| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
7369
   |
Posted - 2014.02.20 22:24:00 -
[91] - Quote
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.
"Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
|
Godin Thekiller
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1726
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 22:27:00 -
[92] - 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 -
[93] - 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 -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
7370
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 22:37:00 -
[94] - Quote
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?
"Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
|
Godin Thekiller
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1727
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 22:47:00 -
[95] - 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 -_-
|
Alternate Insano
SUICIDE SPITE SQUAD
112
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 22:48:00 -
[96] - Quote
There is no AV problem, just like 'protostomping', all we have are bad players who think balance means to dumb somethig down to their level. I know this totally balanced game, it is like so totally fair and balanced, it is just so much fun! It's called 'Pong' and nobody stopped playing it 30 years ago because it was totally boring or anything like that! Yay for balance!
Game balance sucks.
DUST 514 Super Scrub
Level 262 Forum Troll
Play, or play not. There is no balance.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
7373
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 22:52:00 -
[97] - Quote
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.
"Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
|
Villanor Aquarius
WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL
Top Men.
134
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 22:56:00 -
[98] - Quote
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. |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
7373
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 23:12:00 -
[99] - 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.
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.
"Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
|
Godin Thekiller
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1727
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 23:18:00 -
[100] - 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 -
[101] - 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 -
[102] - 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 -_-
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
4895
|
Posted - 2014.02.21 00:34:00 -
[103] - Quote
Joseph Ridgeson wrote:I disagree that Proximity Explosives should have no early detection. Beeping should stay. It creates a duality between the Proximity and Remotes. One is leave and forget while the other has to be paid attention to. The beeping only happens at a fairly close range and when going at near full speed you cannot stop in time.
I disagree with Remotes being able to have more active. Equipment doesn't work that way. I can carry a Nanohive that has 2 uses but only 1 can be active. Ditto for Uplinks.
If the beeping is not being removed, then the damage needs to be increased. While the beeping may happen at a close range, it still isn't that hard to stop even when at full speed.
If a pilot is good, it is almost impossible to kill them with Remote Explosives, and if you allow yourself to be hit by Proximities, then you deserve a beating.
I'm not asking for Max. Active to be increased, but Max Carried. The Max. Carried should never be less than Max.
((I removed the other part of the post as it's much easier for me while I'm using my Tablet, but I do agree with them nonetheless.))
Atiim (Gunnlogi - 80GJ Particle Cannon) Tank Scrub
AFK
No seriously. My lunch break's over now. :(
|
Benjamin Ciscko
Fatal Absolution
1734
|
Posted - 2014.02.21 00:38:00 -
[104] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote: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
Godin I don't feel like finding your thread but I took a full volley of PRO missiles on a dual hardened missiles to the weak spot and survived .
Patrick57 Carries us all
Tanker Prof. V scrub
Q_Q moar
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
4895
|
Posted - 2014.02.21 00:39:00 -
[105] - Quote
Ludvig Enraga wrote:I liked that other short and sweet thread: choose 2 of 3: 1) speed 2) armor 3) damage but you can't have all 3. this woulda fixed tanks pretty good.
I also had this old idea that different turrets should be good at different things e.g. missiles are good against infantry and not much else, blasters are good against tanks and installations and have a high turret turning rate but have a very short range, and rails are good at hitting DS and can deal weak damage to armor and installations but have a very slow turret turning rate.
It wouldn't really make sense for Railguns to deal weak damage to Armor.
Railgun Turrets are part of the (Hybrid - Railgun) category, which has a +10% Damage bonus towards Armor.
More info here.
As for your other idea, I believe Blasters should excel against infantry, Missiles should be the "Jack Of All Trades" turret, and Railguns should be the go-to choice for AV.
Atiim (Gunnlogi - 80GJ Particle Cannon) Tank Scrub
AFK
No seriously. My lunch break's over now. :(
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |