|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Godin Thekiller
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1713
   |
Posted - 2014.02.17 00:35:00 -
[1] - Quote
lolno.
'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever!
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1715
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 07:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:
2. Nerf the living shit out of blasters, please. It's these that are causing all the issues. It's harder by far to kill with a railgun, which is why you don't see so many MLT ones spammed at the start of matches. Obviously they're superior for AV as a general rule (although they're inferior as far as keeping tanks away from your squad is concerned; nothing beats a forge for that).
I like the idea of either cutting their vehicle damage to 50%, like pre1.6 small rails, or doing the same to their infantry damage. I think HMG damage with 50m optimal and 75m effective is pretty reasonable. HMG is still pretty powerful.
If you think a blaster is better at AV than rails or missiles,, you're doing it wrong.
Anyways, this won't fix ****; all these are is bandaids. problems will still exist, and unless you go to the core of the problems and solve them (which is what these try to do), then you won't solve **** for over a week.
'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever!
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1715
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 08:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:
2. Nerf the living shit out of blasters, please. It's these that are causing all the issues. It's harder by far to kill with a railgun, which is why you don't see so many MLT ones spammed at the start of matches. Obviously they're superior for AV as a general rule (although they're inferior as far as keeping tanks away from your squad is concerned; nothing beats a forge for that).
I like the idea of either cutting their vehicle damage to 50%, like pre1.6 small rails, or doing the same to their infantry damage. I think HMG damage with 50m optimal and 75m effective is pretty reasonable. HMG is still pretty powerful.
If you think a blaster is better at AV than rails or missiles,, you're doing it wrong. I don't. They're still viable AV. I've done quite well even against particle cannons . This is with an MLT blaster, by the way. They've got higher sustained DPS than the other turrets by quite a bit. The only hurdle is that they can't break a hardened Gunnlogi's regen without a damage mod. I think they need to be forced into a single role. HMG damage against infantry from a shorter range (this could actually open the doors for a general damage buff to actually make them the best choice for CQC AV) or alternatively making them unable to function as AV without support. EDIT: if they're nerfed against HAVs, Gal need an AV option. A PLC optimised for a little less range than missiles (so about 150m - talking about damage profiles, rather than actual effective range. Missiles need to be tighter to actually have range) seems like the best bet.
Making a large turret not viable at hitting the targets it was most likely designed for (otherwise it wouldn't be that big), is quite stupid. Additionally, making it to where it's inaccurate as **** would make no sense either. it needs to be accurate to fire on the move (kinda Gallente's fighting style). Like I said, this is only a band aid, and would only solve **** for a week.
Also, whoever you are fighting that has that particle cannon needs to stop using it. They're bloody awful if they can't kill someone with a MLT blaster.
'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever!
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1726
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 22:03:00 -
[4] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:I'm for limiting hardeners to one per vehicle, and I've suggested that myself. But in return, hardeners need to resist more. 80% and 60% for shields and armor respectively.
I should be nigh unkillable while my hardener is up. It should take multiple AV users focusing all the DPs they can muster to break through my hardener.
But when that hardener turns off, I better have killed all the AV, or have infantry support, because I should be relatively easy pickings for one AV person. 80% and 60% could easily break Vehicle vs. Vehicle fights. Additionally, you'd have to decrease the speed of vehicles, otherwise you'll risk creating an even bigger problem simply because a pilot could easily escape without needing to plan ahead.
When Wolfman 2x the hardeners the first time it broke it. It needs to go back to before: This
'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever!
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1726
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 22:05:00 -
[5] - Quote
Atiim wrote:True Adamance wrote:Agreed, but their lower HP values will cause them to suffer if AV receive direct buffs to damage models.
This is what most QQing AVers don't consider.
As it see it
LAV- Light Scout, Anti Infantry Small Turrets. Low ISK, Low SP
MAV- Infantry Support, the link between infantry and vehicles. Medium Turrets, or Utility Vehicles. Medium ISK, Medium SP
HAV- Vehicle busting, durable, but slow, requires multiple gunner to have anti infantry capacity. High ISK, HIgh SP I'm pretty sure that MAVs and other LAV variants would be balanced around the buffed AV model, akin to how If CCP ever introduced ADV/PRO vehicles, AV would be buffed around the new model.
lol, why you idiots keep on asking for more tiers? That would further break the system. It's bad to go deeper in a hole; it's better to dig yourself out.
'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever!
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1726
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 22:16:00 -
[6] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Oh and down with the Large Blaster!
Never. less DPS, more alpha. Balance your own turrets hypocrite 
'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever!
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1726
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 22:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:lol, why you idiots keep on asking for more tiers? That would further break the system. It's bad to go deeper in a hole; it's better to dig yourself out. Key word: IF
explain your if's
'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever!
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1726
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 22:17:00 -
[8] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Atiim wrote:True Adamance wrote:Then CCP needs to set AV damage models permanently. And balance vehicles properly around them.
What I fear from direct AV buffs is not anything regarding my HAV, but regarding how the current, and new, smaller frame vehicles will be able to operate, and be balanced.
That and logically speaking for every AV buff you must scale up the large blaster damage models, as it makes no sense for smaller weapon to do more damage than large vehicle mounter counter parts....
Oh and down with the Large Blaster! I've yet to see an AV counterpart of the Blaster Turret, but the only way an 80GJ Blaster buff would be balanced is if you were to increase dispersion and decrease the RPM Also, AV weapons are high alpha, while 20/80GJ Blasters are machine guns. Why wouldn't it make sense? I would simply scrap the Large Blaster in Favour of a Large Plasma projector, the racial variant of the Railgun, high alpha, longer range, slower turret tracking, low ammo counts, less infantry massacres, less QQ. It could still retain its graphical model but instread modify its firing animations to mimic plasma cannon.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Stop being silly.
'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever!
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1726
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 22:27:00 -
[9] - Quote
Atiim wrote:hgghyujh wrote:id rather see plc get 2rnds per clip. The damage buff to swarm is a bit much, instead I'd like to see a return of the dumb fire. I,m ok with REs the way they are but PEs do need some love. My idea for the Plasma Cannon would be to create two different variants. The Vanilla variant, would be the PLC we have now, but with a 3 round clip. The Assault variant would have 2 rounds, but significantly lower spool and travel time. The Breach would include the OP's damage model, but keep the 1 round clip. Hows that sound?
switch the ammo (because assault weapons have more shots, to well assault), and give it less damage and a larger splash radius. Also, the breach would have the highest projectile speed.
Otherwise, yea.
'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever!
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1727
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 22:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Atiim wrote:True Adamance wrote:Then CCP needs to set AV damage models permanently. And balance vehicles properly around them.
What I fear from direct AV buffs is not anything regarding my HAV, but regarding how the current, and new, smaller frame vehicles will be able to operate, and be balanced.
That and logically speaking for every AV buff you must scale up the large blaster damage models, as it makes no sense for smaller weapon to do more damage than large vehicle mounter counter parts....
Oh and down with the Large Blaster! I've yet to see an AV counterpart of the Blaster Turret, but the only way an 80GJ Blaster buff would be balanced is if you were to increase dispersion and decrease the RPM Also, AV weapons are high alpha, while 20/80GJ Blasters are machine guns. Why wouldn't it make sense? I would simply scrap the Large Blaster in Favour of a Large Plasma projector, the racial variant of the Railgun, high alpha, longer range, slower turret tracking, low ammo counts, less infantry massacres, less QQ. It could still retain its graphical model but instread modify its firing animations to mimic plasma cannon. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Stop being silly. Yeah the Large Blaster is garbage and tanks should not have both Massive Anti Infantry potential and the huge EHP values we have now at the single gunners disposal, but we could instead have strong anti vehicle and skill shot infantry capacity.
'stops music, puts down controller'
You realize that a railgun but shorter range is useless, right? THer's a reason why it fires so fast; it has a really short range. No, it should have higher damage, less ROF, and be harder to track with. Breaking it isn't the solution ever, even if it'll make annoying ass scrubs happy.
'starts music, picks up controller'
'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever!
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1727
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 22:47:00 -
[11] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
'stops music, puts down controller'
You realize that a railgun but shorter range is useless, right? THer's a reason why it fires so fast; it has a really short range. No, it should have higher damage, less ROF, and be harder to track with. Breaking it isn't the solution ever, even if it'll make annoying ass scrubs happy.
'starts music, picks up controller'
You failed to address the issue. A shorter range RG variant could be made out of the Large Plasma Projector. Why do you feel the need to have such potent AI power on a vehicle designed to assault other vehicles?
Because a short range railgun is that: a short ranged railgun. You might as well use a actual railgun, and you'll get longer range out of it, longer fire rate, etc. blasters would become useless. also, PLC shots have travel time. That thing would be utterly useless in AV combat, as the most similar would be overall better, and it itself would be terrible it killing anything that's not moving/moving like a slow turd.
Like I said, there's a reason why blasters shoot fast like they do now. it needs more alpha, less ROF, less tracking.
.... It' seems you're trying to find a way to nerf blasters into uselessness so nobody will use them, and only use rails and missiles, effectively becoming AV only vehicles (although you can still snipe with rails fairly well). If that's the case, you might as well take out HAV's and make Av into that. But if that's the case, I want my $60 bucks back.
'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever!
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1727
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 23:18:00 -
[12] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
'stops music, puts down controller'
You realize that a railgun but shorter range is useless, right? THer's a reason why it fires so fast; it has a really short range. No, it should have higher damage, less ROF, and be harder to track with. Breaking it isn't the solution ever, even if it'll make annoying ass scrubs happy.
'starts music, picks up controller'
You failed to address the issue. A shorter range RG variant could be made out of the Large Plasma Projector. Why do you feel the need to have such potent AI power on a vehicle designed to assault other vehicles? Because a short range railgun is that: a short ranged railgun. You might as well use a actual railgun, and you'll get longer range out of it, longer fire rate, etc. blasters would become useless. also, PLC shots have travel time. That thing would be utterly useless in AV combat, as the most similar would be overall better, and it itself would be terrible it killing anything that's not moving/moving like a slow turd. Like I said, there's a reason why blasters shoot fast like they do now. it needs more alpha, less ROF, less tracking. .... It' seems you're trying to find a way to nerf blasters into uselessness so nobody will use them, and only use rails and missiles, effectively becoming AV only vehicles (although you can still snipe with rails fairly well). If that's the case, you might as well take out HAV's and make Av into that. But if that's the case, I want my $60 bucks back. HPP would then have equivalent matching DPS at short range, but each projectile would be the equivalent of 10 or so blaster rounds. HOw hard is that to comprehend.
Not hard at all; it'll still suck.
'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever!
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1727
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 23:20:00 -
[13] - Quote
Villanor Aquarius wrote:The large blaster range is the only issue with it.
The range model it currently has it what autocannon turrets should do but the autocannon turrets should have less dps.
Then the current blaster can get slightly more damage and significantly faster damage falloff. It is a blaster afterall.
AutoCannons meanwhile can have less dps than blasters but the range of current blasters. Also Autos should have same DPS but higher ROF so lower Damage per shot.
Artillery turrets should have higher damage per shot than rails with a shorter optimal but a super long falloff region, their DPS should be slightly below railguns and their traverse should be a bit worse.
Arty's probably will be a aim, fire, repeat thing
'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever!
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1727
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 23:22:00 -
[14] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Villanor Aquarius wrote:The large blaster range is the only issue with it.
The range model it currently has it what autocannon turrets should do but the autocannon turrets should have less dps.
Then the current blaster can get slightly more damage and significantly faster damage falloff. It is a blaster afterall.
AutoCannons meanwhile can have less dps than blasters but the range of current blasters. Also Autos should have same DPS but higher ROF so lower Damage per shot.
Artillery turrets should have higher damage per shot than rails with a shorter optimal but a super long falloff region, their DPS should be slightly below railguns and their traverse should be a bit worse. Agreed, I would like to see a simple rebalancing of turrets to accommodate future content releases like MAV, MTAC, Racial turrets and vehicles, and more importantly, giving the HAV a role on the battlefield, that makes it more of a niche vehicle than a jack of all trades, master of all.
Huh, you guys really are hypocrites 
'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever!
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
| |
|