Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Mortedeamor
1323
|
Posted - 2014.02.02 23:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
ok so i have again 3 million sp into tanks i am primarily infantry but i have specced armor as i am hoping soon to see my amarian tank.
i have toyed only with mlt rail and lp missisles on sicas and stnd gunlogi basic modules
now turrets in general need clip adjustments and scaling
i would like us to start with mlt blaster at 125 stnd 150 adv 175 proto 200.
currently i can kill about 25 infantry with mlt blaster before reloading.
stacking penalties for all modules
armor reppers tank hardeners dmg mods (jason pearson hada good idea on this one the more hardeners you have fitted the longer they take to cool and the less then run as there is no resor dmg% amount penalty.)
also you can only run 1 nitro unit and i think its wrong to limit 1 module like that but not even have stacking penalties armor tankers should have the option to run 2 nitro units in they're highs
now missiles from stnd on they all seem pretty crazy strong in cqc an i think the clips should be scaled for both them and rails as well this gives less room for inaccuracy at lower lvls also a smaller overall dmg stream before reload
+1 for IWS to stay as cpm
more-tae-dee-um-more
stop asking how to pronounce my name its quite irritating
|
Roger Cordill
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY
345
|
Posted - 2014.02.02 23:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
message from Godin: If we could, 2 nitros is all I could run on my Maddy. Why? Because everything costs too much CPU/PG now. |
Benjamin Ciscko
Fatal Absolution
1487
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 00:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:message from Godin: If we could, 2 nitros is all I could run on my Maddy. Why? Because everything costs too much CPU/PG now. Armor tanks should have less trouble fitting their lows then shield tanks.
Caldari Tanker/Minmatar Assault
Forum warrior lvl 1
|
Mortedeamor
1325
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 00:58:00 -
[4] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:message from Godin: If we could, 2 nitros is all I could run on my Maddy. Why? Because everything costs too much CPU/PG now. yeah its a fit i would prefer assuming everything were balanced and tank modules had stacking penalties
+1 for IWS to stay as cpm
more-tae-dee-um-more
stop asking how to pronounce my name its quite irritating
|
Mortedeamor
1325
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 01:01:00 -
[5] - Quote
Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Roger Cordill wrote:message from Godin: If we could, 2 nitros is all I could run on my Maddy. Why? Because everything costs too much CPU/PG now. Armor tanks should have less trouble fitting their lows then shield tanks. i mean i guess but 1500 armor tank really isnt much dual hardened gunlogi's dont has long to live and that armor hardener really wont let the survive blaster cqc..the hp values are what matters armor tanks come with 4000k armor..shields have 1500..with 30% harden..that may let the survive 1 more hit through they're armor tank
i dont really feel the gunlogi amor tanking isa big issue however i do feel if the madrugar is going to be starved for cpu at every turn then so to should the gunlogi be starved of pg
i would not say no to a caldari tank pg nerf
+1 for IWS to stay as cpm
more-tae-dee-um-more
stop asking how to pronounce my name its quite irritating
|
Roger Cordill
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY
348
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 01:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mortedeamor wrote:Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Roger Cordill wrote:message from Godin: If we could, 2 nitros is all I could run on my Maddy. Why? Because everything costs too much CPU/PG now. Armor tanks should have less trouble fitting their lows then shield tanks. i mean i guess but 1500 armor tank really isnt much dual hardened gunlogi's dont has long to live and that armor hardener really wont let the survive blaster cqc..the hp values are what matters armor tanks come with 4000k armor..shields have 1500..with 30% harden..that may let the survive 1 more hit through they're armor tank i dont really feel the gunlogi amor tanking isa big issue however i do feel if the madrugar is going to be starved for cpu at every turn then so to should the gunlogi be starved of pg i would not say no to a caldari tank pg nerf
message from Godin: No, it should be the other way around. If I spend so much SP to max out a fit, I should b eable to fit it however I please. Maddys need more CPU. |
Mortedeamor
1325
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 01:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:Mortedeamor wrote:Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Roger Cordill wrote:message from Godin: If we could, 2 nitros is all I could run on my Maddy. Why? Because everything costs too much CPU/PG now. Armor tanks should have less trouble fitting their lows then shield tanks. i mean i guess but 1500 armor tank really isnt much dual hardened gunlogi's dont has long to live and that armor hardener really wont let the survive blaster cqc..the hp values are what matters armor tanks come with 4000k armor..shields have 1500..with 30% harden..that may let the survive 1 more hit through they're armor tank i dont really feel the gunlogi amor tanking isa big issue however i do feel if the madrugar is going to be starved for cpu at every turn then so to should the gunlogi be starved of pg i would not say no to a caldari tank pg nerf message from Godin: No, it should be the other way around. If I spend so much SP to max out a fit, I should b eable to fit it however I please. Maddys need more CPU.
but the caldari tank doesnt need nerfing to its armor tanking as its pathetic and armor hardeners work under high hp low persistent recover
if anything the cpu on maddy needs buffed slightly not pg though
+1 for IWS to stay as cpm
more-tae-dee-um-more
stop asking how to pronounce my name its quite irritating
|
8213
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
1597
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 02:44:00 -
[8] - Quote
yeah yeah yeah whatever....
The Large blaster needs to be removed and replaced with something more Gallente type.
Perhaps a 30% reduction to fire rate, and a 25% increase to to damage. Or, a Plasma Cannon type turret, that has wicked splash radius and damage, but slow cycle reloads.
Bottom line, small turrets should be killing the infantry, not easy-mode Lg blasters that my grandma can use
Right now tanks don';t make sense, balance-wise, lore-wise, or in general-wise.
...also, putting your name in the topic annoyed me.
Fish in a bucket!
Darken's Testament
SKIPPY
|
Auris Lionesse
Capital Acquisitions LLC Renegade Alliance
132
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 02:57:00 -
[9] - Quote
I liked speed tanks pre 1.7 with stacked overdrives. I never drove one but they were hard to kill and fun to see. Don't know why tanks needed a buff at all. when are overdrives coming back? |
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood Public Disorder.
1316
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 03:02:00 -
[10] - Quote
8213 wrote:yeah yeah yeah whatever....
The Large blaster needs to be removed and replaced with something more Gallente type.
Perhaps a 30% reduction to fire rate, and a 25% increase to to damage. Or, a Plasma Cannon type turret, that has wicked splash radius and damage, but slow cycle reloads.
Bottom line, small turrets should be killing the infantry, not easy-mode Lg blasters that my grandma can use
Right now tanks don';t make sense, balance-wise, lore-wise, or in general-wise.
...also, putting your name in the topic annoyed me. As long as the railgun gets a rof Nerf to go with this it should be perfectly balanced.
"Always fight dirty, the victor writes history"
Eve toon: Drake Doe, professional hero tackler, full time pretzel boy
|
|
Mortedeamor
1334
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 20:24:00 -
[11] - Quote
8213 wrote:yeah yeah yeah whatever....
The Large blaster needs to be removed and replaced with something more Gallente type.
Perhaps a 30% reduction to fire rate, and a 25% increase to to damage. Or, a Plasma Cannon type turret, that has wicked splash radius and damage, but slow cycle reloads.
Bottom line, small turrets should be killing the infantry, not easy-mode Lg blasters that my grandma can use
Right now tanks don';t make sense, balance-wise, lore-wise, or in general-wise.
...also, putting your name in the topic annoyed me. i get on very rarely people have been queing allot and i dont post on the forums allot so i like including my name in things makes me feel still a part of new eden..as for makeing tanks more like the lore..if they do that the suits would look even worse as far as lore accuracy. blaster seems very gallente to me and your grandma must be better than the average blue dot because they are terrible with blasters
also maybe a fire interval increase and a clip adjustment like i mentioned before would both be needed.
as for rail turrets they should merely have to spool up for each shot even if r1 is held and adjust the clip through tiers
missiles i think they are fine just again change the clips through tiers
+1 for IWS to stay as cpm
more-tae-dee-um-more
stop asking how to pronounce my name its quite irritating
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star. EoN.
1724
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 20:46:00 -
[12] - Quote
Mortedeamor wrote:ok so i have again 3 million sp into tanks i am primarily infantry but i have specced armor as i am hoping soon to see my amarian tank.
i have toyed only with mlt rail and lp missisles on sicas and stnd gunlogi basic modules
now turrets in general need clip adjustments and scaling
i would like us to start with mlt blaster at 125 stnd 150 adv 175 proto 200.
currently i can kill about 25 infantry with mlt blaster before reloading.
stacking penalties for all modules
armor reppers tank hardeners dmg mods (jason pearson hada good idea on this one the more hardeners you have fitted the longer they take to cool and the less then run as there is no resor dmg% amount penalty.)
also you can only run 1 nitro unit and i think its wrong to limit 1 module like that but not even have stacking penalties armor tankers should have the option to run 2 nitro units in they're highs
now missiles from stnd on they all seem pretty crazy strong in cqc an i think the clips should be scaled for both them and rails as well this gives less room for inaccuracy at lower lvls also a smaller overall dmg stream before reload
No, Jason has had some terrible ideas about modules. Why should I have to fit my tank the way someone else wants me to to get the maximum benefit out of the modules I choose? Why should I have to use one booster, one hardener and one extender on a Gunnlogi, or one plate, one repper and one hardener on a Madrugar? We'll have fewer ways to fit out tanks like that, and everything will be the same again, like previous builds.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Mortedeamor
1334
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 20:49:00 -
[13] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Mortedeamor wrote:ok so i have again 3 million sp into tanks i am primarily infantry but i have specced armor as i am hoping soon to see my amarian tank.
i have toyed only with mlt rail and lp missisles on sicas and stnd gunlogi basic modules
now turrets in general need clip adjustments and scaling
i would like us to start with mlt blaster at 125 stnd 150 adv 175 proto 200.
currently i can kill about 25 infantry with mlt blaster before reloading.
stacking penalties for all modules
armor reppers tank hardeners dmg mods (jason pearson hada good idea on this one the more hardeners you have fitted the longer they take to cool and the less then run as there is no resor dmg% amount penalty.)
also you can only run 1 nitro unit and i think its wrong to limit 1 module like that but not even have stacking penalties armor tankers should have the option to run 2 nitro units in they're highs
now missiles from stnd on they all seem pretty crazy strong in cqc an i think the clips should be scaled for both them and rails as well this gives less room for inaccuracy at lower lvls also a smaller overall dmg stream before reload
No, Jason has had some terrible ideas about modules. Why should I have to fit my tank the way someone else wants me to to get the maximum benefit out of the modules I choose? Why should I have to use one booster, one hardener and one extender on a Gunnlogi, or one plate, one repper and one hardener on a Madrugar? We'll have fewer ways to fit out tanks like that, and everything will be the same again, like previous builds. jason may have had some different thoughts doesnt change the fact that it needs to happen or they should remove all suit stacking penalties..stacking penalties have always been a part of this game and that tanks have none is part of what makes them broken. also lower end turrets have way to high a kill stream 30 people dead a clip is high for mlt large blaster that needs to be lowered
they're should be a penalty for stacking modules
+1 for IWS to stay as cpm
more-tae-dee-um-more
stop asking how to pronounce my name its quite irritating
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star. EoN.
1724
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 20:58:00 -
[14] - Quote
Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Roger Cordill wrote:message from Godin: If we could, 2 nitros is all I could run on my Maddy. Why? Because everything costs too much CPU/PG now. Armor tanks should have less trouble fitting their lows then shield tanks. Armor tanks had their CPU nerfed.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
CaoticFox
Axis of Chaos
153
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 21:11:00 -
[15] - Quote
Mortedeamor wrote:ok so i have again 3 million sp into tanks i am primarily infantry but i have specced armor as i am hoping soon to see my amarian tank.
i have toyed only with mlt rail and lp missisles on sicas and stnd gunlogi basic modules
now turrets in general need clip adjustments and scaling
i would like us to start with mlt blaster at 125 stnd 150 adv 175 proto 200.
currently i can kill about 25 infantry with mlt blaster before reloading.
stacking penalties for all modules
armor reppers tank hardeners dmg mods (jason pearson hada good idea on this one the more hardeners you have fitted the longer they take to cool and the less then run as there is no resor dmg% amount penalty.)
also you can only run 1 nitro unit and i think its wrong to limit 1 module like that but not even have stacking penalties armor tankers should have the option to run 2 nitro units in they're highs
now missiles from stnd on they all seem pretty crazy strong in cqc an i think the clips should be scaled for both them and rails as well this gives less room for inaccuracy at lower lvls also a smaller overall dmg stream before reload
as far as MISSILES... yes clipsize should increase scaled... as to the rest... u want REs nerfed to oblivion so we cant JIHAAD... ur an idiot... lets nerf anything that can be used creatively (artisticly) |
Mortedeamor
1334
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 21:23:00 -
[16] - Quote
CaoticFox wrote:Mortedeamor wrote:ok so i have again 3 million sp into tanks i am primarily infantry but i have specced armor as i am hoping soon to see my amarian tank.
i have toyed only with mlt rail and lp missisles on sicas and stnd gunlogi basic modules
now turrets in general need clip adjustments and scaling
i would like us to start with mlt blaster at 125 stnd 150 adv 175 proto 200.
currently i can kill about 25 infantry with mlt blaster before reloading.
stacking penalties for all modules
armor reppers tank hardeners dmg mods (jason pearson hada good idea on this one the more hardeners you have fitted the longer they take to cool and the less then run as there is no resor dmg% amount penalty.)
also you can only run 1 nitro unit and i think its wrong to limit 1 module like that but not even have stacking penalties armor tankers should have the option to run 2 nitro units in they're highs
now missiles from stnd on they all seem pretty crazy strong in cqc an i think the clips should be scaled for both them and rails as well this gives less room for inaccuracy at lower lvls also a smaller overall dmg stream before reload
as far as MISSILES... yes clipsize should increase scaled... as to the rest... u want REs nerfed to oblivion so we cant JIHAAD... ur an idiot... lets nerf anything that can be used creatively (artisticly) oo looks like a no skill jihaader has its panties ina twist well lets see 1 ive said before i hope ccp comes to a reasonable solution as its a terrible game mechanic used by no skill scrubs. you agree with one statement of mine and then call me an idiot and insult me bravo bravo. pfft re's should require skill if ccp nerfs it to oblivion because of abuse then so be it. i waited 9 months for the flaylock to come out came out it was op and fotm didnt spec it because i have a rule against such and what did they do nerfed it to oblivion so i dont want it anyway. currently i have quite a few things im specced into that have been nerfed to **** stop crying and getting pissy because in my opinion your toy needs to be nerfed ..hey i have demolitions as well but i dont jihad..hopefully ccp will do something reasonable the jihad is going to go im sure i hope re's are usable after but tbh idc it wont effect my playstyle majorly. the most simple fix is to not let them stick to friendly tanks which i agree with other wise i suppose they may get they're dmg nerfed ..or maybe ccp will remove bpo lavs because its a cheap mechanic when used with such and thats why its an issue you could still practice your "art" be creative at about 40k isk a lav..i dont think people would like that though for some reason..im hoping they make it so they dont stick to friendlies at least my initial attacks will be unfazed when running av..but jihadders would be screwed as they should be. jihad my tank while you can best of luck i promise i will be spamming them after your jihad has been taken away :p
+1 for IWS to stay as cpm
more-tae-dee-um-more
stop asking how to pronounce my name its quite irritating
|
CaoticFox
Axis of Chaos
159
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 22:27:00 -
[17] - Quote
Mortedeamor wrote:CaoticFox wrote:Mortedeamor wrote:ok so i have again 3 million sp into tanks i am primarily infantry but i have specced armor as i am hoping soon to see my amarian tank.
i have toyed only with mlt rail and lp missisles on sicas and stnd gunlogi basic modules
now turrets in general need clip adjustments and scaling
i would like us to start with mlt blaster at 125 stnd 150 adv 175 proto 200.
currently i can kill about 25 infantry with mlt blaster before reloading.
stacking penalties for all modules
armor reppers tank hardeners dmg mods (jason pearson hada good idea on this one the more hardeners you have fitted the longer they take to cool and the less then run as there is no resor dmg% amount penalty.)
also you can only run 1 nitro unit and i think its wrong to limit 1 module like that but not even have stacking penalties armor tankers should have the option to run 2 nitro units in they're highs
now missiles from stnd on they all seem pretty crazy strong in cqc an i think the clips should be scaled for both them and rails as well this gives less room for inaccuracy at lower lvls also a smaller overall dmg stream before reload
as far as MISSILES... yes clipsize should increase scaled... as to the rest... u want REs nerfed to oblivion so we cant JIHAAD... ur an idiot... lets nerf anything that can be used creatively (artisticly) oo looks like a no skill jihaader has its panties ina twist well lets see 1 ive said before i hope ccp comes to a reasonable solution as its a terrible game mechanic used by no skill scrubs. you agree with one statement of mine and then call me an idiot and insult me bravo bravo. pfft re's should require skill if ccp nerfs it to oblivion because of abuse then so be it. i waited 9 months for the flaylock to come out came out it was op and fotm didnt spec it because i have a rule against such and what did they do nerfed it to oblivion so i dont want it anyway. currently i have quite a few things im specced into that have been nerfed to **** stop crying and getting pissy because in my opinion your toy needs to be nerfed ..hey i have demolitions as well but i dont jihad..hopefully ccp will do something reasonable the jihad is going to go im sure i hope re's are usable after but tbh idc it wont effect my playstyle majorly. the most simple fix is to not let them stick to friendly tanks which i agree with other wise i suppose they may get they're dmg nerfed ..or maybe ccp will remove bpo lavs because its a cheap mechanic when used with such and thats why its an issue you could still practice your "art" be creative at about 40k isk a lav..i dont think people would like that though for some reason..im hoping they make it so they dont stick to friendlies at least my initial attacks will be unfazed when running av..but jihadders would be screwed as they should be. jihad my tank while you can best of luck i promise i will be spamming them after your jihad has been taken away :p see my point? CRYBABY... u no kill MY tank... MY tank should NO die... whaaa... "give her a bottle & paci"
Im on the FORUMS because im P!$$ED off @ the game.
|
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
1008
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 23:36:00 -
[18] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Mortedeamor wrote: . . .
armor reppers tank hardeners dmg mods (jason pearson hada good idea on this one the more hardeners you have fitted the longer they take to cool and the less then run as there is no resor dmg% amount penalty.) . . .
No, Jason has had some terrible ideas about modules. Why should I have to fit my tank the way someone else wants me to to get the maximum benefit out of the modules I choose? Why should I have to use one booster, one hardener and one extender on a Gunnlogi, or one plate, one repper and one hardener on a Madrugar? We'll have fewer ways to fit out tanks like that, and everything will be the same again, like previous builds.
Sigh...
Don't you see that that Jason's idea is to give an ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION to that horrific "one module each type" nerf request?
That is an awesome idea to have a 'soft' stacking penalty like that. You can still fit several hardeners/damamods that way. That way the permahardener issue can be handled without a nerfhammer. The cooldown increase wouldn't have to be big to open a reasonable moment of vulnerability while still making it worthwile to fit several.
Masochism L5.
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
Science For Death
1471
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 23:54:00 -
[19] - Quote
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Mortedeamor wrote: . . .
armor reppers tank hardeners dmg mods (jason pearson hada good idea on this one the more hardeners you have fitted the longer they take to cool and the less then run as there is no resor dmg% amount penalty.) . . .
No, Jason has had some terrible ideas about modules. Why should I have to fit my tank the way someone else wants me to to get the maximum benefit out of the modules I choose? Why should I have to use one booster, one hardener and one extender on a Gunnlogi, or one plate, one repper and one hardener on a Madrugar? We'll have fewer ways to fit out tanks like that, and everything will be the same again, like previous builds. Sigh... Don't you see that that Jason's idea is to give an ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION to that horrific "one module each type" nerf request? That is an awesome idea to have a 'soft' stacking penalty like that. You can still fit several hardeners/damamods that way. That way the permahardener issue can be handled without a nerfhammer. The cooldown increase wouldn't have to be big to open a reasonable moment of vulnerability while still making it worthwile to fit several.
Not that a nerfhammer would be entirely objectionable.
Happily printing ISK with permahardeners and MLT blasters.
Just let me get a couple mil more before nerf, CCP!
|
Alabastor 'TheBlaster' Alcar
Silver Bullet Solutions DARKSTAR ARMY
360
|
Posted - 2014.02.04 00:02:00 -
[20] - Quote
8213 wrote:yeah yeah yeah whatever....
The Large blaster needs to be removed and replaced with something more Gallente type.
Perhaps a 30% reduction to fire rate, and a 25% increase to to damage. Or, a Plasma Cannon type turret, that has wicked splash radius and damage, but slow cycle reloads.
Bottom line, small turrets should be killing the infantry, not easy-mode Lg blasters that my grandma can use
Right now tanks don';t make sense, balance-wise, lore-wise, or in general-wise.
...also, putting your name in the topic annoyed me.
FCK THIS large blasters are here weather you like it or not so deal with it, if anythin the should ad the plc turret to the gallente selection and give us 4 mbt turret types fkn caldari get 2 turret type so should every other race.
fck off with tht large blaster removal bullshlt |
|
True Adamance
Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire
6556
|
Posted - 2014.02.04 00:05:00 -
[21] - Quote
Alabastor 'TheBlaster' Alcar wrote:8213 wrote:yeah yeah yeah whatever....
The Large blaster needs to be removed and replaced with something more Gallente type.
Perhaps a 30% reduction to fire rate, and a 25% increase to to damage. Or, a Plasma Cannon type turret, that has wicked splash radius and damage, but slow cycle reloads.
Bottom line, small turrets should be killing the infantry, not easy-mode Lg blasters that my grandma can use
Right now tanks don';t make sense, balance-wise, lore-wise, or in general-wise.
...also, putting your name in the topic annoyed me. FCK THIS large blasters are here weather you like it or not so deal with it, if anythin the should ad the plc turret to the gallente selection and give us 4 mbt turret types fkn caldari get 2 turret type so should every other race. fck off with tht large blaster removal bullshlt
Would you be opposed to a quick firing Heavy Plasma launcher instead? Current the blaster should be categorized as medium turrets IMO, focused on killing infantry, while large turrets **** up vehicles.
"My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity."
|
Alabastor 'TheBlaster' Alcar
Silver Bullet Solutions DARKSTAR ARMY
360
|
Posted - 2014.02.04 00:10:00 -
[22] - Quote
because reoving content is a backward way to change the game, its not smart and honestly why the hell dont we already have a gallente plc type turret to begin with, like i said i dont oppose a plc turret i oppose any content removal, andi firmly stand by that along with all races having 2 types of tank turrets. |
Ninjanomyx
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
548
|
Posted - 2014.02.04 00:54:00 -
[23] - Quote
Mortedeamor wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Mortedeamor wrote:ok so i have again 3 million sp into tanks i am primarily infantry but i have specced armor as i am hoping soon to see my amarian tank.
i have toyed only with mlt rail and lp missisles on sicas and stnd gunlogi basic modules
now turrets in general need clip adjustments and scaling
i would like us to start with mlt blaster at 125 stnd 150 adv 175 proto 200.
currently i can kill about 25 infantry with mlt blaster before reloading.
stacking penalties for all modules
armor reppers tank hardeners dmg mods (jason pearson hada good idea on this one the more hardeners you have fitted the longer they take to cool and the less then run as there is no resor dmg% amount penalty.)
also you can only run 1 nitro unit and i think its wrong to limit 1 module like that but not even have stacking penalties armor tankers should have the option to run 2 nitro units in they're highs
now missiles from stnd on they all seem pretty crazy strong in cqc an i think the clips should be scaled for both them and rails as well this gives less room for inaccuracy at lower lvls also a smaller overall dmg stream before reload
No, Jason has had some terrible ideas about modules. Why should I have to fit my tank the way someone else wants me to to get the maximum benefit out of the modules I choose? Why should I have to use one booster, one hardener and one extender on a Gunnlogi, or one plate, one repper and one hardener on a Madrugar? We'll have fewer ways to fit out tanks like that, and everything will be the same again, like previous builds. jason may have had some different thoughts doesnt change the fact that it needs to happen or they should remove all suit stacking penalties..stacking penalties have always been a part of this game and that tanks have none is part of what makes them broken. also lower end turrets have way to high a kill stream 30 people dead a clip is high for mlt large blaster that needs to be lowered they're should be a penalty for stacking modules
Tank Modules have always, and still do, have Stacking Penalties..... Many things you have stated in this Thread have proven to me you know very little of Vehicles..... Driving around in a Blaster Tank in Ambush, or Rage Quitting every Match you lose a LAV, does not make you a Vehicle Specialist. Your Sig has also negated any respect I may have had for you......& Pearson hasn't exactly made great strides in forming coherent suggestions as of late.
The entire Suit & Vehicle Systems have been forced into separate Mechanics as of 1.7, & that has thusly broken any real chances we had for balancing. IMHO Damage Mods, Rail RoF, & Blasters are about the main culprits behind many of the issues posed to both Infantry & Vehicles. Hardener Stacking mainly frustrates Infantry AV. But even then.....our Turrets still suffer from some very flawed Mechanics (IE: Turret "Hugging" stops the ability to shoot, LoS not showing the actual destination of our projectiles, especially when terrain affects it....etc.)
I see a few things that need actual "Tweaking", but not to such an extreme, that could define Roles better. Missiles could use a bit less Damage, Rails could have less RoF with a tad more Damage, & Blasters could have lower Efficiency vs Vehicles. This would, at the very least, give each Tank a more defined Role. Swarms could get a Range Lock Increase of 15-20% to bring them back in line. Now it would take a Missile Tank more time to kill a Blaster Tank, but with less fear of retaliation during reload, allowing the Blaster Tank a fighting chance to escape. Missiles become the primary Anti-Blaster Solution & control Enclosure Area Denial & Heavy Installation Killers (CRU/Supply Depot), while Rails remain Outskirt Area Denial & Anti-Air. Blasters now have a Focus as AI while sacrificing AV Capability.
The Fitting Parity is also broken as you can fit a Shield Tank too easily. Every Viable Madrugar Fit requires a Complex CPU Upgrade & Max Skills to fit a STD Setup with a couple of ADV additions. My Gunnlogi on the other hand.....does wtf ever it wants, without Max Skills. I only have Shield Modules @ Lvl 3, no Fitting Optimization, & can fit 2x Basic Damage Mods, 1x ADV Shield Hardener, 1x Complex Armor Plates (Or Hardener), & 1x Basic Heavy Armor Rep........with a Proto Rail. This literally fills both my CPU & PG Bar. My Armor Fits always cap out CPU.....with at least 1/3 PG to spare.....using a Complex CPU Upgrade. This fits an ADV Rail, ADV Hardener, ADV Heavy Armor Rep, & 2x Basic Damage Mods. Drop everything to STD, except the CPU Upgrade, & I may fit a Proto Rail......ALL while at Max Fitting Optimization.
JihadLAVs then have got to go.....otherwise none of these changes would matter. |
KenKaniff69
Fatal Absolution Public Disorder.
2019
|
Posted - 2014.02.04 04:36:00 -
[24] - Quote
Ninjanomyx wrote:Mortedeamor wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Mortedeamor wrote:ok so i have again 3 million sp into tanks i am primarily infantry but i have specced armor as i am hoping soon to see my amarian tank.
i have toyed only with mlt rail and lp missisles on sicas and stnd gunlogi basic modules
now turrets in general need clip adjustments and scaling
i would like us to start with mlt blaster at 125 stnd 150 adv 175 proto 200.
currently i can kill about 25 infantry with mlt blaster before reloading.
stacking penalties for all modules
armor reppers tank hardeners dmg mods (jason pearson hada good idea on this one the more hardeners you have fitted the longer they take to cool and the less then run as there is no resor dmg% amount penalty.)
also you can only run 1 nitro unit and i think its wrong to limit 1 module like that but not even have stacking penalties armor tankers should have the option to run 2 nitro units in they're highs
now missiles from stnd on they all seem pretty crazy strong in cqc an i think the clips should be scaled for both them and rails as well this gives less room for inaccuracy at lower lvls also a smaller overall dmg stream before reload
No, Jason has had some terrible ideas about modules. Why should I have to fit my tank the way someone else wants me to to get the maximum benefit out of the modules I choose? Why should I have to use one booster, one hardener and one extender on a Gunnlogi, or one plate, one repper and one hardener on a Madrugar? We'll have fewer ways to fit out tanks like that, and everything will be the same again, like previous builds. jason may have had some different thoughts doesnt change the fact that it needs to happen or they should remove all suit stacking penalties..stacking penalties have always been a part of this game and that tanks have none is part of what makes them broken. also lower end turrets have way to high a kill stream 30 people dead a clip is high for mlt large blaster that needs to be lowered they're should be a penalty for stacking modules Tank Modules have always, and still do, have Stacking Penalties..... Many things you have stated in this Thread have proven to me you know very little of Vehicles..... Driving around in a Blaster Tank in Ambush, or Rage Quitting every Match you lose a LAV, does not make you a Vehicle Specialist. Your Sig has also negated any respect I may have had for you......& Pearson hasn't exactly made great strides in forming coherent suggestions as of late. The entire Suit & Vehicle Systems have been forced into separate Mechanics as of 1.7, & that has thusly broken any real chances we had for balancing. IMHO Damage Mods, Rail RoF, & Blasters are about the main culprits behind many of the issues posed to both Infantry & Vehicles. Hardener Stacking mainly frustrates Infantry AV. But even then.....our Turrets still suffer from some very flawed Mechanics (IE: Turret "Hugging" stops the ability to shoot, LoS not showing the actual destination of our projectiles, especially when terrain affects it....etc.) I see a few things that need actual "Tweaking", but not to such an extreme, that could define Roles better. Missiles could use a bit less Damage, Rails could have less RoF with a tad more Damage, & Blasters could have lower Efficiency vs Vehicles. This would, at the very least, give each Tank a more defined Role. Swarms could get a Range Lock Increase of 15-20% to bring them back in line. Now it would take a Missile Tank more time to kill a Blaster Tank, but with less fear of retaliation during reload, allowing the Blaster Tank a fighting chance to escape. Missiles become the primary Anti-Blaster Solution & control Enclosure Area Denial & Heavy Installation Killers (CRU/Supply Depot), while Rails remain Outskirt Area Denial & Anti-Air. Blasters now have a Focus as AI while sacrificing AV Capability. The Fitting Parity is also broken as you can fit a Shield Tank too easily. Every Viable Madrugar Fit requires a Complex CPU Upgrade & Max Skills to fit a STD Setup with a couple of ADV additions. My Gunnlogi on the other hand.....does wtf ever it wants, without Max Skills. I only have Shield Modules @ Lvl 3, no Fitting Optimization, & can fit 2x Basic Damage Mods, 1x ADV Shield Hardener, 1x Complex Armor Plates (Or Hardener), & 1x Basic Heavy Armor Rep........with a Proto Rail. This literally fills both my CPU & PG Bar. My Armor Fits always cap out CPU.....with at least 1/3 PG to spare.....using a Complex CPU Upgrade. This fits an ADV Rail, ADV Hardener, ADV Heavy Armor Rep, & 2x Basic Damage Mods. Drop everything to STD, except the CPU Upgrade, & I may fit a Proto Rail......ALL while at Max Fitting Optimization. JihadLAVs then have got to go.....otherwise none of these changes would matter. Ninjanomyx is right. Unlike CCP, some players understand balance in vehicle combat.
So about those vehicle locks...
|
8213
Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance
1639
|
Posted - 2014.02.04 07:48:00 -
[25] - Quote
Alabastor 'TheBlaster' Alcar wrote:8213 wrote:yeah yeah yeah whatever....
The Large blaster needs to be removed and replaced with something more Gallente type.
Perhaps a 30% reduction to fire rate, and a 25% increase to to damage. Or, a Plasma Cannon type turret, that has wicked splash radius and damage, but slow cycle reloads.
Bottom line, small turrets should be killing the infantry, not easy-mode Lg blasters that my grandma can use
Right now tanks don';t make sense, balance-wise, lore-wise, or in general-wise.
...also, putting your name in the topic annoyed me. FCK THIS large blasters are here weather you like it or not so deal with it, if anythin the should ad the plc turret to the gallente selection and give us 4 mbt turret types fkn caldari get 2 turret type so should every other race. fck off with tht large blaster removal bullshlt
I know... because then you'd have to use skill to kill bluedots... that would certainly suck. Sorry, kiido. You use a Large Blaster, because you SUCK.
Fish in a bucket!
Darken's Testament
SKIPPY
|
Beld Errmon
WarRavens
1297
|
Posted - 2014.02.04 10:00:00 -
[26] - Quote
8213 wrote:yeah yeah yeah whatever....
The Large blaster needs to be removed and replaced with something more Gallente type.
You sir win the ignorant scrub of the week award, saying something like that is like saying Kangaroos need to be replaced with something more Australian.
|
|
CCP Logibro
C C P C C P Alliance
4693
|
Posted - 2014.02.04 10:02:00 -
[27] - Quote
Moved to Feedback/Requests
CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics
|
|
Sextus Hardcock
0uter.Heaven Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
258
|
Posted - 2014.02.04 13:45:00 -
[28] - Quote
If you weaken the Blaster by making less effective VS vehicles, all we'll ever see is Rail tanks on the field. The primary solution is to reduce the AI effectiveness of all tanks, wether that be through reworking terrain (to give more hidey holes, tunnels etc) so that infantry can still operate without the need to kill tanks) or by reworking the actual tank weapons themselves. Tank survivability isn't really a big issue, its the ease and efficiency at which it kills infantry that is the unbalanced problem.
I am the sixth son
Chrome Vet
|
Ninjanomyx
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
549
|
Posted - 2014.02.04 15:01:00 -
[29] - Quote
Sextus Hardcock wrote:If you weaken the Blaster by making less effective VS vehicles, all we'll ever see is Rail tanks on the field. The primary solution is to reduce the AI effectiveness of all tanks, wether that be through reworking terrain (to give more hidey holes, tunnels etc) so that infantry can still operate without the need to kill tanks) or by reworking the actual tank weapons themselves. Tank survivability isn't really a big issue, its the ease and efficiency at which it kills infantry that is the unbalanced problem.
Incorrect
Reducing AV Effectivity of Blasters would not make it a "Railfest", especially if Rail RoF decreases. Only the truly Skilled would be able to manage AI Kills under the less spammable conditions, & Dropships would have a better chance to avoid an unskilled "Rail Kiddy". This solves 2 Issues right off the bat, & it gives a far less used Turret an actual Role, Missiles.
Missiles "May" have some AI killing potential, but they lack the Ammo & Accuracy to reliably kill Infantry. If a Missile Tank spams to kill Infantry he loses valuable time Reloading before an AV Engagement occurs, & may very well end up without the reserves needed to take out a Hostile Vehicular Threat. The Blaster Effectivity vs Vehicles would obviously not be Zero.....which is what you make it sound like that is what is suggested.
33% Efficiency lost, give or take a few, would still put a Skilled Blaster Tanker in a place where it "Could" kill another Tank in CQC. I already do this vs Rails with a STD Blaster..... Adv Nitro, STD Damage Mod, 2x STD Armor Hardeners, a STD Heavy Rep, & STD Blaster is all I need to outmaneuver & pressure just about any Rail in CQC. This @ a cost of 167K ISK, making it High Survivability, Low Risk, High Reward.....& I don't have Blaster Fitting Optimization past 2.....or was it 3, I forget.
Rail RoF Decrease means Misses will be far more punishing, putting only Skilled Pilots in Mid-Field with reliability of killing effectively. But then.....that is where the Missile Tank would shine. A maneuverable Missile Tank could easily chase off & kill a Low RoF CQC Rail under these conditions. This creates a "Triforce" among the current Turret Types, with Infantry AV being the "Wild Card".
Also.....Infantry have plenty of "Hidey Holes". AI is still best done with a RR, CR, & SCR. You should try looking at the "Big Picture" before you make your assumptions as it seems you may be a Blaster Tanker who only saw "Nerf Blasters" when reading my Post. L2R KthxBAI.
PS: You also missed the Swarm Suggestion.....since apparently you see only in "Blaster Vision". |
Mortedeamor
1342
|
Posted - 2014.02.05 13:09:00 -
[30] - Quote
Ninjanomyx wrote:Sextus Hardcock wrote:If you weaken the Blaster by making less effective VS vehicles, all we'll ever see is Rail tanks on the field. The primary solution is to reduce the AI effectiveness of all tanks, wether that be through reworking terrain (to give more hidey holes, tunnels etc) so that infantry can still operate without the need to kill tanks) or by reworking the actual tank weapons themselves. Tank survivability isn't really a big issue, its the ease and efficiency at which it kills infantry that is the unbalanced problem. Incorrect Reducing AV Effectivity of Blasters would not make it a "Railfest", especially if Rail RoF decreases. Only the truly Skilled would be able to manage AI Kills under the less spammable conditions, & Dropships would have a better chance to avoid an unskilled "Rail Kiddy". This solves 2 Issues right off the bat, & it gives a far less used Turret an actual Role, Missiles. Missiles "May" have some AI killing potential, but they lack the Ammo & Accuracy to reliably kill Infantry. If a Missile Tank spams to kill Infantry he loses valuable time Reloading before an AV Engagement occurs, & may very well end up without the reserves needed to take out a Hostile Vehicular Threat. The Blaster Effectivity vs Vehicles would obviously not be Zero.....which is what you make it sound like that is what is suggested. 33% Efficiency lost, give or take a few, would still put a Skilled Blaster Tanker in a place where it "Could" kill another Tank in CQC. I already do this vs Rails with a STD Blaster..... Adv Nitro, STD Damage Mod, 2x STD Armor Hardeners, a STD Heavy Rep, & STD Blaster is all I need to outmaneuver & pressure just about any Rail in CQC. This @ a cost of 167K ISK, making it High Survivability, Low Risk, High Reward.....& I don't have Blaster Fitting Optimization past 2.....or was it 3, I forget. Rail RoF Decrease means Misses will be far more punishing, putting only Skilled Pilots in Mid-Field with reliability of killing effectively. But then.....that is where the Missile Tank would shine. A maneuverable Missile Tank could easily chase off & kill a Low RoF CQC Rail under these conditions. This creates a "Triforce" among the current Turret Types, with Infantry AV being the "Wild Card". Also.....Infantry have plenty of "Hidey Holes". AI is still best done with a RR, CR, & SCR. You should try looking at the "Big Picture" before you make your assumptions as it seems you may be a Blaster Tanker who only saw "Nerf Blasters" when reading my Post. L2R KthxBAI. PS: You also missed the Swarm Suggestion.....since apparently you see only in "Blaster Vision". see this is what i was going for it brings more skillin and less spray and pray and at 125 rounds per clip a mlt blaster i could still kill 2 mlt tanks
+1 for IWS to stay as cpm
more-tae-dee-um-more
stop asking how to pronounce my name its quite irritating
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |