get killed by one person unless they pop a grenade inside the hull, look on youtube and youl see that tanks are tuff to kill, but this game is not meant to be based on real life..
then why do want tanks to be more like tanks?
Quote:and tanks are meant to kill everything, why else would they have a blaster turret, a missile turret and a rail turret all available for use?
RL tanks have anti personel weapons ontop or in de sides/front, its not the main cannon that is used to dispatch waves of soldiers.
Quote:if tanks should be a rarity then why do we see tons of vehicles in CCP's videos about dust? why are they available for personal use? why are they in the game if they aren't meant to be used?
Because promotional videos == gameplay ?, also in Eve there are Titans, you also not see everyone flying around in it...
Quote:you see, this is NOT meant to be an infantry only game, we have enough of those dull ass games..
Ow ok, so that makes it ok to have Infantry lawn mowers all over the place? this game is also not just about vehicles you know, we also have enough of those games. |
|
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1084
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 07:36:00 -
[321] - Quote
Rei Shepard wrote: then why do want tanks to be more like tanks?
RL tanks have anti personel weapons ontop or in de sides/front, its not the main cannon that is used to dispatch waves of soldiers.
Because promotional videos == gameplay ?
Ow ok, so that makes it ok to have Infantry lawn mowers all over the place? this game is also not just about vehicles you know, we also have enough of those games.
1: they are tanks, not pieces of paper.
2: Dust 514 gives tanks LARGE BLASTER TURRETS THAT ARE THE MAIN CANNON
3: because they dont want this game to be boring dull and just like the old games we all know about with FPS, you dont understand that vehicles are meant to be a viable part of this game.
4: iv honestly only ever heard of one game which is WOT and I dont like it mainly because its based on earth. iv never heard of any non-infantry game other than that besides games that are not FPS. |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE SPADES EoN.
42
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 07:36:00 -
[322] - Quote
THE TRAINSPOTTER wrote:The Terminator T-1000 wrote:These changed sound good on paper but what's the purpose of this changes if anyone can "steal" your vehicle. That's the reason I don't like using vehicles! its easy to adapt
its easy to give us vehicle locks |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1084
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 07:38:00 -
[323] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:THE TRAINSPOTTER wrote:The Terminator T-1000 wrote:These changed sound good on paper but what's the purpose of this changes if anyone can "steal" your vehicle. That's the reason I don't like using vehicles! its easy to adapt its easy to give us vehicle locks
so they are removing the delay time for everyone else to get in the vehicle and allowing everyone to get in the pilot seat automatically like in chromosome? |
Foundation Seldon
Gespenster Kompanie Villore Accords
83
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 08:15:00 -
[324] - Quote
I didn't get around to fully responding to the original ideas but I want to say that I remain cautiously optimistic about these changes going into 1.5. It seems like 1.5 is going to represent something substantial to the game and you guys are taking the necessary steps to completely rebuild the notion of vehicles in Dust 514. I approve the dedication to this front.
On to specific comments about changes :
Quote:"Proper feedback so that itGÇÖs easier to understand what is happening (e.g. an HAV has activated shield hardeners) and how to counter it."
If this means we'll see the return of flashing disco vehicles then I'll most certainly raise my support for this. Having visual knowledge that my enemy or myself has activated one module or another was something that I was missing going into Uprising and I hope that with the return of it in 1.5 we've all differentiated between the style of effect for Hardeners vs. Reppers and potentially brought back the really neat bubble effect for active scanners.
Quote: "Turrets will now have finite ammunition. Vehicle vs. vehicle combat generally boils down to two vehicles parked opposite one another firing until someone pops. This is not fun. Finite ammunition allows us to make turrets more powerful while preventing them from being a constant threat; spam a target and eventually you will run out of ammo."
While some may cry doom and gloom I see this as an opportunity to flesh out additional roles on the battlefield, mainly to finally give vehicles like the LLAV a more tangible and viable support route for assisting their team on the battlefield. To supplement potential Logistics "fuel stations" I think having knowledge about how much remaining ammo a friendly vehicle has left in its stores is going to be important knowledge to have if this role ever comes to be.
Beyond that I think maps may need to be altered a bit if a vehicle is going to take advantage of this change in any sort of meaningful way, there has to be a balance between accessible resupplying stations vs. the desire for a pilot to simply take his or her vehicle, recall it, and call it in again with maxed ammo supplies. I may infact support a situation where vehicles simply cannot replenish ammo supplies through this method but we'll see how it's handled on release. In the future I think this represents an exciting step forward for further fleshing out unique vehicle fits if one is available to buy different "types" of ammo, ammo types may vary based on their effectiveness vs. shields or armor or damage and I think that represents not only bringing the game closer to its EVE roots but further enriching the game itself.
Quote: Once weGÇÖre confident weGÇÖve gotten the base balance right weGÇÖll start to add back in things weGÇÖve removed as well as introduce new elements to the mix. Pilot dropsuits, improved roles, increased infantry and vehicle interplay, and new turret types for a start.
You tease. Hopefully this means I can look forward to my amaarian large laser turrets in the future. Pssst, here's a suggestion on what to model it off of : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOWNKGzU6TA :P
Quote: WeGÇÖre rebuilding everything with the idea that active modules will allow a vehicle to survive a single encounter, while passive modules increase its long-term surviveability across multiple encounters. Active modules will provide very significant bonuses, but once used their long recharge times leave a lone vehicle vulnerable to any follow-up attacks. Passive modules on the other hand provide permanent bonuses that are comparatively small. The breakdown is as follows:
Again, you guys really have to be careful with the notion of "ultra long cooldown" times when it comes to the introduction of these types of modules. The potential for people to game the system and simply recall and call in another vehicle is dangerous when considering the effectiveness of the modules you're trying to build.
Quote: These are the modules that weGÇÖll be focusing on in our first-pass rebalance & Armor and Shield Differentiation
Bravo! These are some VERY ambitious changes and I for one am glad that you guys are really planning on making significant changes between the armor tank and shield tank gameplay. Couple this with the new focus on the power of active modules and I can totally see the amount of viable fits in game flourishing as a result. Exciting stuff for sure. Interesting to note is that you've basically flipped the current roles of armor and shield tanking, armor tanking as it is in game at the current moment is the "Instant, emergency use high HP restoration in the heat of battle" while Shield tanks are the high resistance and regen masters.
I'm going to be interested to see how regen on armor vehicles is going to compare to the regen we already see on shield based vehicles, no doubt you guys will keep all factors of shield and armor regen in mind while balancing.
Overall I'm ridiculously excited to see these changes being put in game, you guys have a little over a month to get this down right and though I fully expect there to be some bumps along the road with its release (expect the forums to be either completely rundown with "TANKS SUCK" or "AV UNDERPOWERED" ) I really hope you keep the original vehicle goals in mind before you react in one way or another. This is undoubtedly going to be one of the biggest patches we've seen since the transition to this style of updating and I am all steam ahead for the exploration of these features and future features put into game.
Great stuff Wolfman, Remnant, and anyone else involved in the vehicle rebalance department. Your work in fleshing out this role has been a long time coming.
o7 |
Pvt Numnutz
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State
146
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 08:19:00 -
[325] - Quote
CCP Wolfman wrote:Buried in replies!
Thanks for the comments guys. Remnant and I are reading and itGÇÖs given us things stuff to think about. I donGÇÖt have time to respond to everything right now but IGÇÖll quickly throw a few more details out there.
*When we say weGÇÖre establishing a foundation with the most necessary archetypes that doesnGÇÖt mean youGÇÖre only getting basic and standard. You will have access to proto modules.
*We will be going over AV damage values along with these changes.
*Dropships will be scoring transport based WP rewards (and yes they have more HP).
I have been waiting for this day for so long. I eagerly await more information on how the transport based wp rewards will be implemented. The hp buff is glorious, please just don't give us too much. As you stated they need to be powerful, but not too powerful. It should still take a talented pilot and a skilled crew to reach its full potential. keep up the great work! |
shaman oga
Nexus Balusa Horizon DARKSTAR ARMY
495
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 08:41:00 -
[326] - Quote
I can't be optimistic for this 1.5, i hope i'm wrong. It will be a recall festival if tanks are turned in hit and run weapons. Why should i wait 3 minutes for my module to cool down? I just recall, wait 20 seconds, call my brand new tank, with modules ready and full ammo. |
Atom Heart Mother
We Who Walk Alone
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 08:48:00 -
[327] - Quote
CCP Wolfman wrote:Buried in replies!
Thanks for the comments guys. Remnant and I are reading and itGÇÖs given us things stuff to think about. I donGÇÖt have time to respond to everything right now but IGÇÖll quickly throw a few more details out there.
*When we say weGÇÖre establishing a foundation with the most necessary archetypes that doesnGÇÖt mean youGÇÖre only getting basic and standard. You will have access to proto modules.
*We will be going over AV damage values along with these changes.
*Dropships will be scoring transport based WP rewards (and yes they have more HP).
Dear WOLFMAN, please consider the request for "vehicle owner proximity lock" and "eject button" for all tanks, dropships and LAVs. The fact of non mandatory turrets on tanks is definetly not enough. Dont forget plz |
raex001
Eliters D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
36
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 08:58:00 -
[328] - Quote
Just a few words: this is ridiculous and you should be ashamed .... Do not know who suggested these changes, but I assure you that whoever did not fit with the head .... Thanks CCP from 1.4 I will be forced to lay my wagons and throw months and months of exp not to mention AUR spent within this game. |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1085
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 09:08:00 -
[329] - Quote
its funny how most of the support for this is coming from infantry players who have never spent a single skill point in vehicles. |
Atom Heart Mother
We Who Walk Alone
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 09:13:00 -
[330] - Quote
raex001 wrote:Just a few words: this is ridiculous and you should be ashamed .... Do not know who suggested these changes, but I assure you that whoever did not fit with the head .... Thanks CCP from 1.4 I will be forced to lay my wagons and throw months and months of exp not to mention AUR spent within this game.
Sweet tears, murder taxi drivers can now move to GTA. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |