DUST Search - Does AV need a damage buff?

All Channels

General Discussions

Does AV need a damage buff?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Seigfried Warheit Caught Me With My Pants Down 219	Posted - 2014.02.22 04:39:00 - [1] - Quote Don't kill me this is just a opinion...but I think AV damage is fine where it is at the issue with tanks is there is a very very short window of opportunity to apply its damage due to the passive reps,health boost, speed boost, and long hardened time. It didn't need all these buffs what tanks need was AV damage slightly reduced, price reduction, and to have their adv and proto variants out. Armor vehicles got more out of the update than shields did. That armor rep is the life of the tank and making it passive changed the playing field for armor vehicles .Having the armor rep a active module made the tanker picky when to use and where to engage fights and where to avoid fights because once that module was on cooldown that was its window of opportunity so avoiding ambushes was a priority. Even if hardened they were taking damage cause their reps weren't on and they were slower and were in line of fire for a lil longer. Now however armor tankers can go anywhere they want without much worry of ambush. Why? The health boost gave enough health to work with that armor modules were made obsolete and gave them the ability to focus on reps. Since there isn't a that much of drawback to reps they are stackable and can rep through most damage and with their speed they can exit the line of fire faster and with the long lasting hardeners with little stack penalty they can stay in ambushes and fights they wouldn't usually be able to be in and most likely kill all the AVers and anything else in their way. Except maybe another tank. Shield vehicles users heavily relied on shields and speed and that is what their modules mostly consist of. Once their shields got low shield boosters came on with hardeners engaged for a lil bit longer when the modules was nearly exhausted they bailed.The may have had armor rep to help survive just a lil longer. Most used overdrives. Now they use armor and armor reps instead cause that went in the trash although some did use that before. Im imaging adv/proto vehicles having more cpu/pg and more slots just a infantry dropsuit. Why use the higher tier dropsuits?So you can fit better stuff on it. That was a issue pre1.7 they couldn't protect themselves from adv/proto av with the limited cpu/pg they had.. they barely could with basic av. I focused mainly on armor tankers cause their playstyle changed drastically and were buffed the most out of the update. Shield tankers for the most part their playstyle stayed the same only issues is their hardeners are active too long and are overly speedy they rely on speed but they are too fast. Same could be said for dropships pilots but they are exposed to more danger , they don't really have cover and they get backhanded by railguns too often to experience what tankers are. Tl;Dr : This is a wall of text...Id run away
The Attorney General 2206	Posted - 2014.02.22 04:40:00 - [2] - Quote Swarms yes PLC yes FG no AV nades no REs maybe Proxies maybe Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Joel II X Dah Gods O Bacon 1261	Posted - 2014.02.22 06:06:00 - [3] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Swarms yes PLC yes FG no AV nades no REs maybe Proxies maybe AV nades yes. At least make it more efficient to armor. 3 packed to a tank without shields. My Plasma Cannon needs help against armor (but I believe the Cannon itself is balanced save for the numerous glitches that it has).
Obodiah Garro Tech Guard RISE of LEGION 660	Posted - 2014.02.22 06:14:00 - [4] - Quote Swarms need a lock range buff to say the least, dunno about dmg buff.
Cody Sietz Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2375	Posted - 2014.02.22 06:29:00 - [5] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Swarms yes PLC yes FG no AV nades no REs maybe Proxies maybe I though we were at odds? Agreed, except for REs And FG. REs are doing enough DMG(I run them a lot for anti-tank) and the non-Assault/breach FG need a small dmg buff. Maybe 5 percent. "I do agree with you there though. shudders" -Arkena Wyrnspire
Cody Sietz Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2375	Posted - 2014.02.22 06:31:00 - [6] - Quote Joel II X wrote: The Attorney General wrote: Swarms yes PLC yes FG no AV nades no REs maybe Proxies maybe AV nades yes. At least make it more efficient to armor. 3 packed to a tank without shields. My Plasma Cannon needs help against armor (but I believe the Cannon itself is balanced save for the numerous glitches that it has). I think AV nades need a bonus vs LAVs and DS "I do agree with you there though. shudders" -Arkena Wyrnspire
bogeyman m Learning Coalition College 120	Posted - 2014.02.22 06:49:00 - [7] - Quote Joel II X wrote: The Attorney General wrote: Swarms yes PLC yes FG no AV nades no REs maybe Proxies maybe AV nades yes. At least make it more efficient to armor. 3 packed to a tank without shields. My Plasma Cannon needs help against armor (but I believe the Cannon itself is balanced save for the numerous glitches that it has). If you haven't tried them, Packed AV 'nades make a big difference.
bogeyman m Learning Coalition College 120	Posted - 2014.02.22 06:56:00 - [8] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Swarms yes PLC yes FG no AV nades no REs maybe Proxies maybe Swarms - damage: small buff; lock distance: big buff; lock time: distance dependent; missile speed: small buff PLC - no opinion AV nades - no buff, but would like to see Hybrid (shield+armour) versions introduced REs - no buff PEs - small buff and remove warning alarm
MINA Longstrike 2Shitz 1Giggle 311	Posted - 2014.02.22 07:05:00 - [9] - Quote My thoughts are that damage on av is for the most part fine - survivability through movement is probably a bit too high though. Add one low to the madrugar and one high to the gunnlogi, give them back a bit of CPU and grid, tone down the effectiveness of armor / shield hardeners (shorter durations), reduce the effectiveness of damage mods (one active at a time), take 250-300dmg per shot off of rails, turn large armor reps back into activated modules while small armor reps remain passive. What this should do is create a situation where it is desireable to fit armor plates / shield extenders to your vehicles instead of stacking hardeners or damage mods - right now hardeners are largely more effective than hp increasing modules because damage is pretty wildly out of control on some weapons and if you don't have those hardeners you're liable to be two or threeshotted. If you extend the length that vehicles need to face each other on the field while simultaneously slowing them down a bit, you create a situation where infantry av has longer windows to engage their target. They might not always get a kill due to the larger health pool, but it will reward those who do coordinate with kills, while allowing the individual to potentially chase off tanks due to no more permahardening or crazy 350+hp/s passive reps.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1867	Posted - 2014.02.22 07:10:00 - [10] - Quote Randoms had little problem today destroying me. Seems like those not on the forums are far more intelligent, and better, at playing this game, than you lot are. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim



Pages: 1 :: [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.