DUST Search - 1.7 is toilet :)

The legend345 wrote:

You've simply eliminated problems and added new ones. So i will not even WASTE my time in telling you how to fix that puzzle of **** that you posted. Instead ill will tell you what the problem is right now (for tanks). 1st the forge gun needs to be nerfed slightly dowm. Bring back the 5% pg skill. Greatly increase the shield tanks passive repping power and increase its base stats as well as all there modules (the passive repping power would be the thing that balances shield vs armor for the weaker modules). Then buff the time active hardners are active. Im not going to waiste my time going any further but basically this was all you had to do. Maybe another thing here and there but very generally this was it. This was the problem since uprising you guys had all this time to decided how you would fix these problems (what numbers to use and how to balance shield vs armor). Changing the reps is unnecessary and potentially breaks the mechanics of tanking. Understand there is no passive modules in blaster tanking you cant use blasters with passive modules without retreating right away. Active modules were fine and don't need to take longer to use. Also shield reps should get the same amount of pulses as armor.

*armor reps are not OP they are needed to deal with this amount of AV. If you take away the "rep bug" then another element must be buffed to compensate.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
The legend345 TeamPlayers EoN. 1079	Posted - 2013.10.02 19:43:00 - [1] - Quote You've simply eliminated problems and added new ones. So i will not even WASTE my time in telling you how to fix that puzzle of **** that you posted. Instead ill will tell you what the problem is right now (for tanks). 1st the forge gun needs to be nerfed slightly dowm. Bring back the 5% pg skill. Greatly increase the shield tanks passive repping power and increase its base stats as well as all there modules (the passive repping power would be the thing that balances shield vs armor for the weaker modules). Then buff the time active hardners are active. Im not going to waiste my time going any further but basically this was all you had to do. Maybe another thing here and there but very generally this was it. This was the problem since uprising you guys had all this time to decided how you would fix these problems (what numbers to use and how to balance shield vs armor). Changing the reps is unnecessary and potentially breaks the mechanics of tanking. Understand there is no passive modules in blaster tanking you cant use blasters with passive modules without retreating right away. Active modules were fine and don't need to take longer to use. Also shield reps should get the same amount of pulses as armor. *armor reps are not OP they are needed to deal with this amount of AV. If you take away the "rep bug" then another element must be buffed to compensate.
Tallen Ellecon KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 760	Posted - 2013.10.02 19:44:00 - [2] - Quote WASTE*
GHOSTLY ANNIHILATOR The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 524	Posted - 2013.10.02 20:03:00 - [3] - Quote Well there's always BF4 ^.^
Sgt Buttscratch SLAPHAPPY BANDITS 868	Posted - 2013.10.02 20:10:00 - [4] - Quote I agree with the OP. They have decided rather than try fix the AV to vehicle balance, by listening to the community feedback, they have decided to start over, with a full overhaul. Which in true CCP fashion can only bring more balance issues and more bugs. This new fix looks like it wil be along the same logic as the matchmaking, over thought with a bad end product. The stats on the madrugar basically are the same as a soma with a 120mm plate. I won't be skilling back into tanks (assuming vehicle SP will be refunded), until I see what the hamsters manage to do with their time and ISK 1st.
BobThe 844-1 CakeMan Murder Cakes Of Doom 413	Posted - 2013.10.02 20:13:00 - [5] - Quote armor reps r passive. so yea tht is 145 rep a second with no end or pause. from what it look like on paper. not quite sure thou. and yea some other stuff but it looks like a total mess.
Cody Sietz Bullet Cluster 1075	Posted - 2013.10.02 20:15:00 - [6] - Quote They are rebuilding from the ground up, isn't that what they always said they do?
Maximus Stryker Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 617	Posted - 2013.10.02 21:01:00 - [7] - Quote you realize they posted all this information about 2 months before a release and are asking for feedback, right? And this is how you repay them? I am not saying you are wrong or have a bad argument, I think we all recognize you as one of the best tankers in the game, arguably, the best, but that doesn't mean you should spew a crap paragraph of a rant. It would be nice for you to step up and present arguments and ideas in a coherent manner to better tanks and the game overall. I hope you change your tune as I know a lot of people respect your in game skills but your forum posting seems to be atrocious.
CommanderBolt A.N.O.N.Y.M.O.U.S. 346	Posted - 2013.10.02 21:05:00 - [8] - Quote Maximus Stryker wrote: you realize they posted all this information about 2 months before a release and are asking for feedback, right? And this is how you repay them? I am not saying you are wrong or have a bad argument, I think we all recognize you as one of the best tankers in the game, arguably, the best, but that doesn't mean you should spew a crap paragraph of a rant. It would be nice for you to step up and present arguments and ideas in a coherent manner to better tanks and the game overall. I hope you change your tune as I know a lot of people respect your in game skills but your forum posting seems to be atrocious. How can you possibly think that any sane person is willing to carry on with this all now? This game should still be in beta!
richiesutie 2 The Rainbow Effect 331	Posted - 2013.10.02 21:14:00 - [9] - Quote GHOSTLY ANNIHILATOR wrote: Well there's always BF4 ^.^ 82%
Maximus Stryker Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 618	Posted - 2013.10.02 21:16:00 - [10] - Quote CommanderBolt wrote: Maximus Stryker wrote: you realize they posted all this information about 2 months before a release and are asking for feedback, right? And this is how you repay them? I am not saying you are wrong or have a bad argument, I think we all recognize you as one of the best tankers in the game, arguably, the best, but that doesn't mean you should spew a crap paragraph of a rant. It would be nice for you to step up and present arguments and ideas in a coherent manner to better tanks and the game overall. I hope you change your tune as I know a lot of people respect your in game skills but your forum posting seems to be atrocious. How can you possibly think that any sane person is willing to carry on with this all now? This game should still be in beta! We all don't have the same expectations. I never viewed Dust as on par with the development abilities of a BF4 or CoD. I liked the premise of an ever evolving game that slowly developed and changed and progressed. I would rather have a Dust with monthly updates than a CoD that came out once a year.

DUST Fiend OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 6654	Posted - 2013.10.02 21:28:00 - [11] - Quote Cody Sietz wrote: They are rebuilding from the ground up, isn't that what they always said they do? Your decisions matter DUST 51BETA
Alldin Kan TeamPlayers EoN. 638	Posted - 2013.10.02 21:29:00 - [12] - Quote The legend345 wrote: You've simply eliminated problems and added new ones. So i will not even WASTE my time in telling you how to fix that puzzle of **** that you posted. Instead ill will tell you what the problem is right now (for tanks). 1st the forge gun needs to be nerfed slightly dowm. Bring back the 5% pg skill. Greatly increase the shield tanks passive repping power and increase its base stats as well as all there modules (the passive repping power would be the thing that balances shield vs armor for the weaker modules). Then buff the time active hardners are active. Im not going to waiste my time going any further but basically this was all you had to do. Maybe another thing here and there but very generally this was it. This was the problem since uprising you guys had all this time to decided how you would fix these problems (what numbers to use and how to balance shield vs armor). Changing the reps is unnecessary and potentially breaks the mechanics of tanking. Understand there is no passive modules in blaster tanking you cant use blasters with passive modules without retreating right away. Active modules were fine and don't need to take longer to use. Also shield reps should get the same amount of pulses as armor. *armor reps are not OP they are needed to deal with this amount of AV. If you take away the "rep bug" then another element must be buffed to compensate. AV nerf incoming. Also, the stats shown to us are not final. Git gud.
CommanderBolt A.N.O.N.Y.M.O.U.S. 346	Posted - 2013.10.02 21:31:00 - [13] - Quote Fools, all fools for continuing to play this broken game. I guess that makes me even more of a fool for coming to the forums thinking that things might finally change.
TheAmazing FlyingPig Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 3991	Posted - 2013.10.02 22:10:00 - [14] - Quote The legend345 wrote: So i will not even WASTE my time in telling you how to fix that puzzle of ** that you posted. Then why do you proceed to waste your time telling them how to fix that puzzle of ** that they posted?
Forlorn Destrier Bullet Cluster 1873	Posted - 2013.10.02 22:20:00 - [15] - Quote The legend345 wrote: You've simply eliminated problems and added new ones. So i will not even WASTE my time in telling you how to fix that puzzle of **** that you posted. Instead ill will tell you what the problem is right now (for tanks). 1st the forge gun needs to be nerfed slightly dowm. Bring back the 5% pg skill. Greatly increase the shield tanks passive repping power and increase its base stats as well as all there modules (the passive repping power would be the thing that balances shield vs armor for the weaker modules). Then buff the time active hardners are active. Im not going to waiste my time going any further but basically this was all you had to do. Maybe another thing here and there but very generally this was it. This was the problem since uprising you guys had all this time to decided how you would fix these problems (what numbers to use and how to balance shield vs armor). Changing the reps is unnecessary and potentially breaks the mechanics of tanking. Understand there is no passive modules in blaster tanking you cant use blasters with passive modules without retreating right away. Active modules were fine and don't need to take longer to use. Also shield reps should get the same amount of pulses as armor. *armor reps are not OP they are needed to deal with this amount of AV. If you take away the "rep bug" then another element must be buffed to compensate. Yoru post makes no sense to me for the following reasons: 1. So the first problem with tanks are the weapons you use against them. That is your first statement. In effect, you are saying there is nothing wrong with tanks in terms of AV; the problems are with the weapons used against them. Your method of communicating is a bit... convoluted. 2. Walls of text are notoriously difficult to read. No one will take you seriously with this post. 3. You don't want to "waste your time" by telling them how to fix the problems with the new post, then proceed to do exactly that. You contradict yourself, making your input unreliable and therefore ignorable 4. If you were serious about helping you would actually post in the thread that CCP is monitoring. Creating a new thread is counter-productive. 5. You are talking down developers instead of talking to them on the same level. 6. For a second time, you say you won't waste your time by explaining more, but then do so. Again, you are contradicting yourself making your post even more irrelevant to the conversation. EDIT: as another poster pointed out - these are not changes set in stone, so please don't act as if this is the final product.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page