DUST Search - My Thoughts On Fixing The V/AV Problem

All Channels

General Discussions

My Thoughts On Fixing The V/AV Problem

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4729	Posted - 2014.02.16 23:20:00 - [1] - Quote Yes, I know that this topic has been discussed to death, revived, and then discussed to death many times over. But since everyone has deposited their .02 ISK into the V/AV bank, I figured I might as well too. Free from any parody or trolling: Atiim wrote: What I want for vehicles? Lower Ammo Count What's the point of having ammo if you have no need for re-supplying? Along with this, there should be an actual incentive to run an Ammunition module, and to skill into the Turret Ammunition skill. As it stands, I rarely ever have to resupply; and on the rare occasion that I do; I simply recall my tank and call it back in for 100% ammo However, Supply Depots need to be more prevalent on maps, and they need to be easily accessible by vehicles. And while we are at it, why not create a way to tell how much ammo your small turrets have? Lowered Blaster Turret Range When I'm in my Blaster tank, I can easily and reliably kill infantry from about 120m (I'm not too familiar with the metric system, so please forgive me if this is off). If AVers aren't allowed to fire at vehicles with near impunity, then neither should vehicle pilots. No Hardener Stacking I don't see how this was allowed in the first place. CCP's current Philosophy is "Waves of Opportunity." You shouldn't be allowed to have a never ending wave of opportunity, simply because your counter [AV] cannot extend their wave, nor make their wave indefinite. Relevant AV Weapons Swarm Launchers Increase direct damage to 270HP per Swarm. Increase lock range to 215m. However, since this is beyond rendering range I believe it would be fair if the vehicle pilot had an alarm system that alerts them if they are being locked onto beyond 175m. Countermeasures and Flares seems like a good idea as well. Plasma Cannons Increase Max Ammo count to 12. Increase direct damage to: 1320/1650/1980. (STD/ADV/PRO) It seems like a bit much, but it is a weapon that has a slow moving projectile, an arc, and only 1 round in the clip. It won't become overpowered against infantry like CCP fears simply because the only dropsuit that can survive a direct hit with an Allotek Plasma Cannon is a completely tanked out PRO heavy. Proximity Explosives Remove the alarm system. you can already look down to see the explosives, and the trap is completely static. Unlike Jihad Jeeps that can follow you, a Proximity Explosive trap requires someone to predict where you are. If you aren't piloting in a predictable pattern, then Proximity Explosives won't affect you. Remote Explosives Increase Max. Carried amount. The total amount you can have active should be the total amount you can carry, just like other pieces of equipment. Otherwise, the only dropsuit that can create a reliable RE trap is the logistics. (This also applies to Proximity Explosives) Nerf Bolas This AV weapon is ridiculously overpowered against Dropships as it can OHK them regardless of their fitting.. I say reduce it's direct damage to 200HP. -HAND PS: Yes I know that buffing SL damage can make Dropships underpowered. However, I high;y believe that flares & countermeasures will prevent that from happening. Want to know how to make a strike-through? [s[Example[/s] Now go my Forum Warriors. Use this new weapon for glory!
Patrick57 Fatal Absolution 5205	Posted - 2014.02.16 23:23:00 - [2] - Quote No. I'm a scrub I go negative in PC, yay
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4729	Posted - 2014.02.16 23:24:00 - [3] - Quote Patrick57 wrote: No. Low quality bait. Want to know how to make a strike-through? [s[Example[/s] Now go my Forum Warriors. Use this new weapon for glory!
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4736	Posted - 2014.02.16 23:50:00 - [4] - Quote Thoughts? Concerns? Anyone? My .02 ISK on V/AV
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7137	Posted - 2014.02.16 23:54:00 - [5] - Quote Can agree on some points but their solutions do not benefit both side mutually, only AVers. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4736	Posted - 2014.02.16 23:57:00 - [6] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Can agree on some points but their solutions do not benefit both side mutually, only AVers. Really? I thought an alarm system, flares, and countermeasures benifited pilots as well. Anything I should add in? My .02 ISK on V/AV
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1673	Posted - 2014.02.16 23:58:00 - [7] - Quote All of that seems reasonable to me. I do however, still think that the Driver and Main Gunner should be separate seats in the HAV. Minimum two needed to be able to move and shoot simultaneously. The option for the two secondaries should remain. This would mean that you could run the HAV solo if you liked though you wouldn't be moving and shooting at the same time, if you brought a single friend, you can move and shoot and if you brought more than one friend, you'd have a better chance of killing any infantry resistance. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
TheAmazing FlyingPig Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 5778	Posted - 2014.02.16 23:58:00 - [8] - Quote Atiim wrote: Yes, I know that this topic has been discussed to death, revived, and then discussed to death many times over. Thank you for not starting another topic on this minced horse of a discussion. I gotta say that hearing this from y- Atiim wrote: But Oh, come on... Never forget May 14, 2013: Beta 2.0
BAD FURRY SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 530	Posted - 2014.02.16 23:59:00 - [9] - Quote Atiim wrote: Yes, I know that this topic has been discussed to death, revived, and then discussed to death many times over. But since everyone has deposited their .02 ISK into the V/AV bank, I figured I might as well too. Free from any parody or trolling: Atiim wrote: What I want for vehicles? Lower Ammo Count What's the point of having ammo if you have no need for re-supplying? Along with this, there should be an actual incentive to run an Ammunition module, and to skill into the Turret Ammunition skill. As it stands, I rarely ever have to resupply; and on the rare occasion that I do; I simply recall my tank and call it back in for 100% ammo However, Supply Depots need to be more prevalent on maps, and they need to be easily accessible by vehicles. And while we are at it, why not create a way to tell how much ammo your small turrets have? Lowered Blaster Turret Range When I'm in my Blaster tank, I can easily and reliably kill infantry from about 120m (I'm not too familiar with the metric system, so please forgive me if this is off). If AVers aren't allowed to fire at vehicles with near impunity, then neither should vehicle pilots. No Hardener Stacking I don't see how this was allowed in the first place. CCP's current Philosophy is "Waves of Opportunity." You shouldn't be allowed to have a never ending wave of opportunity, simply because your counter [AV] cannot extend their wave, nor make their wave indefinite. Relevant AV Weapons Swarm Launchers Increase direct damage to 270HP per Swarm. Increase lock range to 215m. However, since this is beyond rendering range I believe it would be fair if the vehicle pilot had an alarm system that alerts them if they are being locked onto beyond 175m. Countermeasures and Flares seems like a good idea as well. Plasma Cannons Increase Max Ammo count to 12. Increase direct damage to: 1320/1650/1980. (STD/ADV/PRO) It seems like a bit much, but it is a weapon that has a slow moving projectile, an arc, and only 1 round in the clip. It won't become overpowered against infantry like CCP fears simply because the only dropsuit that can survive a direct hit with an Allotek Plasma Cannon is a completely tanked out PRO heavy. Proximity Explosives Remove the alarm system. you can already look down to see the explosives, and the trap is completely static. Unlike Jihad Jeeps that can follow you, a Proximity Explosive trap requires someone to predict where you are. If you aren't piloting in a predictable pattern, then Proximity Explosives won't affect you. Remote Explosives Increase Max. Carried amount. The total amount you can have active should be the total amount you can carry, just like other pieces of equipment. Otherwise, the only dropsuit that can create a reliable RE trap is the logistics. (This also applies to Proximity Explosives) Nerf Bolas This AV weapon is ridiculously overpowered against Dropships as it can OHK them regardless of their fitting.. I say reduce it's direct damage to 200HP. -HAND PS: Yes I know that buffing SL damage can make Dropships underpowered. However, I high;y believe that flares & countermeasures will prevent that from happening. bait. Yes i am a Undead Hell Wolf ... nice to meat you!
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7137	Posted - 2014.02.17 00:04:00 - [10] - Quote Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: Can agree on some points but their solutions do not benefit both side mutually, only AVers. Really? I thought an alarm system, flares, and countermeasures benifited pilots as well. Anything I should add in? Perhaps, I missed the countermeasures. Still I feel that's not consider future medium vehicles and their own lesser shield and armour values. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha

Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1673	Posted - 2014.02.17 00:06:00 - [11] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: Can agree on some points but their solutions do not benefit both side mutually, only AVers. Really? I thought an alarm system, flares, and countermeasures benifited pilots as well. Anything I should add in? Perhaps, I missed the countermeasures. Still I feel that's not consider future medium vehicles and their own lesser shield and armour values. I would hope that MAV's would have a higher acceleration and top speed as well as better handling to compensate. I am not suggesting that they be faster/as fast as LAVs, but I do think that they should be closer in those regards to LAVs than HAVs. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Pvt Numnutz Black Phoenix Mercenaries Legacy Rising 749	Posted - 2014.02.17 00:08:00 - [12] - Quote Atim I really wish you would be more specific about these posts. The lower ammo might make sense for tanks but not for dropships. Even with prototype turrets I restock at least 4 or 5 times a game. 8 rounds in the clip is good and balanced. I can't fit an ammo mod on my python because I don't have the slots. This is a tank issue your talking about. It would be nice to see my gunners ammo and health
Awry Barux New Eden Blades Of The Azure Zero-Day 710	Posted - 2014.02.17 00:12:00 - [13] - Quote This seems well thought out, I approve and agree. The only change I would make to these ideas would be to do half the swarm damage increase (+25, or +100 dmg/volley for MLT/STD) first, then wait a few weeks and see how things play out. If it's still bad, buff more via hotfixes.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7138	Posted - 2014.02.17 00:13:00 - [14] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: Can agree on some points but their solutions do not benefit both side mutually, only AVers. Really? I thought an alarm system, flares, and countermeasures benifited pilots as well. Anything I should add in? Perhaps, I missed the countermeasures. Still I feel that's not consider future medium vehicles and their own lesser shield and armour values. I would hope that MAV's would have a higher acceleration and top speed as well as better handling to compensate. I am not suggesting that they be faster/as fast as LAVs, but I do think that they should be closer in those regards to LAVs than HAVs. 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. Meduim 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 "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
NK Scout Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 397	Posted - 2014.02.17 00:21:00 - [15] - Quote Atiim wrote: Yes, I know that this topic has been discussed to death, revived, and then discussed to death many times over. But since everyone has deposited their .02 ISK into the V/AV bank, I figured I might as well too. Free from any parody or trolling: Atiim wrote: What I want for vehicles? Lower Ammo Count What's the point of having ammo if you have no need for re-supplying? Along with this, there should be an actual incentive to run an Ammunition module, and to skill into the Turret Ammunition skill. As it stands, I rarely ever have to resupply; and on the rare occasion that I do; I simply recall my tank and call it back in for 100% ammo However, Supply Depots need to be more prevalent on maps, and they need to be easily accessible by vehicles. And while we are at it, why not create a way to tell how much ammo your small turrets have? Lowered Blaster Turret Range When I'm in my Blaster tank, I can easily and reliably kill infantry from about 120m (I'm not too familiar with the metric system, so please forgive me if this is off). If AVers aren't allowed to fire at vehicles with near impunity, then neither should vehicle pilots. No Hardener Stacking I don't see how this was allowed in the first place. CCP's current Philosophy is "Waves of Opportunity." You shouldn't be allowed to have a never ending wave of opportunity, simply because your counter [AV] cannot extend their wave, nor make their wave indefinite. Relevant AV Weapons Swarm Launchers Increase direct damage to 270HP per Swarm. Increase lock range to 215m. However, since this is beyond rendering range I believe it would be fair if the vehicle pilot had an alarm system that alerts them if they are being locked onto beyond 175m. Countermeasures and Flares seems like a good idea as well. Plasma Cannons Increase Max Ammo count to 12. Increase direct damage to: 1320/1650/1980. (STD/ADV/PRO) It seems like a bit much, but it is a weapon that has a slow moving projectile, an arc, and only 1 round in the clip. It won't become overpowered against infantry like CCP fears simply because the only dropsuit that can survive a direct hit with an Allotek Plasma Cannon is a completely tanked out PRO heavy. Proximity Explosives Remove the alarm system. you can already look down to see the explosives, and the trap is completely static. Unlike Jihad Jeeps that can follow you, a Proximity Explosive trap requires someone to predict where you are. If you aren't piloting in a predictable pattern, then Proximity Explosives won't affect you. Remote Explosives Increase Max. Carried amount. The total amount you can have active should be the total amount you can carry, just like other pieces of equipment. Otherwise, the only dropsuit that can create a reliable RE trap is the logistics. (This also applies to Proximity Explosives) Nerf Bolas This AV weapon is ridiculously overpowered against Dropships as it can OHK them regardless of their fitting.. I say reduce it's direct damage to 200HP. -HAND PS: Yes I know that buffing SL damage can make Dropships underpowered. However, I high;y believe that flares & countermeasures will prevent that from happening. No to swarm buff, maybe 240 or 2t0 damage, but make it so each tier gets a 10% damage increase.... Oh and a proximity mine alarm IS NEEDED..........I will not lose a vehicle if im not moving fast... 2 exiles assault rifles, Skinweave caldari frame, Staff recruiter mlt frame, Templar set Caldari Master Race
NK Scout Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 397	Posted - 2014.02.17 00:24:00 - [16] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: All of that seems reasonable to me. I do however, still think that the Driver and Main Gunner should be separate seats in the HAV. Minimum two needed to be able to move and shoot simultaneously. The option for the two secondaries should remain. This would mean that you could run the HAV solo if you liked though you wouldn't be moving and shooting at the same time, if you brought a single friend, you can move and shoot and if you brought more than one friend, you'd have a better chance of killing any infantry resistance. NO 2 exiles assault rifles, Skinweave caldari frame, Staff recruiter mlt frame, Templar set Caldari Master Race
JARREL THOMAS Dead Man's Game 108	Posted - 2014.02.17 00:26:00 - [17] - Quote Patrick57 wrote: Yes. Fixed Caldari Loyalist
Patrick57 Fatal Absolution 5207	Posted - 2014.02.17 00:29:00 - [18] - Quote JARREL THOMAS wrote: Patrick57 wrote: Yes. Broken Fixed. I'm a scrub I go negative in PC, yay
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone 667	Posted - 2014.02.17 00:29:00 - [19] - Quote 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. Best PVE idea I've seen.
NK Scout Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 397	Posted - 2014.02.17 00:30:00 - [20] - Quote 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. Lol no. 2 exiles assault rifles, Skinweave caldari frame, Staff recruiter mlt frame, Templar set Caldari Master Race

Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 391	Posted - 2014.02.17 00:32:00 - [21] - Quote OP suggestions are plenty reasonable. +1
Debacle Nano BurgezzE.T.F General Tso's Alliance 713	Posted - 2014.02.17 00:34:00 - [22] - Quote Maybe? Closed beta anyone?
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1713	Posted - 2014.02.17 00:35:00 - [23] - Quote lolno. 'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever! Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Benjamin Ciscko Fatal Absolution 1703	Posted - 2014.02.17 00:37:00 - [24] - Quote Q_Q Moar. Tanker/Forum warrior lvl. 1 Prof. V scrub Q_Q moar
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens League of Infamy 565	Posted - 2014.02.17 00:41:00 - [25] - Quote Atiim wrote: Thoughts? Concerns? Anyone? 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. On the ammo thing, I think losing a clip's worth would be fine. Supply Depots definitely need to be more reachable for vehicles because having to prop a tank up against a wall is just silly. If ammunition is reduced, I think the clip size should stay the same just to keep Tank v Tank from becoming a total Reload-Fest. Agree with Blaster range providing it isn't too short. Not sure how I feel about Double Hardener (all the way across the sky). I don't use it, personally, so I can't comment on it too much. I do know that with my current skills I could run 2 Complex Hardeners nearly indefinitely, only about 1 second delay . From the aspect of "Waves of Opportunity", that would seem to go against it. Damage on Swarms needs to go up. How much? Dunno, Swarms are a pain to figure out because increasing the damage by just 50 is a huge increase based on the nature of the weapon. I would be wary of increasing the range. Remember that the lock on range is a circle (sphere) so increasing the radius just a wee bit gives you a far larger area of control. Plasma Cannons are a joke and 100% need a buff if they are meant to be an AV weapon. I am most fond of armor so it is a weapon that I am naturally resistant too but there has to be a reason it is not commonly found on the field. Be well.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1674	Posted - 2014.02.17 00:45:00 - [26] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: Can agree on some points but their solutions do not benefit both side mutually, only AVers. Really? I thought an alarm system, flares, and countermeasures benifited pilots as well. Anything I should add in? Perhaps, I missed the countermeasures. Still I feel that's not consider future medium vehicles and their own lesser shield and armour values. I would hope that MAV's would have a higher acceleration and top speed as well as better handling to compensate. I am not suggesting that they be faster/as fast as LAVs, but I do think that they should be closer in those regards to LAVs than HAVs. 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. Meduim 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 IDK, I think you are underestimating the effects chaff will/could have. I picture it as being similar to hardeners except that while "active" it will fire off chaff once incoming missiles have reached a distance threshold. So if I am running along in my MAV and I have my Chaff mod active, when Swarms got within 20m or so, it would fire off a number of flares based on the tier of the mod (thinking Swarm equivalency here). Each flare would attract a single missile and pull it off course from the MAV to the flare itself. There could also be some version of CIWS for vehicles too I would imagine. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1674	Posted - 2014.02.17 00:49:00 - [27] - Quote NK Scout wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: All of that seems reasonable to me. I do however, still think that the Driver and Main Gunner should be separate seats in the HAV. Minimum two needed to be able to move and shoot simultaneously. The option for the two secondaries should remain. This would mean that you could run the HAV solo if you liked though you wouldn't be moving and shooting at the same time, if you brought a single friend, you can move and shoot and if you brought more than one friend, you'd have a better chance of killing any infantry resistance. NO I love how it is always a simple "NO". Never an explanation of why outside of childish demands to have their own solo pwnmobile. You might as well have just typed "NUH-UH STAMPS FEET WHILE WALKING OFF". I think it is hilarious too since it would amount to a larger buff to vehicles than the one CCP gave in 1.7. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
hgghyujh Expert Intervention Caldari State 303	Posted - 2014.02.17 01:03:00 - [28] - Quote Atiim wrote: Yes, I know that this topic has been discussed to death, revived, and then discussed to death many times over. But since everyone has deposited their .02 ISK into the V/AV bank, I figured I might as well too. Free from any parody or trolling: Atiim wrote: What I want for vehicles? Lower Ammo Count What's the point of having ammo if you have no need for re-supplying? Along with this, there should be an actual incentive to run an Ammunition module, and to skill into the Turret Ammunition skill. As it stands, I rarely ever have to resupply; and on the rare occasion that I do; I simply recall my tank and call it back in for 100% ammo However, Supply Depots need to be more prevalent on maps, and they need to be easily accessible by vehicles. And while we are at it, why not create a way to tell how much ammo your small turrets have? Lowered Blaster Turret Range When I'm in my Blaster tank, I can easily and reliably kill infantry from about 120m (I'm not too familiar with the metric system, so please forgive me if this is off). If AVers aren't allowed to fire at vehicles with near impunity, then neither should vehicle pilots. No Hardener Stacking I don't see how this was allowed in the first place. CCP's current Philosophy is "Waves of Opportunity." You shouldn't be allowed to have a never ending wave of opportunity, simply because your counter [AV] cannot extend their wave, nor make their wave indefinite. Relevant AV Weapons Swarm Launchers Increase direct damage to 270HP per Swarm. Increase lock range to 215m. However, since this is beyond rendering range I believe it would be fair if the vehicle pilot had an alarm system that alerts them if they are being locked onto beyond 175m. Countermeasures and Flares seems like a good idea as well. Plasma Cannons Increase Max Ammo count to 12. Increase direct damage to: 1320/1650/1980. (STD/ADV/PRO) It seems like a bit much, but it is a weapon that has a slow moving projectile, an arc, and only 1 round in the clip. It won't become overpowered against infantry like CCP fears simply because the only dropsuit that can survive a direct hit with an Allotek Plasma Cannon is a completely tanked out PRO heavy. Proximity Explosives Remove the alarm system. you can already look down to see the explosives, and the trap is completely static. Unlike Jihad Jeeps that can follow you, a Proximity Explosive trap requires someone to predict where you are. If you aren't piloting in a predictable pattern, then Proximity Explosives won't affect you. Remote Explosives Increase Max. Carried amount. The total amount you can have active should be the total amount you can carry, just like other pieces of equipment. Otherwise, the only dropsuit that can create a reliable RE trap is the logistics. (This also applies to Proximity Explosives) Nerf Bolas This AV weapon is ridiculously overpowered against Dropships as it can OHK them regardless of their fitting.. I say reduce it's direct damage to 200HP. -HAND PS: Yes I know that buffing SL damage can make Dropships underpowered. However, I high;y believe that flares & countermeasures will prevent that from happening. 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.
Altina McAlterson Pure Innocence. EoN. 870	Posted - 2014.02.17 01:11:00 - [29] - Quote 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. Currently activating 2 shield hardeners at once is an 80% reduction in damage so giving that same protection in a single slot is a terrible idea. Good Advice Grey 17 should have stayed missing.
JARREL THOMAS Dead Man's Game 108	Posted - 2014.02.17 01:31:00 - [30] - Quote Patrick57 wrote: JARREL THOMAS wrote: Patrick57 wrote: Yes. Broken I did not fix. Fixed lol Caldari Loyalist

Hynox Xitio Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 48	Posted - 2014.02.17 01:36:00 - [31] - Quote V/AV? I think you meant to say "valve." I didn't know this forum was dealing with a piping problem, thank you for pointing this out. Me and many others like me only serve to hide in the lower levels of the forums. Seeking to maintain the piping and heating for the rest of the complex. Don't come down here because most of us have gone insane and now prowl around the dark basement levels seeking victims to torture and eat. I'm okay though, trust me. I only come up to find a torture buddy every couple of days. Unleash the Fogwoggler
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7145	Posted - 2014.02.17 01:38:00 - [32] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: IDK, I think you are underestimating the effects chaff will/could have. I picture it as being similar to hardeners except that while "active" it will fire off chaff once incoming missiles have reached a distance threshold. So if I am running along in my MAV and I have my Chaff mod active, when Swarms got within 20m or so, it would fire off a number of flares based on the tier of the mod (thinking Swarm equivalency here). Each flare would attract a single missile and pull it off course from the MAV to the flare itself. There could also be some version of CIWS for vehicles too I would imagine. I don't know why...and its not your post...maybe how I am interpreting that post...but it made no sense to me..... could you elaborate further...sorry to ask.....I have the 3pm fuzzies. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Venerable Phage Red Shirts Away Team 18	Posted - 2014.02.17 03:10:00 - [33] - Quote I like the suggestions. It would be nice to improve swarms vs LAVs while not dominating HAVs. It would also be nice to have specialist flux missiles, anti module missiles and and armour missiles so that a squad of AVers could created their own waves of oppoutunity.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7150	Posted - 2014.02.17 03:14:00 - [34] - Quote Venerable Phage wrote: I like the suggestions. It would be nice to improve swarms vs LAVs while not dominating HAVs. It would also be nice to have specialist flux missiles, anti module missiles and and armour missiles so that a squad of AVers could created their own waves of oppoutunity. At this point its not even about dominating HAV....its about dominating MAV and MTAC in the future of the game. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1639	Posted - 2014.02.17 03:24:00 - [35] - Quote I think all the buffs should be in the form of modules for suits. I like HAVs as they are, they are easy enough for me to at least run off solo and most I either destroy or damage to 25% armor. If there is any help what-so-ever then they usually pop fast. I would trash the nerfs. Counter measures and flares are a perfect vehicle module to counter infantry AV modules. We need more ways to make the game fun and I say add stupid modules and SP sinks that change AV weapon stats. Make them low slot modules for all I care. Then add a few to the vehicle tree to counter the boosted AV weapons. "You people voted for Hubert Humphrey, and you killed Jesus." Raoul Duke
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1639	Posted - 2014.02.17 03:26:00 - [36] - Quote Venerable Phage wrote: I like the suggestions. It would be nice to improve swarms vs LAVs while not dominating HAVs. It would also be nice to have specialist flux missiles, anti module missiles and and armour missiles so that a squad of AVers could created their own waves of oppoutunity. AV Flux missiles are called PLCs. They work great for it and with practice they eat shields. "You people voted for Hubert Humphrey, and you killed Jesus." Raoul Duke
NK Scout Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 400	Posted - 2014.02.17 03:26:00 - [37] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: NK Scout wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: All of that seems reasonable to me. I do however, still think that the Driver and Main Gunner should be separate seats in the HAV. Minimum two needed to be able to move and shoot simultaneously. The option for the two secondaries should remain. This would mean that you could run the HAV solo if you liked though you wouldn't be moving and shooting at the same time, if you brought a single friend, you can move and shoot and if you brought more than one friend, you'd have a better chance of killing any infantry resistance. NO I love how it is always a simple "NO". Never an explanation of why outside of childish demands to have their own solo pwnmobile. You might as well have just typed "NUH-UH STAMPS FEET WHILE WALKING OFF". I think it is hilarious too since it would amount to a larger buff to vehicles than the one CCP gave in 1.7. No way in hell im lettingnrandoms shoot or drive Im not going to squad up every time in dust, I like playing solo and it makes my framerate better. 2 exiles assault rifles, Skinweave caldari frame, Staff recruiter mlt frame, Templar set Caldari Master Race
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7153	Posted - 2014.02.17 03:31:00 - [38] - Quote NK Scout wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: NK Scout wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: All of that seems reasonable to me. I do however, still think that the Driver and Main Gunner should be separate seats in the HAV. Minimum two needed to be able to move and shoot simultaneously. The option for the two secondaries should remain. This would mean that you could run the HAV solo if you liked though you wouldn't be moving and shooting at the same time, if you brought a single friend, you can move and shoot and if you brought more than one friend, you'd have a better chance of killing any infantry resistance. NO I love how it is always a simple "NO". Never an explanation of why outside of childish demands to have their own solo pwnmobile. You might as well have just typed "NUH-UH STAMPS FEET WHILE WALKING OFF". I think it is hilarious too since it would amount to a larger buff to vehicles than the one CCP gave in 1.7. No way in hell im lettingnrandoms shoot or drive Im not going to squad up every time in dust, I like playing solo and it makes my framerate better. Indeed its a valid concern. No other game with vehicles requires the main cannon to be manned by a secondary play as it taks half the fun out of the shooter element of the game..... However even you must believe it is ridiculous to put such potent anti infantry weapons as the Large Blaster while we have 6000+ HP platforms to work off of, that not only move faster than infantry but also have massive damage resistances to our primary weaknesses. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
NK Scout Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 400	Posted - 2014.02.17 03:38:00 - [39] - Quote True Adamance wrote: NK Scout wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: NK Scout wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: All of that seems reasonable to me. I do however, still think that the Driver and Main Gunner should be separate seats in the HAV. Minimum two needed to be able to move and shoot simultaneously. The option for the two secondaries should remain. This would mean that you could run the HAV solo if you liked though you wouldn't be moving and shooting at the same time, if you brought a single friend, you can move and shoot and if you brought more than one friend, you'd have a better chance of killing any infantry resistance. NO I love how it is always a simple "NO". Never an explanation of why outside of childish demands to have their own solo pwnmobile. You might as well have just typed "NUH-UH STAMPS FEET WHILE WALKING OFF". I think it is hilarious too since it would amount to a larger buff to vehicles than the one CCP gave in 1.7. No way in hell im lettingnrandoms shoot or drive Im not going to squad up every time in dust, I like playing solo and it makes my framerate better. Indeed its a valid concern. No other game with vehicles requires the main cannon to be manned by a secondary play as it taks half the fun out of the shooter element of the game..... However even you must believe it is ridiculous to put such potent anti infantry weapons as the Large Blaster while we have 6000+ HP platforms to work off of, that not only move faster than infantry but also have massive damage resistances to our primary weaknesses. Nerf blasters, simple 2 exiles assault rifles, Skinweave caldari frame, Staff recruiter mlt frame, Templar set Caldari Master Race
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7157	Posted - 2014.02.17 03:51:00 - [40] - Quote NK Scout wrote: Nerf blasters, simple We can now begin the "cleansing" if you know what I mean. Hmmmm why not change the blaster to a heavy plasma cannon? "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha

Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1680	Posted - 2014.02.17 03:52:00 - [41] - Quote NK Scout wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: NK Scout wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: All of that seems reasonable to me. I do however, still think that the Driver and Main Gunner should be separate seats in the HAV. Minimum two needed to be able to move and shoot simultaneously. The option for the two secondaries should remain. This would mean that you could run the HAV solo if you liked though you wouldn't be moving and shooting at the same time, if you brought a single friend, you can move and shoot and if you brought more than one friend, you'd have a better chance of killing any infantry resistance. NO I love how it is always a simple "NO". Never an explanation of why outside of childish demands to have their own solo pwnmobile. You might as well have just typed "NUH-UH STAMPS FEET WHILE WALKING OFF". I think it is hilarious too since it would amount to a larger buff to vehicles than the one CCP gave in 1.7. No way in hell im lettingnrandoms shoot or drive Im not going to squad up every time in dust, I like playing solo and it makes my framerate better. Oh so because you want to be able to have your solo pwnmobile when you're playing solo in an admittedly teambased game, that is reason enough to not include something that would encourage teamplay? Still not hearing rational, articulate arguments, just more of the "IT HAS TO BE THIS WAY BECAUSE I WANT IT THIS WAY WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!" @True I thought that "standing apart" was something that most of the community has wanted for Dust from the beginning? I mean, I know it is different, though I don't think that it is nearly so much of a "fun killer" as you put forth. In fact, I think it would make things more fun, social activities usually are. Would you rather fap or spend the evening with your gender of choice? Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
NK Scout Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 401	Posted - 2014.02.17 03:55:00 - [42] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: NK Scout wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: NK Scout wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: All of that seems reasonable to me. I do however, still think that the Driver and Main Gunner should be separate seats in the HAV. Minimum two needed to be able to move and shoot simultaneously. The option for the two secondaries should remain. This would mean that you could run the HAV solo if you liked though you wouldn't be moving and shooting at the same time, if you brought a single friend, you can move and shoot and if you brought more than one friend, you'd have a better chance of killing any infantry resistance. NO I love how it is always a simple "NO". Never an explanation of why outside of childish demands to have their own solo pwnmobile. You might as well have just typed "NUH-UH STAMPS FEET WHILE WALKING OFF". I think it is hilarious too since it would amount to a larger buff to vehicles than the one CCP gave in 1.7. No way in hell im lettingnrandoms shoot or drive Im not going to squad up every time in dust, I like playing solo and it makes my framerate better. Oh so because you want to be able to have your solo pwnmobile when you're playing solo in an admittedly teambased game, that is reason enough to not include something that would encourage teamplay? Still not hearing rational, articulate arguments, just more of the "IT HAS TO BE THIS WAY BECAUSE I WANT IT THIS WAY WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!" @True I thought that "standing apart" was something that most of the community has wanted for Dust from the beginning? I mean, I know it is different, though I don't think that it is nearly so much of a "fun killer" as you put forth. In fact, I think it would make things more fun, social activities usually are. Would you rather fap or spend the evening with your gender of choice? Hey scrub, I said nerf blasters And not everyone in the world uses a solo pwnmode blaster turret 2 exiles assault rifles, Skinweave caldari frame, Staff recruiter mlt frame, Templar set Caldari Master Race
Altina McAlterson Pure Innocence. EoN. 872	Posted - 2014.02.17 05:33:00 - [43] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Oh so because you want to be able to have your solo pwnmobile when you're playing solo in an admittedly teambased game, that is reason enough to not include something that would encourage teamplay? Still not hearing rational, articulate arguments, just more of the "IT HAS TO BE THIS WAY BECAUSE I WANT IT THIS WAY WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!" @True I thought that "standing apart" was something that most of the community has wanted for Dust from the beginning? I mean, I know it is different, though I don't think that it is nearly so much of a "fun killer" as you put forth. In fact, I think it would make things more fun, social activities usually are. Would you rather fap or spend the evening with your gender of choice? Arbitrarily requiring 2 people to operate a tank is a ridiculous idea. Although I understand why you think it and don't blame you for feeling the way you do so this isn't a personal attack. But it is a horribly bad idea. It is based on the assumption that at the moment tanks are "OP" because they are dominating Ambush matches, not allowing infantry to really engage each other because they have to constantly flee the tank and are genuinely ruining the fun for everyone not sitting on two treads. But guess what? Tanks are not "OP". They aren't exactly fine, but they aren't OP. They are just extremely effective at dominating ambush matches. We've gone through this whole cycle several times just like Bad Furry said in another thread. You either wind up with tanks that dominate ambush and ruin it for infantry or they become too weak and useless in skirm/dom. Right now if your team has enough brain cells to rub together to start a fire they can handle tanks in a skirmish or domination match. Ambush is another matter entirely and is almost its own thread entirely but my answer as to why I don't like your idea is because there is absolutely no reason to do it. It's an arbitrary and unjustified handicap on a significant-enough-to-matter portion of the game and the playerbase. And that is why it is a bad idea. Running a blaster tank in ambush is like bringing Anthrax to a pillow fight.
Rusty Shallows 979	Posted - 2014.02.17 05:59:00 - [44] - Quote True Adamance wrote: NK Scout wrote: Nerf blasters, simple We can now begin the "cleansing" if you know what I mean. Hmmmm why not change the blaster to a heavy plasma cannon? Both terrifying and cool. Make it happen CCP! This is going to bite me on the @ss later when I think I'm hiding safe in cover. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
NK Scout Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 409	Posted - 2014.02.17 06:04:00 - [45] - Quote True Adamance wrote: NK Scout wrote: Nerf blasters, simple We can now begin the "cleansing" if you know what I mean. Hmmmm why not change the blaster to a heavy plasma cannon? Mmmmmmmmmm, id love that As soon as large missiles get at least a 3.50m splash radius and the 20 damage bug for missiles and plc gets fixed. 2 exiles assault rifles, Skinweave caldari frame, Staff recruiter mlt frame, Templar set Caldari Master Race
Rusty Shallows 979	Posted - 2014.02.17 06:13:00 - [46] - Quote Altina McAlterson wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Oh so because you want to be able to have your solo pwnmobile when you're playing solo in an admittedly teambased game, that is reason enough to not include something that would encourage teamplay? Still not hearing rational, articulate arguments, just more of the "IT HAS TO BE THIS WAY BECAUSE I WANT IT THIS WAY WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!" @True I thought that "standing apart" was something that most of the community has wanted for Dust from the beginning? I mean, I know it is different, though I don't think that it is nearly so much of a "fun killer" as you put forth. In fact, I think it would make things more fun, social activities usually are. Would you rather fap or spend the evening with your gender of choice? Arbitrarily requiring 2 people to operate a tank is a ridiculous idea. Although I understand why you think it and don't blame you for feeling the way you do so this isn't a personal attack. But it is a horribly bad idea. It is based on the assumption that at the moment tanks are "OP" because they are dominating Ambush matches, not allowing infantry to really engage each other because they have to constantly flee the tank and are genuinely ruining the fun for everyone not sitting on two treads. But guess what? Tanks are not "OP". They aren't exactly fine, but they aren't OP. They are just extremely effective at dominating ambush matches. We've gone through this whole cycle several times just like Bad Furry said in another thread. You either wind up with tanks that dominate ambush and ruin it for infantry or they become too weak and useless in skirm/dom. Right now if your team has enough brain cells to rub together to start a fire they can handle tanks in a skirmish or domination match. Ambush is another matter entirely and is almost its own thread entirely but my answer as to why I don't like your idea is because there is absolutely no reason to do it. It's an arbitrary and unjustified handicap on a significant-enough-to-matter portion of the game and the playerbase. And that is why it is a bad idea. Not so ridiculous at all. Some of us hate nerfing and requiring HAVs to use teamwork would help justify their power. Best of all no nerfing. If CCP hadn't gone and nerf things in Uprising 1.7 without a single intelligent thought we might not be in the middle of Tanks 514 right now. Sadly the CCP is incapable of rebalancing anything so the question is what kind of nerf is inbound for HAVs. That aside I'm 99.9% certain HAVs will stay single seaters. Best to stay focused on whatever the next nerf is. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone 669	Posted - 2014.02.17 06:43:00 - [47] - Quote Countermeasures are extremely unlikely to be implemented, considering things we were told about months ago are nowhere to be found, let alone things that CCP has not mentioned. The problem with swarms, at least in relation to tanks, is not raw damage, but damage application. Tanks can easily escape a swarmer. This should not be. Slowing tanks down will do a lot to make the swarm viable. Buffing it's damage hurts dropships more than it does tanks. Best PVE idea I've seen.
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 1695	Posted - 2014.02.17 07:19:00 - [48] - Quote First, I'm glad I see you're not banned; something someone said in 'DevHangout' the other day suggested as much. Anyway, into business. So I've done a bit of raging/trolling (xD) recently, through which I've made my positions known. First off, I'm perfectly happy with the balance at the moment (in the sense that the shoe's now on the other foot) and while I'm expecting a nerf, I'm damn well going to enjoy it while it lasts. Your points I agree with to some extent. 1. Ammunition reserves are actually not too high in HAVs at the moment; I often fit an ammunition module because they're free and because I often run dry otherwise. Now, I run a Gunnlogi so I have the slots to do it. Should base capacity be reduced, I'd want my complex ammo cache to be buffed to give me the same capacity that I have now. I'd also want many more supply depots scattered around the maps. Something in the order of two in every redline, for example. I'd also want their HP buffed to CRU levels, and the recall function changed to be less convenient (doubling the hack timer would work wonders here). 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. Forge on for great justice! Defend the meek! Destroy the weak! Q-sync breaches into the rectum of everyone else!
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1715	Posted - 2014.02.17 07:29:00 - [49] - 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 -_-
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 1695	Posted - 2014.02.17 07:37:00 - [50] - Quote 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. Forge on for great justice! Defend the meek! Destroy the weak! Q-sync breaches into the rectum of everyone else!

Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 1695	Posted - 2014.02.17 07:42:00 - [51] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: NK Scout wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: NK Scout wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: All of that seems reasonable to me. I do however, still think that the Driver and Main Gunner should be separate seats in the HAV. Minimum two needed to be able to move and shoot simultaneously. The option for the two secondaries should remain. This would mean that you could run the HAV solo if you liked though you wouldn't be moving and shooting at the same time, if you brought a single friend, you can move and shoot and if you brought more than one friend, you'd have a better chance of killing any infantry resistance. NO I love how it is always a simple "NO". Never an explanation of why outside of childish demands to have their own solo pwnmobile. You might as well have just typed "NUH-UH STAMPS FEET WHILE WALKING OFF". I think it is hilarious too since it would amount to a larger buff to vehicles than the one CCP gave in 1.7. No way in hell im lettingnrandoms shoot or drive Im not going to squad up every time in dust, I like playing solo and it makes my framerate better. Oh so because you want to be able to have your solo pwnmobile when you're playing solo in an admittedly teambased game, that is reason enough to not include something that would encourage teamplay? Still not hearing rational, articulate arguments, just more of the "IT HAS TO BE THIS WAY BECAUSE I WANT IT THIS WAY WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!" @True I thought that "standing apart" was something that most of the community has wanted for Dust from the beginning? I mean, I know it is different, though I don't think that it is nearly so much of a "fun killer" as you put forth. In fact, I think it would make things more fun, social activities usually are. Would you rather fap or spend the evening with your gender of choice? I'd be happy to require two people for max effectiveness if I could control the front turret, and if my EHP was buffed. We're not that durable. I can often solo tanks (with my forge - only ones I have issues with are driven by 1.6 tankers) and if we were mechanically altered like that, I'd very much want it to be impossible to solo one. Forge on for great justice! Defend the meek! Destroy the weak! Q-sync breaches into the rectum of everyone else!
Rusty Shallows 982	Posted - 2014.02.17 07:50:00 - [52] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: snip P.S. don't buff forges. They'll be OP as fuck. They are junk. At the old charge-to-fire time with the assault wasn't combat effective at ground level. Now HAVs are faster and Forge Guns take even longer. It's sad and funny at the same time. All alpha damage weapons need a redesign. Forge Guns, Large Rails, and Plasma Cannons aren't handling the current tweeking system well. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
NK Scout Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 410	Posted - 2014.02.17 07:58:00 - [53] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: First, I'm glad I see you're not banned; something someone said in 'DevHangout' the other day suggested as much. Anyway, into business. So I've done a bit of raging/trolling (xD) recently, through which I've made my positions known. First off, I'm perfectly happy with the balance at the moment (in the sense that the shoe's now on the other foot) and while I'm expecting a nerf, I'm damn well going to enjoy it while it lasts. Your points I agree with to some extent. 1. Ammunition reserves are actually not too high in HAVs at the moment; I often fit an ammunition module because they're free and because I often run dry otherwise. Now, I run a Gunnlogi so I have the slots to do it. Should base capacity be reduced, I'd want my complex ammo cache to be buffed to give me the same capacity that I have now. I'd also want many more supply depots scattered around the maps. Something in the order of two in every redline, for example. I'd also want their HP buffed to CRU levels, and the recall function changed to be less convenient (doubling the hack timer would work wonders here). 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. 3. Yep, and remove damage mod stacking too, because otherwise tanking will revolve around nothing but gank. 4. Swarms need a buff, I don't mind your suggestions. 5. Rather than buffing PLC damage, I honestly would prefer an increase to magazine size to about 3. It seems like the thing that cripples it is the reload times, rather than the firing mechanics, which can be for around with requisite practice and skill. 6. I'm in the other direction on Proxes. I would prefer buffing damage and radius rather than remove the indicator. Otherwise one can just drop six in the same spot and gib someone. There are quite a few roads that always have heavy traffic so it's not really even a 'skill' weapon to use. I don't think that proxes should be an independent AV weapon. Rather, I'd prefer them as a supplement and as a way to control movement. 7. Leave RE carried amount as is, give them a buff to HAV damage. 30% would I think allow STD REs laid on the road to kill an unfitted tank. Give them 30% automatic critical damage when laid on a hull. So a total of (15001.31.3) will destroy an unhardened HAV with two remotes. Anyway, these are my thoughts, make of them what you will. P.S. don't buff forges. They'll be OP as fuck. So basiclu make vehicles annoying to use if some noob had c4? 2 exiles assault rifles, Skinweave caldari frame, Staff recruiter mlt frame, Templar set Caldari Master Race
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1715	Posted - 2014.02.17 08:00:00 - [54] - 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 -_-
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 1695	Posted - 2014.02.17 08:15:00 - [55] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: 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. I don't mean inaccuracy, I simply mean DPS. Its effective DPS would be far higher than the HMG's. I mean HMG's maximum potential DPS, which is pretty high. I don't like that blasters are an insta-win against infantry at huge ranges. Prior to 1.7, I'd have serious issues killing infantry sitting on the mushroom at the Gallente Communications Centre (or whatever), nowadays I can pick people off with ease. Our potential DPS might have been lowered, but I think our hit detection improved, so our actual DPS has increased. Certainly range has increased enormously. It's happened a few times. I'd circle the poor bastard with my Gunnlogi until his hardeners go down, then I'd sit there and death-by-a-thousand-cuts them. Was my ISK printing fit. Forge on for great justice! Defend the meek! Destroy the weak! Q-sync breaches into the rectum of everyone else!
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1841	Posted - 2014.02.17 08:17:00 - [56] - Quote You have no logical thoughts. Please stop involving yourself in vehicle discussions. You know nothing about them. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 1697	Posted - 2014.02.17 08:39:00 - [57] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Something exceedingly ironic. Forge on for great justice! Defend the meek! Destroy the weak! Q-sync breaches into the rectum of everyone else!
Django Quik Dust2Dust. 2207	Posted - 2014.02.17 08:50:00 - [58] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: Can agree on some points but their solutions do not benefit both side mutually, only AVers. Really? I thought an alarm system, flares, and countermeasures benifited pilots as well. Anything I should add in? Perhaps, I missed the countermeasures. Still I feel that's not consider future medium vehicles and their own lesser shield and armour values. I would hope that MAV's would have a higher acceleration and top speed as well as better handling to compensate. I am not suggesting that they be faster/as fast as LAVs, but I do think that they should be closer in those regards to LAVs than HAVs. I envisage MAVs being heavily tanked but low damage output troop transport/support, like an APC type thing. Really tough to kill and quite fast (not as much so as LAVs) but can carry a full squad including 2 small turrets. It will need to deliver something that stands apart from LAVs and HAVs, not just be somewhere inbetween the two. Dedicated sidearm scout - Watch out for that headshot Scout community is the nuts
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1689	Posted - 2014.02.17 14:25:00 - [59] - Quote Altina McAlterson wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Oh so because you want to be able to have your solo pwnmobile when you're playing solo in an admittedly teambased game, that is reason enough to not include something that would encourage teamplay? Still not hearing rational, articulate arguments, just more of the "IT HAS TO BE THIS WAY BECAUSE I WANT IT THIS WAY WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!" @True I thought that "standing apart" was something that most of the community has wanted for Dust from the beginning? I mean, I know it is different, though I don't think that it is nearly so much of a "fun killer" as you put forth. In fact, I think it would make things more fun, social activities usually are. Would you rather fap or spend the evening with your gender of choice? Arbitrarily requiring 2 people to operate a tank is a ridiculous idea. Although I understand why you think it and don't blame you for feeling the way you do so this isn't a personal attack. But it is a horribly bad idea. It is based on the assumption that at the moment tanks are "OP" because they are dominating Ambush matches, not allowing infantry to really engage each other because they have to constantly flee the tank and are genuinely ruining the fun for everyone not sitting on two treads. But guess what? Tanks are not "OP". They aren't exactly fine, but they aren't OP. They are just extremely effective at dominating ambush matches. We've gone through this whole cycle several times just like Bad Furry said in another thread. You either wind up with tanks that dominate ambush and ruin it for infantry or they become too weak and useless in skirm/dom. Right now if your team has enough brain cells to rub together to start a fire they can handle tanks in a skirmish or domination match. Ambush is another matter entirely and is almost its own thread entirely but my answer as to why I don't like your idea is because there is absolutely no reason to do it. It's an arbitrary and unjustified handicap on a significant-enough-to-matter portion of the game and the playerbase. And that is why it is a bad idea. Sorry to say though your assumption is wrong, my proposal has absolutely nothing to do the "tanks are OP because they are dominating Ambush matches" assertion you make. Honestly, I only know that tanks are rampant in Ambush because they are cried about by others on the forums, my corpmates practically need to twist my arm to not leave squad when Ambush is queued. If it had anything to do with that, it would be because most of the matches I have been in have been decided by who pulled out the most HAVs the quickest, no matter the gamemode. I think it is a good idea in general seeing as how it would create more of a squad dynamic. There is also the bonuses in that it would cut down on the number of HAVs on the field at any one time (you have to admit that it is ridiculous how the HAV spam is usually the first thing to occur in most matches) as well as allowing for an even further slight buff. I think we can all agree that having individuals devoting their full attention to one seat in the HAV would result in HAVs that would be buffed as a direct result (without even needing a numerical buff of any kind) of having the Driver and Main Gunner not splitting their attention between driving and shooting. Am I saying that the "attention buff" would be the only one provided? No, simply that it would be the primary buff on the most basic level without need of arbitrary numbers that may well prove to be much more OP than first thought. I am also curious how exactly you view this as a handicap on tankers? It is a direct buff due to the factors mentioned above, simply requiring that tankers do what they've been telling everyone else to do for a very long time, run in a squad, work together, coordinate. It is the only truly balanced way to approach the subject. @Lorhak I've been advocating for a while now that HAVs specifically should require 3 AV Infantry of an equal tier (adjusted accordingly by tier comparison and further modified by the inclusion of damage mods/hardeners) to destroy them. I agree that it should (in 99% of situations) take more than 1 AVer to kill an HAV, all I am looking for is for that to be a two-way street. If AV needs to group up to bring down an HAV, then HAVs should require more than 1 operator to be at full efficacy. I feel that the only way that an HAV should be able to be "soloed" is if it is an STD HAV being hit with PRO AV. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4766	Posted - 2014.02.17 15:33:00 - [60] - Quote A lot of constructive feedback here. Great :) My .02 ISK on V/AV

Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 2501	Posted - 2014.02.17 16:29:00 - [61] - Quote I would have given you a GÇ£LikeGÇ¥ just for the V/AV acronym, as that looks really cool and I have not seen it used before. I think 250 damage/missile and a range of 200m would be fine for Swarm Launchers if the Hardener Stacking was addressed to give AV their waves of opportunity. Of course if you added in the early warning system, then they could buff Swarms a bit more: - Yellow Alert: GÇ£Locking LockingGÇ¥ - Orange Alert: GÇ£Hostile Lock!GÇ¥ - Red Alert: GÇ£Missiles inbound!GÇ¥ Add a range indicator that quickly counts down as the missiles approach. Once you have an early warning system on vehicles, then you can add flairs for Dropships. Flairs would be cool, because getting the timing right would require precise timing and active intervention from the pilot. _________________________________________________________________________________ Back to the Hardener stacking for a moment. I donGÇÖt so much have a problem with the supper tank of activating multiple Hardeners at once, as I do with being able to activate them in sequence so that there is never a wave of opportunity. So we need some system to insure that Hardeners canGÇÖt be run continuously: Option 1: Only allow one hardener per tank. I donGÇÖt like this option. I would like a tanker to have the option of fitting an anti AV fit, where they can run multiple hardeners at the same time, as long as there is a time when all those hardeners are down that the AV can take advantage of if the tank does not retreat. Option 2: Apply a Stacking penalty to the timers and adjust their times so that diminishing returns insures a gap when they are all on cooldown, regardless of how many you equip. But for this to work the cooldowns might end up having to be way too long. Option 3: Apply a Stacking penalty where the length of the HardenerGÇÖs effect is reduced, for all the equipped hardeners, every time you add an additional Hardener. This would give the tanker the choice between having 1 Hardener that lasts a long time, 2 hardeners that last a medium amount of time, or 3 hardeners that only last 20 second, but can be activated strategically to fend off individual attacks. Have it setup so that if they activate multiple Hardeners at the same time it it stacks not just the resistance, but the duration and cooldowns too. So if you activate all 3 Hardeners at the same time you get 1 minute (20 seconds x 3) of supper hardening, but then the cooldown is stacked as well. So far I like Option 3 best, but I am open to other suggestions. Fox Gaden: DUST Wall of Fame, 2014
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4770	Posted - 2014.02.17 16:35:00 - [62] - Quote 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. My .02 ISK on V/AV
Nothing Certain Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 241	Posted - 2014.02.17 16:40:00 - [63] - Quote 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. Besides, "because I like it" why should hardeners be so effective? Should drop suits get hardeners as well, why not? Because, that's why.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1691	Posted - 2014.02.17 16:45:00 - [64] - 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. IMHO, HAVs (with NOS active) should be able to move at roughly triple the max speed for Infantry (think fastest scout with nothing but KinCats in the lows). If they have no NOS active, they should cap out at double max infantry speed. However, I also am of the opinion that they should be able to muscle over/through most any obstacle that isn't a 90 degree angle that they can get traction with both tracks on. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 896	Posted - 2014.02.17 16:58:00 - [65] - Quote 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. PLC, NK, Scout - before 1.8. That's right, I stack that OP Sh!t.
Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 896	Posted - 2014.02.17 17:02:00 - [66] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: 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. IMHO, HAVs (with NOS active) should be able to move at roughly triple the max speed for Infantry (think fastest scout with nothing but KinCats in the lows). If they have no NOS active, they should cap out at double max infantry speed. However, I also am of the opinion that they should be able to muscle over/through most any obstacle that isn't a 90 degree angle that they can get traction with both tracks on. What is you opinion on speed based on? How does it help bring tanks into balance. I think the biggest problem with tanks is not that they are hard, it's that they are fast. They escape too easy instead of paying for their mistakes when they are in a situation where they are taking heavy damage. PLC, NK, Scout - before 1.8. That's right, I stack that OP Sh!t.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1691	Posted - 2014.02.17 17:08:00 - [67] - Quote Ludvig Enraga wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: 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. IMHO, HAVs (with NOS active) should be able to move at roughly triple the max speed for Infantry (think fastest scout with nothing but KinCats in the lows). If they have no NOS active, they should cap out at double max infantry speed. However, I also am of the opinion that they should be able to muscle over/through most any obstacle that isn't a 90 degree angle that they can get traction with both tracks on. What is you opinion on speed based on? How does it help bring tanks into balance. I think the biggest problem with tanks is not that they are hard, it's that they are fast. They escape too easy instead of paying for their mistakes when they are in a situation where they are taking heavy damage. It is based solely on the fact that they would then be faster than Infantry could hope to be without being ridiculously fast while still being significantly slower than LAVs. They should be faster than Infantry, they are after all vehicles, however I don't think that they need to be much faster than Infantry for the sake of balance. It would make them a shorter range, area denial/point defense force multiplier. Drop an HAV in and have it significantly increase the firepower in a moderate radius around an objective while not allowing them to zoom from one end of the map to another at a moments notice. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone 672	Posted - 2014.02.17 17:33:00 - [68] - 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. Let me clarify. All hardeners should have the same cooldown and uptime. Militia level for example. And as you go up the tiers, the resistance increases. 60% for militia and standard, 70% for advanced, and 80% for proto. I find the best balance is when I double harden my gunnlogi with two standard hardeners. I almost cannot be killed when both of them are up. But I also have to wait a long time for them to finish their cooldowns. I never run one without the other. This to me is the perfect balance. I am godly when it is up, but I must either retreat or be destroyed once they are down, and it takes a long time for them to cool down. Best PVE idea I've seen.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1699	Posted - 2014.02.17 20:08:00 - [69] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: 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. Let me clarify. All hardeners should have the same cooldown and uptime. Militia level for example. And as you go up the tiers, the resistance increases. 60% for militia and standard, 70% for advanced, and 80% for proto. I find the best balance is when I double harden my gunnlogi with two standard hardeners. I almost cannot be killed when both of them are up. But I also have to wait a long time for them to finish their cooldowns. I never run one without the other. This to me is the perfect balance. I am godly when it is up, but I must either retreat or be destroyed once they are down, and it takes a long time for them to cool down. The problem with that is that when you see them start to cycle red, zip there you go right back to being deep in your redline. Effectively making you invulnerable. Infantry have no hardeners and even if they did, there is no way in hell that they could escape as fast and efficiently as an HAV. Totally unbalanced. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Smooth Assassin Stardust Incorporation IMMORTAL REGIME 912	Posted - 2014.02.17 20:09:00 - [70] - Quote Patrick57 wrote: No. Whats you're debate? *Assassination is my thing.*

Alpha 443-6732 346	Posted - 2014.02.17 20:21:00 - [71] - Quote another clich+¬, low quality like farm thread, courtesy of atiim ccp will do what they will, reposting ideas with your signature on them is a waste of time
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7185	Posted - 2014.02.17 20:21:00 - [72] - Quote Smooth Assassin wrote: Patrick57 wrote: No. Whats you're debate? What's your debate? You are immediately disqualified from debating for poor grammar. Seriously get out of here. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Samuel Zelik D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 151	Posted - 2014.02.17 20:49:00 - [73] - Quote Atiim wrote: What I want for vehicles? [...] Relevant AV Weapons [[...] Plasma Cannons Increase Max Ammo count to 12. Increase direct damage to: 1320/1650/1980. (STD/ADV/PRO) It seems like a bit much, but it is a weapon that has a slow moving projectile, an arc, and only 1 round in the clip. It won't become overpowered against infantry like CCP fears simply because the only dropsuit that can survive a direct hit with an Allotek Plasma Cannon is a completely tanked out PRO heavy. Proximity Explosives Remove the alarm system. you can already look down to see the explosives, and the trap is completely static. Unlike Jihad Jeeps that can follow you, a Proximity Explosive trap requires someone to predict where you are. If you aren't piloting in a predictable pattern, then Proximity Explosives won't affect you. Remote Explosives Increase Max. Carried amount. The total amount you can have active should be the total amount you can carry, just like other pieces of equipment. Otherwise, the only dropsuit that can create a reliable RE trap is the logistics. (This also applies to Proximity Explosives) [...] I haven't read most of the posts in this thread, but I'll comment in the familiar areas. PLC ammo capacity is fine. Proposed direct damage increase seems a bit high considering splash, too. Would rather see 1000/1250/1500, or 1000,1375,1750 max. It won't be OP, but I don't think it's right just to buff direct damage and have splash be completely not proportional. Wasn't aware of the alarm system; still manage to kill tanks with them. I'm seeing a large number of maps where it's hard/not possible to see the PEs, especially the night maps. PEs hurt the most when a person doesn't expect them. Even in predictible patterns, PEs can be placed unpredictably. REs are fine. They're not just AV; there's also AI to consider. You sorta made me giggle when you said Logis were the only ones who can create a reliable RE trap. I was going to use that Installation...
Zaaeed Massani Mics Only Dust 6	Posted - 2014.02.17 22:15:00 - [74] - Quote NK Scout 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. Lol no.
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 3438	Posted - 2014.02.17 23:00:00 - [75] - Quote Patrick57 wrote: No. Actually yes, I agree with Atiim (for most of the things) The community is the worst thing that ever happened to this game. Tank driver // specialized tank destroyer
Alpha 443-6732 346	Posted - 2014.02.18 03:09:00 - [76] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Smooth Assassin wrote: Patrick57 wrote: No. Whats you're debate? What's your debate? You are immediately disqualified from debating for poor grammar. Seriously get out of here. #told
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4884	Posted - 2014.02.20 21:59:00 - [77] - Quote 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. Atiim (Gunnlogi - 80GJ Particle Cannon) Tank Scrub AFK No seriously. My lunch break's over now. :(
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4884	Posted - 2014.02.20 22:03:00 - [78] - Quote Samuel Zelik wrote: I haven't read most of the posts in this thread, but I'll comment in the familiar areas. PLC ammo capacity is fine. Proposed direct damage increase seems a bit high considering splash, too. Would rather see 1000/1250/1500, or 1000,1375,1750 max. It won't be OP, but I don't think it's right just to buff direct damage and have splash be completely not proportional. Wasn't aware of the alarm system; still manage to kill tanks with them. I'm seeing a large number of maps where it's hard/not possible to see the PEs, especially the night maps. PEs hurt the most when a person doesn't expect them. Even in predictible patterns, PEs can be placed unpredictably. REs are fine. They're not just AV; there's also AI to consider. You sorta made me giggle when you said Logis were the only ones who can create a reliable RE trap. Yes, but even if they are placed in a spot that you would least expect, they can't be placed where I can't drive. If anyone is looking at the ground, they will never die to them. Unless your friend drops a Nanohive or you are next to a Supply Depot, they are the only ones who can create a reliable trap. It takes more than 3-4 to kill an HAV, and if you need 2+ people then it is not reliable. Atiim (Gunnlogi - 80GJ Particle Cannon) Tank Scrub AFK No seriously. My lunch break's over now. :(
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1726	Posted - 2014.02.20 22:03:00 - [79] - 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 - [80] - 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 -_-

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7368	Posted - 2014.02.20 22:06:00 - [81] - 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. 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 turret 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! "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4886	Posted - 2014.02.20 22:10:00 - [82] - Quote 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! As it stands, a fitted STD LAV can sit through AV fire whilst still managing to eat a few kills. If newer LAVs are anything like the Logistics LAV, then there won't be much to worry about. 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? Atiim (Gunnlogi - 80GJ Particle Cannon) Tank Scrub AFK No seriously. My lunch break's over now. :(
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7368	Posted - 2014.02.20 22:12:00 - [83] - Quote 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. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4886	Posted - 2014.02.20 22:15:00 - [84] - Quote 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 Atiim (Gunnlogi - 80GJ Particle Cannon) Tank Scrub AFK No seriously. My lunch break's over now. :(
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1726	Posted - 2014.02.20 22:16:00 - [85] - 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 - [86] - 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 - [87] - 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 -_-
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4890	Posted - 2014.02.20 22:19:00 - [88] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: another clich+¬, low quality like farm thread, courtesy of atiim ccp will do what they will, reposting ideas with your signature on them is a waste of time Thank you for you clear, and straightforward contribution to the discussion at hand. Atiim (Gunnlogi - 80GJ Particle Cannon) Tank Scrub AFK No seriously. My lunch break's over now. :(
Killar-12 The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2378	Posted - 2014.02.20 22:21:00 - [89] - Quote Atiim wrote: Yes, I know that this topic has been discussed to death, revived, and then discussed to death many times over. But since everyone has deposited their .02 ISK into the V/AV bank, I figured I might as well too. Free from any parody or trolling: Atiim wrote: What I want for vehicles? Lower Ammo Count What's the point of having ammo if you have no need for re-supplying? Along with this, there should be an actual incentive to run an Ammunition module, and to skill into the Turret Ammunition skill. As it stands, I rarely ever have to resupply; and on the rare occasion that I do; I simply recall my tank and call it back in for 100% ammo However, Supply Depots need to be more prevalent on maps, and they need to be easily accessible by vehicles. And while we are at it, why not create a way to tell how much ammo your small turrets have? Agreed 100% Lowered Blaster Turret Range When I'm in my Blaster tank, I can easily and reliably kill infantry from about 120m (I'm not too familiar with the metric system, so please forgive me if this is off). If AVers aren't allowed to fire at vehicles with near impunity, then neither should vehicle pilots. Agreed 100% No Hardener Stacking I don't see how this was allowed in the first place. CCP's current Philosophy is "Waves of Opportunity." You shouldn't be allowed to have a never ending wave of opportunity, simply because your counter [AV] cannot extend their wave, nor make their wave indefinite. Agreed Relevant AV Weapons Swarm Launchers Increase direct damage to 270HP per Swarm. Increase lock range to 215m. However, since this is beyond rendering range I believe it would be fair if the vehicle pilot had an alarm system that alerts them if they are being locked onto beyond 175m. Countermeasures and Flares seems like a good idea as well. I'd rather see range to go up by more than 15m, maybe 250-300m total Plasma Cannons Increase Max Ammo count to 12. Increase direct damage to: 1320/1650/1980. (STD/ADV/PRO) It seems like a bit much, but it is a weapon that has a slow moving projectile, an arc, and only 1 round in the clip. It won't become overpowered against infantry like CCP fears simply because the only dropsuit that can survive a direct hit with an Allotek Plasma Cannon is a completely tanked out PRO heavy. Agreed 100% Proximity Explosives Remove the alarm system. you can already look down to see the explosives, and the trap is completely static. Unlike Jihad Jeeps that can follow you, a Proximity Explosive trap requires someone to predict where you are. If you aren't piloting in a predictable pattern, then Proximity Explosives won't affect you. Meh... Remote Explosives Increase Max. Carried amount. The total amount you can have active should be the total amount you can carry, just like other pieces of equipment. Otherwise, the only dropsuit that can create a reliable RE trap is the logistics. (This also applies to Proximity Explosives) RE's are fine Nerf Bolas This AV weapon is ridiculously overpowered against Dropships as it can OHK them regardless of their fitting.. I say reduce it's direct damage to 200HP. -HAND PS: Yes I know that buffing SL damage can make Dropships underpowered. However, I high;y believe that flares & countermeasures will prevent that from happening. Return Core Skills though, +25% or PG, CPU, Armor and Sheilds would be nice to get equal treatment. True, I agree about your Idea of re balancing the Large Blaster I'd say to lower Rail Tracking speed by 15-20% Listen I'll change the song every week
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4890	Posted - 2014.02.20 22:22:00 - [90] - Quote 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? Atiim (Gunnlogi - 80GJ Particle Cannon) Tank Scrub AFK No seriously. My lunch break's over now. :(

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]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.