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) |
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 09:15:00 -
[331] - Quote
uhm u better balance shield vs armor cuz its all one sided at the moment.
and better bring back the sagaris cuz in PC tanks are crap vs proto AV
also, day by day its harder to get ppl to log on n play dust soo better bring ur updates fast cuz BF4 n GTA 5 round tha corner
|
raex001
Eliters D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
36
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 09:21:00 -
[332] - Quote
Atom Heart Mother wrote: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. ATOM u don't understand nothing but i know that is normal for u..... i talk of tank and not of jeep ..... your rosik is high level really??? However, you will die still under the jeep because the jeep you'll see that nn can still be destroyed as the only change made GÇïGÇïaffects only the damage that is done based on the speed of the jeep |
Exardor
Namtar Elite Gallente Federation
33
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 09:52:00 -
[333] - Quote
Want to give constructive feedback, but without numbers not possible. |
Atom Heart Mother
We Who Walk Alone
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 10:02:00 -
[334] - Quote
raex001 wrote:Atom Heart Mother wrote: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. ATOM u don't understand nothing but i know that is normal for u..... i talk of tank and not of jeep ..... your rosik is high level really??? However, you will die still under the jeep because the jeep you'll see that nn can still be destroyed as the only change made GÇïGÇïaffects only the damage that is done based on the speed of the jeep
sure, sure.We'll see about that, and all your fellow companions what they gonna do. Lets keep on tracked with the thread though. |
raex001
Eliters D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
36
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 10:10:00 -
[335] - Quote
Atom Heart Mother wrote:raex001 wrote:Atom Heart Mother wrote: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. ATOM u don't understand nothing but i know that is normal for u..... i talk of tank and not of jeep ..... your rosik is high level really??? However, you will die still under the jeep because the jeep you'll see that nn can still be destroyed as the only change made GÇïGÇïaffects only the damage that is done based on the speed of the jeep sure, sure.We'll see about that, and all your fellow companions what they gonna do. Lets keep on tracked with the thread though. jpmannu shut up right now... this post not is for u.... |
Purona
The Vanguardians
50
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 10:32:00 -
[336] - Quote
i see CCP and i had the same idea
Purona wrote:in my opinion the best Tanks in game shouldn't be easily taken out with hardeners on in my opinion CCP should
Increase the Cool down on all modules increase the power of all moduless Increase the Duration of all modules
increasing the cooldown creates a vulnerable time when all modules are disabled that allows Av players to take out the tank
militia and standard Av weapons would take 6-7 shots to take the tank out advanced 4-5 and prototype 2-3
this also increases the viability to passive modules since it would allow the tank to endure more than if its main active modules are down
increasing the Power and Duration of the modules allows tanks to attack a position for a period of time
where they either succeed or fail succeess gives a temporary safe zone failure allows the enemy team a time to not have to deal with a tank for a while |
THE TRAINSPOTTER
ROMANIA Renegades C0VEN
245
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 11:02:00 -
[337] - Quote
Just because you are in a tank it doesnt mean you have to be invincible. |
LudiKure ninda
Black Phoenix Mercenaries
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 11:28:00 -
[338] - Quote
Another nerf,...great
Unfortunatly I spend over 6 mil sp into this expensive coffins... |
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star. EoN.
1117
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 11:31:00 -
[339] - 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).
Proto modules is good - I hope we get proto mods for all availble mods
AV damage values changes - Good but you really should reverse the 1.4 swarm changes
DS will be useful - Good, but what actions will wield WP?
With shield/armor transporters give WP for reps?
|
Halador Osiris
Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn
618
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 12:31:00 -
[340] - Quote
CCP Wolfman wrote:*Dropships will be scoring transport based WP rewards (and yes they have more HP). I could kiss you. Then again, plane tickets are expensive. Scratch that idea. |
|
Operative 1171 Aajli
Bragian Order Amarr Empire
173
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 12:46:00 -
[341] - Quote
This is pretty much what we effectively have already; but, I like that the changes will create more contrast between tank on tank and shield vs. armor tank as well as infantry vs. tank.
The shield tank can be even more of a constant cruising medium to long rangr tank and the armor tank can be even more of an in and out tank that has to make quick passes then retreat for cooldown.
I only hope though that active shield modules get a longer up time. Five to ten seconds isn't enough time to do anything with a rail or missile turret. Active shields still do better with a blaster; but, a blaster is really foe the armor tank.
I wouldn't mind the turrets being more restricted to the racial tank they are meant to go with. This would be especially important when the Amarr and Minny tanks are added. |
J-Lewis
Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation
289
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 13:13:00 -
[342] - 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).
It's fine to have tiered modules - just please don't make the actual platforms that use them have tiers.
The defense against Weapons shouldn't be the Platform as much as it should be Modules. You tank DPS with Repairs; you tank Alpha with Buffer; you supplement with Resistance and Remote Reps. All of which are modules.
Variety in hulls can be established with operation skill bonuses, slot layouts, and specific stats; but one hull should never be outright better than another at everything.
Module tiers aren't straight upgrades when the platforms don't have tiers: performance increases, but costs more to fit, so you can only fit so and so many high tier mods before running out of CPU or PG. While fitting skills then increase the amount of high tier mods that can be fit, it is offset by increased cost. It should be possible to fit your vehicle exponentially more expensively than the hull cost, as this is what usually limits the practical application of "max performance" fits in EVE. It's a proven effect: most players simply don't fly 15 Billion ISK Officer fit Tech 1 battleships into PvP, because it isn't worth risking 14.9 Billion ISK on a 100 Million ISK hull 99% of the time. Risk vs Reward at its finest. No, it's much more reasonable to fit a 100 Million ISK hull with 2x the hull cost in fittings, and get solid performance at a much lower cost if you lose it (assuming you're going into a heavy PvP scenario).
So let's say we have 500k ISK HAVs. Creating max efficiency fittings that cost 30x the price of the hull should be possible. How much better than a 1 million ISK HAV fit should they be? Linear performance for exponential cost; e.g. perhaps 20% better for 30x the cost. Would we see 15 million ISK HAVs fielded? Yes, but only when 20% matters enough to warrant spending 30x the ISK.
Just my 0.02 ISK. |
Kekklian Noobatronic
Goonfeet Top Men.
317
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 13:33:00 -
[343] - Quote
Wolfman, more thoughts:
Are there plans to change how Vehicle Recall works? Giving vehicles more EHP is great and all, but if it simply leads to more users just blowing cool downs, popping out, and near-instantly recalling their vehicle just because it's come under fire (A tactic already acknowledged by your staff in Feedback/Suggestions round up) you're going to have a mess on your hands.
Perhaps extending the time needed to recall? Denying recall if the vehicle has recently been engaged in combat(I.E. a Crimewatch-like system, such as EVE has)? Denying vehicle recall if modules are active or on cool down? I can imagine a hundred other systems to prevent tankers from abusing the vehicle recall system, and limiting it to it's intended purpose - a tactical option for tankers to adapt to changes in battlefield conditions(And not a 'get out of jail free' card the moment an AV player starts pinging them).
|
darkiller240
K-A-O-S theory
146
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 13:37:00 -
[344] - Quote
What about DROPSHIPS O COME ON |
J-Lewis
Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation
291
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 13:48:00 -
[345] - Quote
Kekklian Noobatronic wrote:Wolfman, more thoughts:
Are there plans to change how Vehicle Recall works? Giving vehicles more EHP is great and all, but if it simply leads to more users just blowing cool downs, popping out, and near-instantly recalling their vehicle just because it's come under fire (A tactic already acknowledged by your staff in Feedback/Suggestions round up) you're going to have a mess on your hands.
Perhaps extending the time needed to recall? Denying recall if the vehicle has recently been engaged in combat(I.E. a Crimewatch-like system, such as EVE has)? Denying vehicle recall if modules are active or on cool down? I can imagine a hundred other systems to prevent tankers from abusing the vehicle recall system, and limiting it to it's intended purpose - a tactical option for tankers to adapt to changes in battlefield conditions(And not a 'get out of jail free' card the moment an AV player starts pinging them).
For starters, making the vehicle recall require a RDV to come pick it up (which can be shot down) instead of just warping it away would be good. If modules are active, the RDV will wait until that is no longer the case before picking it up. You cannot call in a new vehicle while the RDV is picking up your recalled vehicle. Scratch that, RDVs crashing into each other because you recalled and called in at the same time would be hilarious.
This results in a scenario where a vehicle recall and re-deploy could take up to a couple minutes. This seems acceptable.
Vehicles (and suits) that are recalled should repair and resupply over time (say, 30 seconds), not instantly (and you should be given a timer for when it's ready). During this time, the vehicle will not be in your usable assets pool (you can call in another identical tank if you have one available though). This idea can be used by itself. |
Gabriella Grey
0uter.Heaven
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 13:49:00 -
[346] - Quote
Finite ammo sounds like its going to be a great thing for vehicles. Why? It gives a better sense on what to do for ALL VEHICLES. It will promote HAV's to rely on other vehicles and non vehicle drivers for information. It will keep turret operators in general more mindful of how much ammo they are spamming etc. I am hoping that Supply depots, LAV's, and Dropships will be able to supply vehicles on the battlefield with this change also. Perhaps LAV's and Dropships being able to have unique supply abilities, for example, Dropships able to drop bigger ammo caches down for vehicles, and LAV's able to drop medium supplies.
I can not comment much on what modules will still be available for 1.5 until more information is out there, and I think the community should be the same. We would need more information on what modules are being removed, and what stats the basic hull of each vehicle type will have.
For philosophy wise and the community, most vehicle players tend to lean towards their chosen niche, especially your vehicle players who have been around chromosome build.
Active and Passive module revamp sound amazing! I think giving them more of a definition will be a great thing. As it stands passive modules are really lost in translation when it comes to withstanding damage. Common passive module fittings requires placing 2 or more on a vehicle and still does not seem that it really does much when being assaulted by AV weaponry, or turrets. Passive also suffer a bit being they are currently the better one suited for engaging into heavy resistance, but the need of having more than one is always the issue really when dealing with damage resistance vehicle modules.
With armor plating vs shielding, I would like to see heavier mass vehicles less unaffected when hit by AV and turret weaponry. Yes they should take the damage but when they are thrown around with the example of Logistics dropships/LAV's. With more mass dropships already having the disadvantage of being much slower and requiring heavier input to move it, things like swarm launchers changing its course of direction once they collide into it, makes such vehicles bleak in survivability in the hands of a good pilot.
I'm not sure what will happen to turrets and damage but I honestly think that in relation to turrets, each vehicle should have its own class of turrets, just how ground troops have. I think being that HAV's are the only ones known to be able to fit a large turrets on vehicle is a prime example. In respect to other vehicles like LAV's, perhaps turrets that are small having a better range compared to small turrets on and LAV and dropship turrets having the farthest distance from where it can do effective damage from. If the turrets remain the same I think it can still be done long as values unique to those vehicles will automatically apply to the type of vehicle. A good thing would be to add the mention of blast radius of fragmented turrets. It seems that grenades have better radius than something designed to destroy in a more efficient manner.
My personal request, would be to see rig slots in use within dust for certain types of vehicles. I think they would be great to have or at least have more module slots so that damage modifier modules, heat sink, etc. would be used more. LAV's and dropships are less likely to use them by the simple fact that concerns for taking on more damage is more of an issue than giving more damage. Also shield transporting and remote armor repairs are some of the most rarest if it is even used by vehicles other than Logi LAV's. I think these things should be replaced with giving supplies to infantry or other vehicles.
Looking forward to the new post from CCP Wolfman, and Remnants, Quote:Vehicle users last shinning hope! |
D legendary hero
THE WARRIORS OF LEGEND
747
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 13:52:00 -
[347] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Obodiah Garro wrote:balance HAV is easy, make the driver and gunner seperate operators then you can buff the standard hull hp in line with what it would take for 2 standard AV weilding infrantry to destroy it.
HAV being a 1 man army is the biggest problem, finite ammo is irrelevant as no doubt well organised people will use whatever resupply options are made available to full effect anyway. that will create more problems, I did NOT skill into tanks for someone else to use it, I skilled so I could use it.
well those small turrets and large turrets better not share the same ammo supply because blue berries that get in my tank will burn my ammo before i can use it.
but, if one guy with standard AV can kill my tank, their is no point to using them |
D legendary hero
THE WARRIORS OF LEGEND
747
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 13:53:00 -
[348] - Quote
Wait if dropships have moble CRUs, and triage. can i get a mobile supply depot for my dropship?
also, will AV gear be rebalanced too? you know so my tank wnt get insta-killed by one guy with std av? |
Gabriella Grey
0uter.Heaven
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 14:04:00 -
[349] - Quote
D legendary hero wrote:Void Echo wrote:Obodiah Garro wrote:balance HAV is easy, make the driver and gunner seperate operators then you can buff the standard hull hp in line with what it would take for 2 standard AV weilding infrantry to destroy it.
HAV being a 1 man army is the biggest problem, finite ammo is irrelevant as no doubt well organised people will use whatever resupply options are made available to full effect anyway. that will create more problems, I did NOT skill into tanks for someone else to use it, I skilled so I could use it. well those small turrets and large turrets better not share the same ammo supply because blue berries that get in my tank will burn my ammo before i can use it. but, if one guy with standard AV can kill my tank, their is no point to using them
I believe that is what the option of not having to fit all the weapon slots is for. If you are not with people you are communicating to use your turrets, you can simply remove them. Not sure why a blueberry would jump in the gunner seat to an empty area unless he thinks he is going to farm war points. But if they develop a counter measure for that then that blueberry will be hoping on something that will never happen. |
D legendary hero
THE WARRIORS OF LEGEND
748
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 14:09:00 -
[350] - Quote
while im at it. Can we please enable passengers to shoot their weapons out the sides of the dropships?
I can open the passenger doors but no one can shoot out of the dropshop. this was an intended feature. |
|
Lillica Deathdealer
Mango and Friends
260
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 14:15:00 -
[351] - Quote
This looks pretty cool. It looks like Wolfman and his crew might actually be thinking the same thing as me, but who knows? With any luck it'll go something like this: For the differences between small and large turrets, I envision ammo capacity being the defining factor between use on infantry and use on vehicles/structures. Small turrets do decent damage to infantry and have greater ammo capacity, making LAV and MAV the go-to infantry killing vehicles. Because these are lighter class vehicles, AV infantry can still take them on. Large turrets have respectable damage, making them kill infantry and harder targets alike. The thing that balances them is ammo count. Because large turrets will have less ammo capacity, most tanks will avoid targeting infantry because it would result in frequent resupplies and abandoning advantageous positions on the map. Of course an HAV could invest in ammo capacity modules, giving them a significant increase in ability to engage infantry without running out of ammo. However this is balanced because the ammo modules would take module slots, thus reducing the HAV's defenses and bringing it in line with the AV efforts of infantry. The short story: LAV and MAV kill infantry, infantry AV kill LAV and MAV. HAV kill all vehicles, large coordinated infantry effort and HAV kills HAV. Ammo count balances HAV use against infantry. |
Dysnomia Pandora
Third Rock From The Sun
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 14:24:00 -
[352] - Quote
So why is this game out of beta? Cus this is all beta crap, just rush rush rush huh, |
Sinboto Simmons
SVER True Blood Public Disorder.
1055
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 15:12:00 -
[353] - Quote
Any changes to missles? |
Mortedeamor
Internal Rebellion
173
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 15:20:00 -
[354] - Quote
i want a non turreted lav idc if it has passenger seats or not i want a supply depot module for my lav that has a limited uses per stop. i want my logi healer to be aoe heal/resupply i want a skill tree to enhance the over all abilities of the aoe repper i want scout lavs to have a point. maybe be fast i want assault lavs i want the vehicle lock to include lock the driver seat to caller lock entire vehicle to squad and open i want an option to kick people out of the vehicles.
i want tanks to be powerfull and to require full coordinated av teams to take down..i want tanks to need and use av teams again for support on the battlefield currently the vehicle /av aspect of dust hardly even touch the battle field not the real battle field. i want sentinel lavs SENTINEL LAVS SENTINEL MEDIUM FRAME SUIT FOR SWARM ..OFFICER SWARM LAUNCHERS ..LOGI TANKS
i want 3 logis to be able to fully sspecc logi and then utilize a logi lav as a logi team ....logi's using loggi lavs should be able to see res icons while driving..especially while burning sensors
sensors...we need wider spread sensors they are currently crap...we also need some kind of higher power sensor for heavy vehicles like a wide range active scanner...especially if team sight is going to be removed...i would also like these wide range sensors to actively enhance the tankers ability to see people for example longer rendering....
i want resupply module options for my logi lav
if vehicles and tanks are to have ammo ..what will the refill options be? will they're be a device a vehicle user can skill into and call to reammo his or her tank?
i want wp for shield transporting both vehicles and people
currently turrets are 100% useless on lav im not sure how to fix this i would like my logi lav to have a logi turret i think other lavs than the logi should have some gaurd over the user ..currently all using a turret does is expose you to being one shotted |
D legendary hero
THE WARRIORS OF LEGEND
751
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 15:26:00 -
[355] - Quote
the mobile supply depot should have limited ammunition, but be restockable at real supply depots
i wanna take the turret off my ishikune watch saga and put a mobile CRU in there |
Wakko03
Better Hide R Die
334
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 15:55:00 -
[356] - Quote
Well I wonder if this has come up: All Vehicles sound and look alike; by this I mean I only know it is friendly if they don't try to run me over (and even then they still try and run us down on occasion but mostly to drag us out into the open)... what can be done to make it so that I know by the sound if it is an enemy vehicle (since you are also removing the link'd squads and making the scanner changes).
Before the forum warriors rip this apart, YES - I know they are essentially the same vehicles for both friendly and enemy [and yes I know that they (ccp) have trouble keeping the audio dropouts from happening]. |
Exalted Warrior
Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 16:22:00 -
[357] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:To be honest I really thought that Dropsuits would get teiricided first, but alas vehicles are in dire need of it more so than the dropsuits. What is tiericide? |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
84
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 16:28:00 -
[358] - Quote
Kekklian Noobatronic wrote:Wolfman, more thoughts:
Are there plans to change how Vehicle Recall works? Giving vehicles more EHP is great and all, but if it simply leads to more users just blowing cool downs, popping out, and near-instantly recalling their vehicle just because it's come under fire (A tactic already acknowledged by your staff in Feedback/Suggestions round up) you're going to have a mess on your hands.
Perhaps extending the time needed to recall? Denying recall if the vehicle has recently been engaged in combat(I.E. a Crimewatch-like system, such as EVE has)? Denying vehicle recall if modules are active or on cool down? I can imagine a hundred other systems to prevent tankers from abusing the vehicle recall system, and limiting it to it's intended purpose - a tactical option for tankers to adapt to changes in battlefield conditions(And not a 'get out of jail free' card the moment an AV player starts pinging them).
Vehicle recall is fine the way it is. If anything, it could stand to be a little faster. Sorry if someone has got a chubby for blowing up a ride, but if the pilot is reduced to removing it from the field, that's just as good. |
crazy space 1
Unkn0wn Killers
1586
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 16:54:00 -
[359] - Quote
shooting a tank should interrupt it's recall ... |
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star. EoN.
1124
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 17:00:00 -
[360] - Quote
crazy space 1 wrote:shooting a tank should interrupt it's recall ...
**** off
Such a bad idea,i bet you are one of the players who wants shield regen to stop when someone fires an AR at it
Not going to have a mechanic where 1 sniper bullet stops shield regen or a recall |
|
|
|
|
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 |