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) |
Nguruthos IX
Red and Silver Hand Amarr Empire
1194
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 17:04:00 -
[361] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote: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 But is it kinda bs when im spamming direct hit proto small missiles at a tank and it still recalls at 20% |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
84
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 17:08:00 -
[362] - Quote
Nguruthos IX wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote: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 But is it kinda bs when im spamming direct hit proto small missiles at a tank and it still recalls at 20%
You drove it off. Congrats, you caused the tanker to dismiss his ride thus clearing the field of a mechanized monstrosity. In the words of Don Cheadle/Captain Planet, "The power is YOURS!"
Oh wait, you're upset because you really wanted to blow up that tank.
...so? |
Alldin Kan
TeamPlayers EoN.
549
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 17:09:00 -
[363] - 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).
Let's say that after the update a turret or module were to OP or UP, would it be possible to tweak the stats within a week upon being reported instead of waiting for next update? I'm sure no one wants to have a 50% resist module (long active time and low cooldown ) to be around for too long... |
Skihids
Bullet Cluster
1964
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 17:11:00 -
[364] - Quote
I'm encouraged by the new plans for vehicles as it has the opportunity to introduce a deeper level of strategy and tactics into battle.
Finite ammo and "burst tanking" would create a greater dependency on blue support for tankers. I understand that tankers want to be able to run as solo as infantry, but I would argue that infantry also needs to coordinate much better to be effective.
As a dropship pilot i'm already dependent on gunners so I'm used to "just piloting" while others shoot so I'm not as wedded to soloing that tankers are. This pass leaves tanks as solo vehicles, and actually encourages it with the ability to remove small turrets. This is made possible by adding burst mode, but I'd like to see multi-crew tanks explored as well. DUST needs to fulfill its promise of strategy and tactics, and not devote the majority of effort at solo "Mercenary TDM" mode where everyone isn't communicating.
As a dropship pilot I'm also encouraged by the non-slaying missions this introduces for dropships. Resupply, shield transfer, remote vehicle repair all offer non-shooting missions that can yield rewards. I wouldn't mind having light turret modules for this function to add on or replace pilot controlled modules as flying and survival can take all my attention.
I love the idea that limited ammo of each type would encourage light vehicles to be AI and the larger turrets to focus on AV. That mimics real life where a tank main gun isn't generally used to kill individual infantry but is rather used to take out hard points, installations, and other vehicles. That makes tanks more focused and not a jack of all trades (though they can fit small turrets as well).
Dropships are also meant as transport, and it's great that you are going to reward that function, but don't forget the other half of the equation. Infantry has to be rewarded for taking the dropship ride or the pilots won't get the opportunity for those rewards. That means both infantry incentive AND a smooth way to accomplish it. Failing that I can see a huge "taxi stand" line with dropships sitting empty waiting for passengers and going broke.
As others have pointed out dropships can't be overly reliant on active modules as simply deploying outside the spawn and under the flight ceiling can be equated with "going into battle". |
Nguruthos IX
Red and Silver Hand Amarr Empire
1195
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 17:28:00 -
[365] - Quote
It would be easier to balance dropship cloaking if you added it in 1.5
:X |
Mobius Wyvern
Guardian Solutions DARKSTAR ARMY
3354
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 17:41:00 -
[366] - Quote
Our Deepest Regret wrote: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. I still prefer the idea of an RDV actually coming out to pick up the vehicle.
They've already made their delivery process faster, and if they improve the AI of them, you could have the thing drop cloak, pick up your vehicle, take off, and cloak up within 15-20 seconds.
Since it sounds like a major buff to active hardeners is in the works, and you wouldn't have to worry about the cooldown if you're recalling your vehicle, you just activate those and then do the recall. |
Gabriella Grey
0uter.Heaven
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 17:49:00 -
[367] - Quote
Quote:I still prefer the idea of an RDV actually coming out to pick up the vehicle.
They've already made their delivery process faster, and if they improve the AI of them, you could have the thing drop cloak, pick up your vehicle, take off, and cloak up within 15-20 seconds.
Since it sounds like a major buff to active hardeners is in the works, and you wouldn't have to worry about the cooldown if you're recalling your vehicle, you just activate those and then do the recall.
In the current relation of vehicles, and anti-vehicles, I would be discouraged by this on so many levels. As stated previously in this topic. The price you pay for vehicles, skill point/time wise and isk, makes having to wait for a RDV to show while your vehicle is still getting shot up, then finally bolted on and taken away is too much time. Then there are vehicles such as LAV's and Dropships that would not survive an RDV pick up even if they had substantial amount of health points.
If we are talking about calling vehicles though, I would like to see something done about ground vehicles being called on high places, perhaps giving them a response like, "Area unsuitable for deployment." |
Gabriella Grey
0uter.Heaven
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 18:06:00 -
[368] - Quote
Lillica Deathdealer wrote: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.
With the exception of Fighters my mangolian friend. |
bacon blaster
BIG BAD W0LVES Eternal Syndicate
150
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 18:36:00 -
[369] - Quote
I like the sound of this. As someone who doesn't actually use vehicles, yet, this kind of makes me want to get into tanks.
Also, PLEASE NERF LLAV. Thank you. |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1093
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 18:47:00 -
[370] - Quote
Exalted Warrior wrote: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?
the removal of all tier, standard, advanced and prototype levels would be no more and dust wouldn't be dust |
|
Gabriella Grey
0uter.Heaven
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 18:50:00 -
[371] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Exalted Warrior wrote: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? the removal of all tier, standard, advanced and prototype levels would be no more and dust wouldn't be dust
the only modules that are advanced and proto for vehicles are turrets. |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1093
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 18:54:00 -
[372] - Quote
Gabriella Grey wrote:Void Echo wrote:Exalted Warrior wrote: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? the removal of all tier, standard, advanced and prototype levels would be no more and dust wouldn't be dust the only modules that are advanced and proto for vehicles are turrets.
doesn't matter, that term is focusing on the entire game, not just this dying class |
Gabriella Grey
0uter.Heaven
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 19:03:00 -
[373] - Quote
Quote:doesn't matter, that term is focusing on the entire game, not just this dying class
We currently do not have enough information yet to say that this will end the use of vehicles all together. I think that this is a really big step in the right direction. The vehicle fix sounds simple but its really complex and its issue lies within its basic set-ups. That is why they have issues balancing these things. Could they probably fix it while keeping what they have? They probably could, but who cares, long as the desired results come out, and that's all about making ALL vehicles fun. Currently tanks are the do all vehicle, LAV's are the easiest to use and rack up kills, and dropships are far from being rewarding, and deemed useless by many who do not fly them. Then you have to add on that vehicles all share some similar issues, like high isk requirments for certain fittings etc. People are assuming that because the modules will be basic, that they will all be expensive coffins, but I think things are seriously being over looked based on what stands. CCP Wolfman said he will post more information on the subject, and I think people should give him and the rest of CCP who are working on making vehicles finally see their much needed love, the space and time they need to fix this issue.
- We are rooting for you CCP Wolfman! |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1093
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 19:11:00 -
[374] - Quote
Gabriella Grey wrote:Quote:doesn't matter, that term is focusing on the entire game, not just this dying class We currently do not have enough information yet to say that this will end the use of vehicles all together. I think that this is a really big step in the right direction. The vehicle fix sounds simple but its really complex and its issue lies within its basic set-ups. That is why they have issues balancing these things. Could they probably fix it while keeping what they have? They probably could, but who cares, long as the desired results come out, and that's all about making ALL vehicles fun. Currently tanks are the do all vehicle, LAV's are the easiest to use and rack up kills, and dropships are far from being rewarding, and deemed useless by many who do not fly them. Then you have to add on that vehicles all share some similar issues, like high isk requirments for certain fittings etc. People are assuming that because the modules will be basic, that they will all be expensive coffins, but I think things are seriously being over looked based on what stands. CCP Wolfman said he will post more information on the subject, and I think people should give him and the rest of CCP who are working on making vehicles finally see their much needed love, the space and time they need to fix this issue. - We are rooting for you CCP Wolfman!
im actually talking about the term Tiercide.
this is only a few months before 1.5, so hopefully they will have some acceptable changes next time, Im not arguing against ammo unless we don't have a module that regenerates it over time, other wise, tanks aren't worth the single guy skilling into them |
Gabriella Grey
0uter.Heaven
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 19:15:00 -
[375] - Quote
Here I will link you. Tiericide Information
|
Kekklian Noobatronic
Goonfeet Top Men.
320
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 20:09:00 -
[376] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote: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
Maybe not 1 sniper bullet, but i've nailed a tank with a Breach Forge Gun, while it was being recalled. It failed to stop the recall.
Care to explain why that shouldn't have stopped the recall?
Hm?
I thought not. |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1093
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 20:24:00 -
[377] - Quote
Kekklian Noobatronic wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote: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 Maybe not 1 sniper bullet, but i've nailed a tank with a Breach Forge Gun, while it was being recalled. It failed to stop the recall. Care to explain why that shouldn't have stopped the recall? Hm? I thought not.
it stopped the recall because your shot caused it to start burning.. |
crazy space 1
Unkn0wn Killers
1587
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 20:51:00 -
[378] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote: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
what game lets you teleport and not get interrupted. if you are smart can never lose a tank by recalling them under heavy fire. Once people catch on no one will lose a tank ever. |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
84
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 21:26:00 -
[379] - Quote
crazy space 1 wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote: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 what game lets you teleport and not get interrupted. if you are smart can never lose a tank by recalling them under heavy fire. Once people catch on no one will lose a tank ever.
Depends squarely on the tank. I've lost a couple amidst recall attempts. |
KalOfTheRathi
Black Phoenix Mercenaries
602
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 23:14:00 -
[380] - Quote
Lurchasaurus wrote:CCP have you toyed with adding countermeasures?
May we have any info on your thoughts regarding the pilot suit and the types of numbers it will have such as a single sidearm slot or specific modules to equip that alter tank functionality on the suit itself? Show me where they have done any except Toy with anything. |
|
Noc Tempre
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
2458
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 23:17:00 -
[381] - Quote
Nowhere in this thread have I seen what role vehicles are supposed to play, only how they are intended to be "balanced" in HP and DPS. No talks of ISK. No talks of SP. No talks of WP. This is a far stickier problem than make them not overpowered at being a slayer. Honestly that discussion is more important than speculation on the rebalanced stats. |
KalOfTheRathi
Black Phoenix Mercenaries
602
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 23:23:00 -
[382] - Quote
CCP Wolfman wrote: -- snip The Very Bad Plan -- When will I able get a refund on my HAV specific SP?
Currently it is ~8M+ and doesn't cover shield (aka death trap) tanks as the excessive SP cost for everything precludes supporting both tank types. This could well solve my SP limitation in Drop Suits*.
I would be willing to wait two weeks after trying out your ideas but, thus far, CCP/Shanghai has yet to implement a single plan that has resulted in a mostly positive result. See the Wrong Fix For the Wrong LAV of late where the Free LAVs that weren't a problem were eliminated while nothing was done for the Murder Taxi LLAV fleet. The result of which was the higher proportion of LLAVs in the Murder Taxi roles. Sweet! Where Sweet means Stupid.
Also when will the SP put into Turret skills be refunded as they actually provide no benefit (versus how the are documented) to the Gunner. For that matter, this character gets no benefit from the supposed increase while using the main turret in the HAV either. Fun. Is that going to be fixed too? How badly can you fix that? I can hardly wait to find out. Isn't this exciting? No. I thought I would save you the effort of trying to come up with a believable answer. I am so thoughtful I amaze myself.
Cheers. Where Cheers means I Want My Wasted SP Back, (insert insulting phrase of your choice here).
* When will I have my Minmatar Heavy Suit? I don't need a Minmatar Pilot suit as that is tied to the results of the Very Bad Plan is mostly likely not gonna happen. For me. Fool me once, yada-yada-yada. |
ladwar
Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn
1314
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 01:42:00 -
[383] - Quote
seeing this page have 20 pages of replies and 1.4 only has 16. clearly a lot of pilots are going to leave if they don't actually balance anything out and it turns out to be the same fail sauce that PC was. |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1099
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 03:23:00 -
[384] - Quote
ladwar wrote:seeing this page have 20 pages of replies and 1.4 only has 16. clearly a lot of pilots are going to leave if they don't actually balance anything out and it turns out to be the same fail sauce that PC was.
very true..
its just a very hard discussion dealing with something that's never had a real purpose yet has made its mark as an unbalanced **** hole that still have investments. |
Serimos Haeraven
Deep Space Republic Top Men.
448
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 03:31:00 -
[385] - Quote
The one negative i can see in this is the clear difference in play style you want the pilots of a shield-extender pilot (proposed to just "hit and run"), and an armor pilot (proposed to be a "stand-your-ground" ship), and even saying in this that the "HP ceiling" for shield dropships is still going to be small, which basically means that for shield dropships things are going to relatively remain how they always have been, us having to hit an objective and then run away because forge guns can take us out in two shots.
The one good thing coming out of this is the new active damage mods, and the possbility of CCP making turrets do more damage since they have ammo now, there's a possibility that if shield DS's just re-think their fitting we can do well, the only question i have is how long are these new Active shield boosters going to be? Because that window means in that space of time you're going to have to make sure you can engage that target like a FG before he hits you when your boosters or hardeners are down. |
Skihids
Bullet Cluster
1967
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 03:34:00 -
[386] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:ladwar wrote:seeing this page have 20 pages of replies and 1.4 only has 16. clearly a lot of pilots are going to leave if they don't actually balance anything out and it turns out to be the same fail sauce that PC was. very true.. its just a very hard discussion dealing with something that's never had a real purpose yet has made its mark as an unbalanced **** hole that still have investments.
It's impossible to balance without context. We need to know the intended roles/missions before anyone can declare the OP or UP for said role. |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1102
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 03:37:00 -
[387] - Quote
Skihids wrote:Void Echo wrote:ladwar wrote:seeing this page have 20 pages of replies and 1.4 only has 16. clearly a lot of pilots are going to leave if they don't actually balance anything out and it turns out to be the same fail sauce that PC was. very true.. its just a very hard discussion dealing with something that's never had a real purpose yet has made its mark as an unbalanced **** hole that still have investments. It's impossible to balance without context. We need to know the intended roles/missions before anyone can declare the OP or UP for said role.
yep... I realized this a few days ago.. as of last year, tanks have no definitive role specifically stated in their description... or at least no descriptions that stupid people can read... |
Smooth Assassin
Condotta Rouvenor Gallente Federation
95
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 12:11:00 -
[388] - Quote
WHERES THE LOCKS CMON YOUR DOING A VEHICLE UPDATE AND NO LOCKS!!!!! DRIVING ME CRAZY GET OUT OF MY LIMBUS!!!!!!!!!! |
Foundation Seldon
Gespenster Kompanie Villore Accords
84
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 12:39:00 -
[389] - Quote
Smooth Assassin wrote:WHERES THE LOCKS CMON YOUR DOING A VEHICLE UPDATE AND NO LOCKS!!!!! DRIVING ME CRAZY GET OUT OF MY LIMBUS!!!!!!!!!!
1.6 will have locks.
... the Limbus will probably be removed in 1.5 and reintroduced at a later date. <3 |
Vin Vicious
Capital Acquisitions LLC Public Disorder.
299
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 16:29:00 -
[390] - Quote
20 pages of whining
Does any one have skill points in BlackOps HAV or Marauder HAV? No? that answers half the tears. SP refund confirmed
|
|
|
|
|
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 |