Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jason Pearson
Animus Securities
2993
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 19:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
With this post informing us of some major changes to come in the future with vehicles, understandably some of you are concerned about the future and how it will affect you and your enjoyment of the game.
We must keep an open mind when it comes to the re-balance, whilst the chances of CCP failing very hard is likely, there is still a chance they might be successful in their endeavors and the only way they're going to be able to do this is with both the Vehicle and AV groups engaging in positive debate about various subjects.
Now, we know some of the numbers seem off, as some people have mentioned with turrets and certain modules, and it's quite possible that these numbers are placeholders until they've worked it out, not only this but none of these numbers are yet set in stone I believe so we do have an opportunity to post feedback as to why certain numbers must be adjusted.
What I need you all to do is clear your mind of any current stats and how AV v Vehicles currently is, that's what this is about, Vehicle v AV is broken and nothing can save it in its current form, it's like building a house on sand, it will never be secure unless you tear it down and build it on rock.
CCP, your actions will decide whether many of us stay or go, you cannot deny that there are many games out there that can and will hold our attention a lot more than DUST can, particularly for those that enjoy vehicle combat. If you want your community to stick around you need to give them reason, when you do eventually roll this overhaul out please consider refunding all SP in the vehicle, anti vehicle and turret categories,
I know a few players who will likely leave when you release this but by refunding their SP they might not be gone forever. By allowing this to happen, you'll be allowing players to enjoy the game in other areas rather than an area they now dislike due to changes you have forced upon them, I believe that this is only fair.
Now that's said, I also believe that if you want us to give you proper feedback, we need to be fully informed and to this we're going to require more information, already players are worried that their Vehicles will not be able to stand up to AV come release, as we do not have any AV numbers which is something both the Vehicle and Anti-Vehicle group will need to see. Give us the knowledge and we'll work together to make a better Vehicle/AV experience on the battlefield.
I also propose the term Vehicleers for all vehicle players, kthx.
King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Comment and like this thread about PvE, Here! Also, check out the Indirect Fire ability, Here! |
The legend345
TeamPlayers EoN.
1079
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 19:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
No sorry but i dont plan on sticking around trying to balance another puzzle. Everyone had what was needed very clear. Shoutout to maple, i think he had it all down perfect. This is BS ccp has simply created another problem. I have been waiting for this much to long. They dont deserve any more of my support. This was a last chance for many people. Im not going to stick around and talk about changes. Ive been doing that since uprising. Forget it good luck balancing 1.7 i dont plan on holding ccps hand through commonsense. |
Skihids
Bullet Cluster
2213
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 19:56:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'd love to see vehicles strong enough to make mercs tremble, but not remain constantly in god mode like they did in Precursor.
It would be nice if the best counter to a tank would be another tank, but infantry AV does have to be effective.
With attack and repair modes I see the need for multi-unit support tactics where one vehicle would cover the retreat of another, leading to more interesting battles. Perhaps an attack dropship would try to kill a retreating tank only to have a defending dropship swoop in to intercept the attacker or a LLAV rush in to supply reps.
If vehicles are to remain expensive they will have to be able to survive many matches and this could get them to that point as long as the cool-down period is respected and the pilot doesn't push his luck. But if we are to say that AV is doing its job at repelling vehicle attacks without getting kills all the time we will have to reward them for it. That means WP's for significant damage to vehicles, otherwise AV will feel cheated. |
Asirius Medaius
Planetary Response Organization Test Friends Please Ignore
557
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 19:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
Hey, I am remaining calm for the lack of vehicle changes...
I am also going to remain offline for 60 days so I can get my suits (if the game still has players by then).
No point grinding for SP if there is nothing to put it into... I would rather get my rare dropsuits and play actually fun games. |
ghjl ghjkl
Patriotic Investment Group Inc.
7
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 20:00:00 -
[5] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:With this post informing us of some major changes to come in the future with vehicles, understandably some of you are concerned about the future and how it will affect you and your enjoyment of the game. We must keep an open mind when it comes to the re-balance, whilst the chances of CCP failing very hard is likely, there is still a chance they might be successful in their endeavors and the only way they're going to be able to do this is with both the Vehicle and AV groups engaging in positive debate about various subjects. Now, we know some of the numbers seem off, as some people have mentioned with turrets and certain modules, and it's quite possible that these numbers are placeholders until they've worked it out, not only this but none of these numbers are yet set in stone I believe so we do have an opportunity to post feedback as to why certain numbers must be adjusted. What I need you all to do is clear your mind of any current stats and how AV v Vehicles currently is, that's what this is about, Vehicle v AV is broken and nothing can save it in its current form, it's like building a house on sand, it will never be secure unless you tear it down and build it on rock. CCP, your actions will decide whether many of us stay or go, you cannot deny that there are many games out there that can and will hold our attention a lot more than DUST can, particularly for those that enjoy vehicle combat. If you want your community to stick around you need to give them reason, when you do eventually roll this overhaul out please consider refunding all SP in the vehicle, anti vehicle and turret categories, I know a few players who will likely leave when you release this but by refunding their SP they might not be gone forever. By allowing this to happen, you'll be allowing players to enjoy the game in other areas rather than an area they now dislike due to changes you have forced upon them, I believe that this is only fair. Now that's said, I also believe that if you want us to give you proper feedback, we need to be fully informed and to this we're going to require more information, already players are worried that their Vehicles will not be able to stand up to AV come release, as we do not have any AV numbers which is something both the Vehicle and Anti-Vehicle group will need to see. Give us the knowledge and we'll work together to make a better Vehicle/AV experience on the battlefield. I also propose the term Vehicleers for all vehicle players, kthx.
King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Comment and like this thread about PvE, Here!Also, check out the Indirect Fire ability, Here! I have a future vehicleer alt. I'm sadly sitting on alot of sp until I can choose the racial variant of my choice, and build on my specialties accordingly. |
Jadek Menaheim
warravens League of Infamy
119
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 20:11:00 -
[6] - Quote
Well, as a dropship pilot I'm certainly happy. Sure, we may be losing the logistics and assault variants at the moment, however, Judging by the stats we are getting the better end of the stick with double the speed, more PG and CPU, and all at the standard level. That's not to mention the changes to the skill tree which offer easier access to different racial variant dropships. Looks like it's going to be a nice time to shield tank with a Myron. |
Lance 2ballzStrong
SyNergy Gaming EoN.
3996
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 20:12:00 -
[7] - Quote
After 1.6 LOOOOOL |
Chunky Munkey
Amarr Templars Amarr Empire
1660
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 20:15:00 -
[8] - Quote
Your 3000th like.
Sorry . . . what were you saying? |
Rogatien Merc
Red Star. EoN.
1341
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 20:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
The only realistic way to balance AV to the new tank paradigm is to balance AV's burst DPS capabilities with similar 'downtime'. That is to say...... swarm / forge reload timers should be increased significantly. Combine this with removal of all grenades from nanohive restocking and a slight upgrade of proximity explosive effectiveness and I think realistically everyone can be happy with it.
inb4 "not my nades!!!! " |
Jastad
D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
156
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 20:22:00 -
[10] - Quote
Jastad wrote:As a Ground Forger, and a Tank Hunter with this stat, i think that Swarm need to go, same for the Av nades ( the tracking at last) Leave only to Heavy the fight of Veic-user.
ARcodBOYS can go to hell. And with this you will have a rock-paper-scissor.
Rock: tank slain INF Paper: Heavy slain tank Scissor: Infrantry slain Forger.
And also add barrier on the tower,so scrub can hide in there. Thanks
That's my reply in CCP LOGIBRO thread |
|
Void Echo
Morsus Mihi Aperuitque Imperium
1595
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 20:28:00 -
[11] - Quote
I don't really care anymore.... CCP has ****** over my community too long and too many times for me to expect them to do something right for once, even if they **** vehicles over for the last time, il still play this game, but il delete all my tank fittings and just go pure infantry, and il have enough sp to save up for the jets. |
Sgt Buttscratch
SLAPHAPPY BANDITS
868
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 20:33:00 -
[12] - Quote
Personally I think that with changes like these ALL vehicle SP should be refunded, because everything will be changed.
If this is the case I will not put any points back into tanking, I don't want to have 10million + SP into driving a soma. 3 low slots for a madrugar, meaning you will run out of ammo considering the ammo module is for low slots. Obvious SP sinks have been created, with additional turret skills, ammo etc. The idea they said was to make tanking fun, so drive in activate modules, 20 seconds later retreat away(this gives time to leave and eat some AV), repair for a minute then go back in.... To me that isn't fun, it's also not giving tanks a role in battle, what it actually does is reduces tanking time to a cameo appearance here and there.
I would like to see the AV numbers right now, NO.1 hope is that ADV/PRO/Officer tiers are removed, the new tanks are designed purely to take STD and MLT AV only. |
Bojo The Mighty
Zanzibar Concept
2092
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 20:45:00 -
[13] - Quote
Here is some feedback
There are no damage/ammo/rof differences amongst blasters with tier, just an increased CPU/PG draw. How is that even right? |
Jason Pearson
Animus Securities
3005
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 21:29:00 -
[14] - Quote
Bojo The Mighty wrote:Here is some feedback
There are no damage/ammo/rof differences amongst blasters with tier, just an increased CPU/PG draw. How is that even right?
Possibly placeholder? don't understand why they're adding anything other than standard stuff right now, should be the same with AV, balance out the standard gear first.
King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Comment and like this thread about PvE, Here! Also, check out the Indirect Fire ability, Here! |
Alldin Kan
TeamPlayers EoN.
638
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 21:32:00 -
[15] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:With this post informing us of some major changes to come in the future with vehicles, understandably some of you are concerned about the future and how it will affect you and your enjoyment of the game. We must keep an open mind when it comes to the re-balance, whilst the chances of CCP failing very hard is likely, there is still a chance they might be successful in their endeavors and the only way they're going to be able to do this is with both the Vehicle and AV groups engaging in positive debate about various subjects. Now, we know some of the numbers seem off, as some people have mentioned with turrets and certain modules, and it's quite possible that these numbers are placeholders until they've worked it out, not only this but none of these numbers are yet set in stone I believe so we do have an opportunity to post feedback as to why certain numbers must be adjusted. What I need you all to do is clear your mind of any current stats and how AV v Vehicles currently is, that's what this is about, Vehicle v AV is broken and nothing can save it in its current form, it's like building a house on sand, it will never be secure unless you tear it down and build it on rock. CCP, your actions will decide whether many of us stay or go, you cannot deny that there are many games out there that can and will hold our attention a lot more than DUST can, particularly for those that enjoy vehicle combat. If you want your community to stick around you need to give them reason, when you do eventually roll this overhaul out please consider refunding all SP in the vehicle, anti vehicle and turret categories, I know a few players who will likely leave when you release this but by refunding their SP they might not be gone forever. By allowing this to happen, you'll be allowing players to enjoy the game in other areas rather than an area they now dislike due to changes you have forced upon them, I believe that this is only fair. Now that's said, I also believe that if you want us to give you proper feedback, we need to be fully informed and to this we're going to require more information, already players are worried that their Vehicles will not be able to stand up to AV come release, as we do not have any AV numbers which is something both the Vehicle and Anti-Vehicle group will need to see. Give us the knowledge and we'll work together to make a better Vehicle/AV experience on the battlefield. I also propose the term Vehicleers for all vehicle players, kthx.
King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Comment and like this thread about PvE, Here!Also, check out the Indirect Fire ability, Here!
I have never seen so much crying in Dust as I saw in that thread... |
Jason Pearson
Animus Securities
3005
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 21:38:00 -
[16] - Quote
Alldin Kan wrote: I have never seen so much crying in Dust as I saw in that thread...
o.O
King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Comment and like this thread about PvE, Here! Also, check out the Indirect Fire ability, Here! |
Bojo The Mighty
Zanzibar Concept
2092
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 21:42:00 -
[17] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:Bojo The Mighty wrote:Here is some feedback
There are no damage/ammo/rof differences amongst blasters with tier, just an increased CPU/PG draw. How is that even right? Possibly placeholder? don't understand why they're adding anything other than standard stuff right now, should be the same with AV, balance out the standard gear first.
King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Comment and like this thread about PvE, Here!Also, check out the Indirect Fire ability, Here! So every other turret except blasters gets a damage change per tier but not blasters..... |
KING CHECKMATE
TEAM SATISFACTION
1512
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 21:49:00 -
[18] - Quote
At las shield tanks will be somewhat useful. That high shield regen per sec: me likey.
+1 |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
2570
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 21:55:00 -
[19] - Quote
Seems like the blasters are typo'd. Remember the missiles were like that for months on the live server, a typo in a chart is acceptable.
Honestly though, it is exactly the time to panic because they are changing almost nothing except reducing the HP further. No ewar, no state-changing modules like siege or triage, no webbifiers, no new objectives that require vehicles to overcome or outmaneuver. No ammo stores to make the introduction of ammo interesting instead of just another chore. Even the shields are being changed so they function exactly like big infantry, reducing the variety even further.
Just some changes to HP and DPS, along with the a second wave of uprising treatment to the SP tree (i.e. longer, pointless, more prereqs, less interesting). |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
2570
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 21:58:00 -
[20] - Quote
KING CHECKMATE wrote:At las shield tanks will be somewhat useful. That high shield regen per sec: me likey.
+1
You didn't read carefully then. Armor tanks will have higher regen, more HP, and more DPS. Shield tanks lose their anti-infantry role since any yahoo with an SMG can stop that regen from ever kicking in. Armor has no such concerns. |
|
Vyzion Eyri
The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine
1376
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 22:01:00 -
[21] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:Seems like the blasters are typo'd. Remember the missiles were like that for months on the live server, a typo in a chart is acceptable. Honestly though, it is exactly the time to panic because they are changing almost nothing except reducing the HP further. No ewar, no state-changing modules like siege or triage, no webbifiers, no new objectives that require vehicles to overcome or outmaneuver. No ammo stores to make the introduction of ammo interesting instead of just another chore. Even the shields are being changed so they function exactly like big infantry, reducing the variety even further. Just some changes to HP and DPS, along with the a second wave of uprising treatment to the SP tree (i.e. longer, pointless, more prereqs, less interesting).
Well they did say they were reducing the clutter (I think 'noise' was their exact word) to focus on the core, then build back out. To be honest I'd prefer they do all this now to get to the root of the problem of vehicles, then expand upon a solid foundation, rather than simply start adding new racial vehicle variants and modules just to realise that the base vehicle stats and turret operation was rotten from the inside. |
KING CHECKMATE
TEAM SATISFACTION
1512
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 22:04:00 -
[22] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:KING CHECKMATE wrote:At las shield tanks will be somewhat useful. That high shield regen per sec: me likey.
+1 You didn't read carefully then. Armor tanks will have higher regen, more HP, and more DPS. Shield tanks lose their anti-infantry role since any yahoo with an SMG can stop that regen from ever kicking in. Armor has no such concerns.
Yeah but its hit and Run. You come in, Attack, leave , activate Shield Boosters , have Full Hp in matter of seconds >:3 And attack again. I read everything, even all the grids.
And its how it should be , Infantry shields also stop regenerating if they are hit.
Still 150+ HP per sec is by default 1500 Shields in 10 seconds AFTER the shield booster kicks in. (If not under fire) That my friend, is something shield tankers didnt have before....
Then again i get your point, 150+ reger per sec EVEN while under fire would be fair. At least vs Small arms fire..... |
Jason Pearson
Animus Securities
3006
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 22:06:00 -
[23] - Quote
Bojo The Mighty wrote:Jason Pearson wrote:Bojo The Mighty wrote:Here is some feedback
There are no damage/ammo/rof differences amongst blasters with tier, just an increased CPU/PG draw. How is that even right? Possibly placeholder? don't understand why they're adding anything other than standard stuff right now, should be the same with AV, balance out the standard gear first.
King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Comment and like this thread about PvE, Here!Also, check out the Indirect Fire ability, Here! So every other turret except blasters gets a damage change per tier but not blasters.....
Like I said, possibly a placeholder til they've worked out the damages for it. Still, none of the adv or pro turrets should be available.
King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Comment and like this thread about PvE, Here! Also, check out the Indirect Fire ability, Here! |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
2572
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 22:22:00 -
[24] - Quote
KING CHECKMATE wrote:Noc Tempre wrote:KING CHECKMATE wrote:At las shield tanks will be somewhat useful. That high shield regen per sec: me likey.
+1 You didn't read carefully then. Armor tanks will have higher regen, more HP, and more DPS. Shield tanks lose their anti-infantry role since any yahoo with an SMG can stop that regen from ever kicking in. Armor has no such concerns. Yeah but its hit and Run. You come in, Attack, leave , activate Shield Boosters , have Full Hp in matter of seconds >:3 And attack again. I read everything, even all the grids. Infantry shields also stop regenerating if they are hit.I guess here is were they are taking it from. Still 150+ HP per sec is by default 1500 Shields in 10 seconds AFTER the shield booster kicks in. (If not under fire) That my friend, is something shield tankers didnt have before....Then again i get your point, 150+ reger per sec EVEN while under fire would be fair. At least vs Small arms fire.....
Here's a thought experiment. New madruger with two of those fancy 60% resists and the 150 hp/s from the heavy rep, even under fire. And the madruger has a damage mod. Hell I think a shield booster would actually be pretty pro in that final high slot. So the gunnlogi just looks like a toy in comparison. Of course both likely will explode if an infantry looks at them, but at least versus each other there is a clearly superior choice. |
Alldin Kan
TeamPlayers EoN.
641
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 22:36:00 -
[25] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:Here's a thought experiment. New madruger with two of those fancy 60% resists and the 150 hp/s from the heavy rep, even under fire. And the madruger has a damage mod. Hell I think a shield booster would actually be pretty pro in that final high slot. So the gunnlogi just looks like a toy in comparison. Of course both likely will explode if an infantry looks at them, but at least versus each other there is a clearly superior choice. I "may" have to disagree with this value:
Looking at the Complex Ammo expansion, I see a value of 1.6 (as in 60%). Meanwhile, the 0.6 for resist (which is more of a reduction, not bonus) means that of the 100% damage taken (or 1.0) from 1500, I would actually receive 900 damage (0.6 being a 40% damage resist). Am I wrong? Correct me if that's the case :P |
BobThe 844-1 CakeMan
Murder Cakes Of Doom
414
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 22:39:00 -
[26] - Quote
Alldin Kan wrote:Noc Tempre wrote:Here's a thought experiment. New madruger with two of those fancy 60% resists and the 150 hp/s from the heavy rep, even under fire. And the madruger has a damage mod. Hell I think a shield booster would actually be pretty pro in that final high slot. So the gunnlogi just looks like a toy in comparison. Of course both likely will explode if an infantry looks at them, but at least versus each other there is a clearly superior choice. I "may" have to disagree with this value: Looking at the Complex Ammo expansion, I see a value of 1.6 (as in 60%). Meanwhile, the 0.6 for resist (which is more of a reduction, not bonus) means that of the 100% damage taken (or 1.0) from 1500, I would actually receive 900 damage (0.6 being a 40% damage resist). Am I wrong? Correct me if that's the case :P this would make since shield ones have .4 assuming tht would be 60% but is shorter for hit and run.
either way armor wins in a 1v1 unless missile turrets really are full auto then we have to deal with 550 damage missiles. hopefully they don't shoot to fast. XD |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
2572
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 22:41:00 -
[27] - Quote
BobThe 844-1 CakeMan wrote:Alldin Kan wrote:Noc Tempre wrote:Here's a thought experiment. New madruger with two of those fancy 60% resists and the 150 hp/s from the heavy rep, even under fire. And the madruger has a damage mod. Hell I think a shield booster would actually be pretty pro in that final high slot. So the gunnlogi just looks like a toy in comparison. Of course both likely will explode if an infantry looks at them, but at least versus each other there is a clearly superior choice. I "may" have to disagree with this value: Looking at the Complex Ammo expansion, I see a value of 1.6 (as in 60%). Meanwhile, the 0.6 for resist (which is more of a reduction, not bonus) means that of the 100% damage taken (or 1.0) from 1500, I would actually receive 900 damage (0.6 being a 40% damage resist). Am I wrong? Correct me if that's the case :P this would make since shield ones have .4 assuming tht would be 60% but is shorter for hit and run. either way armor wins in a 1v1 unless missile turrets really are full auto then we have to deal with 550 damage missiles. hopefully they don't shoot to fast. XD
Looks to shoot as fast as the blaster, but those stats seem wrong in general. |
low genius
the sound of freedom Renegade Alliance
605
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 22:42:00 -
[28] - Quote
qq for information, and then qq before you can use the information. |
BobThe 844-1 CakeMan
Murder Cakes Of Doom
414
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 22:44:00 -
[29] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:BobThe 844-1 CakeMan wrote:Alldin Kan wrote:Noc Tempre wrote:Here's a thought experiment. New madruger with two of those fancy 60% resists and the 150 hp/s from the heavy rep, even under fire. And the madruger has a damage mod. Hell I think a shield booster would actually be pretty pro in that final high slot. So the gunnlogi just looks like a toy in comparison. Of course both likely will explode if an infantry looks at them, but at least versus each other there is a clearly superior choice. I "may" have to disagree with this value: Looking at the Complex Ammo expansion, I see a value of 1.6 (as in 60%). Meanwhile, the 0.6 for resist (which is more of a reduction, not bonus) means that of the 100% damage taken (or 1.0) from 1500, I would actually receive 900 damage (0.6 being a 40% damage resist). Am I wrong? Correct me if that's the case :P this would make since shield ones have .4 assuming tht would be 60% but is shorter for hit and run. either way armor wins in a 1v1 unless missile turrets really are full auto then we have to deal with 550 damage missiles. hopefully they don't shoot to fast. XD Looks to shoot as fast as the blaster, but those stats seem wrong in general. maybe they do but they have 4 in a clip. this would make since. then they would need to reload after every volley. just an idea. this would also fit the hit and run senario of shield tanks. since missiles go with shields. at least from wat i have heard from EVE. |
Alldin Kan
TeamPlayers EoN.
641
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 22:46:00 -
[30] - Quote
BobThe 844-1 CakeMan wrote:Noc Tempre wrote:BobThe 844-1 CakeMan wrote:Alldin Kan wrote:Noc Tempre wrote:Here's a thought experiment. New madruger with two of those fancy 60% resists and the 150 hp/s from the heavy rep, even under fire. And the madruger has a damage mod. Hell I think a shield booster would actually be pretty pro in that final high slot. So the gunnlogi just looks like a toy in comparison. Of course both likely will explode if an infantry looks at them, but at least versus each other there is a clearly superior choice. I "may" have to disagree with this value: Looking at the Complex Ammo expansion, I see a value of 1.6 (as in 60%). Meanwhile, the 0.6 for resist (which is more of a reduction, not bonus) means that of the 100% damage taken (or 1.0) from 1500, I would actually receive 900 damage (0.6 being a 40% damage resist). Am I wrong? Correct me if that's the case :P this would make since shield ones have .4 assuming tht would be 60% but is shorter for hit and run. either way armor wins in a 1v1 unless missile turrets really are full auto then we have to deal with 550 damage missiles. hopefully they don't shoot to fast. XD Looks to shoot as fast as the blaster, but those stats seem wrong in general. maybe they do but they have 4 in a clip. this would make since. then they would need to reload after every volley. just an idea. this would also fit the hit and run senario of shield tanks. since missiles go with shields. at least from wat i have heard from EVE. It's probably a typo, we might still have burst function but in that case clip size needs to be much higher (20 or 24; 5-6 bursts to start). |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |