| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
781
   |
Posted - 2014.03.06 18:33:00 -
[1] - Quote
With the formal release of the first 1.8 Dev Blog I was wondering what the context or light the CPM could shed on their interactions with CCP in reference to the new weapon introductions, damage mod changes, and generall TTK overhaul.
Broadly, I like the TTK steps and and trying to stay away from the precarious adjustments to weapon mechanics. I am a bit concerned, or at least curious, what the CPM & CCP believe the role of infantry AV should be in the game. The damage mod reduction was needed (although I would have preferred to just sharply increase the stacking penalty or CPU/PG requirement) but it does have a fairly significant effect on current AV systems available to infantry.
The new weapons appear to be nice additions to round out the sidearm arsenal and I'm quite interested in seeing them in action. Thoughts from the CPM on where these fit with the current weapons would be welcome.
Again...I'm trying to ellicit a discussion on how the CPM helped or what feedback was provided for this aspect of 1.8. I'll post up similiar threads for the equipment and dropsuit Dev Blogs when they are published.
Of course, comments for the CPM1 candidates are very welcome as well.
"Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
|
Soraya Xel
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
1622
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 18:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
I feel the changes for infantry vs. infantry are excellent. However, similarly to 1.7, where vehicles vs. vehicles was fixed, but at the expense of vehicles vs. infantry, I think vehicle vs. infantry balance will take a hit, unless more AV changes are announced before 1.8.
TTK badly needed to scale down. Between the weapon stats changes for the AR, RR, SCR, and CR, as well as the damage mod nerf, this should improve the situation drastically, and allow for more skill and gunplay in engagements. The damage mod nerf also massively brings down the difference between a militia suit and a proto suit overall in damage potential, and narrowing the gap between newbies and veterans is really good for the NPE.
The biggest issue though, is that the damage mod nerf, coupled with the already dismal state of AV, will be crippling if more adjustments aren't planned as well. Stacking damage mods is the only way to even make a slight dent in vehicles, and AV users are looking at a drop of 10-20% of their damage with this patch.
However, there are more dev blogs coming, and the patch notes are not out. Massive damage buffs to AV weapons could be planned for another dev blog about vehicle/AV damage, and I don't want to jump the gun and panic ahead of time.
I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
|
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
13260
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 19:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'll try to make this NDA friendly as possible.
One should note there is are a few goals with having a comfortable TTK.
One of which is being to bring meta back into the game. Making skill levels, modules, damage vs shields and armor, and how a players handle themselves in the game matter a bit more.
Unfortunately the indirect AV nerf blindsided the CPM mostly and despite the information being floated publically around without details AVers never fully protested enough to get most of our attention on this specific angle. This doesn't change the fact the CPM has known AV weapons were a bit under par and had been asking for a buff for their capabilities for a long while. With the advent of changes the damage mod nerf is now going to be another log in that fire at least in future conversations. There is however another conversation in the works relating to balance that the CPM will be pressing harder on that is more subjectively important than every balance issue ever combined. If that conversation comes through it should alleviate many of the balancing strifes.
The new weapons seem nice but despite having early preview it is still something that would almost requires hands on time to get a feel for and see how well they perform before we can fully comment on them.
Right now I do see quite a bit of the forum flack as noise as players are horrible at hiding their ambitions and most don't like the idea their toy is getting broken; other noise is generated by speculation. However one must continue to keep track of such noise for valid concerns such as the AV indirect nerf mentioned.
Hopefully the game will continue to move forward in addressing these issues as they come up. Balance may be never ending but hopefully we can make it less painful.
CPM 0 Secretary
Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist
\\= Advanced Caldari Assault // Unlocked
|
Kevall Longstride
DUST University
Ivy League
1047
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 21:04:00 -
[4] - Quote
Personally I'm delighted about the nerf to the Damage Modifiers. The jumps in damage output between meta levels have always been too large.
I've always said that I would've preferred if they were removed altogether and replaced with a damage type modifier (such as the ammo types in Eve. EM, Kinetic, Thermal & Explosive) but with the change to the proficiency skill as well as the nerf to damage output of the modifiers, I feel it's a good compromise.
It is however more than little concerning to me that the indirect nerf to AV wasn't noticed. Not by the CPM, it's not their job entirely for that sort of thing but for CCP to have not noticed and come up with a way of compensating for it internally before it came to the possible attention of the CPM. That to me is extremely troubling and indicates a woefully slipshod management of internal QA and play testing! I mean seriously, I feel that someone should hold their hand up on that at CCP and admit they royally screwed up on that one.
There should also be a very rapid response to how they are going to rectify it. Not doing so and hoping to fix it in 1.9 or even waiting till Fanfest 8 weeks away from now, just isn't acceptable. Tanks 514 will kill of your players enthusiasm long before that.
I also think that CCP should have nerfed the Rail Rifle by another 5 to 10% of its DPS. A near blanket nerf to all the rifles when the RR was OP at the old levels still makes it OP at the new levels.
As for the new weapons, I want to see how they play in the game before passing judgement. I'll be keeping a close eye on the Mag-sec however....
For the most part, while I listen to the concerns of players expressing dismay that their favourite toy is getting busted and i share some of them (the Gallente are getting boned again), I would prefer to see how they feel AFTER the patch comes out and compare it to how they felt about it before.
Mercenary Clone of Dennie Fleetfoot
CEO of DUST University
CPM1 candidate
|
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
781
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 21:47:00 -
[5] - Quote
I appreciate the commentary; this a nice practical discussion on how the CPM interacts with the Devs in realtion to updates to the game and where things may have over / under delivered.
The current state of AV vs Vehicles is concerning but ultimately I see several ways to address it that are quite feasible for the Dev team. I for one certainly don't mind HAVs being juggernauts on the battlefield BUT they need to clearly represent a significant ISK risk for the capability they bring. That is one of the hallmarks of New Eden...risk vs reward.
ps...I can't resist giving some good natured hate face to Kevall over his comments on the Rail Rifle. 
"Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
|
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
781
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 21:59:00 -
[6] - Quote
I appreciate the commentary; this a nice practical discussion on how the CPM interacts with the Devs in realtion to updates to the game and where things may have over / under delivered.
The current state of AV vs Vehicles is concerning but ultimately I see several ways to address it that are quite feasible for the Dev team. I for one certainly don't mind HAVs being juggernauts on the battlefield BUT they need to clearly represent a significant ISK risk for the capability they bring. That is one of the hallmarks of New Eden...risk vs reward.
One comment on "balance" and refactoring weapons and equipment that pertains to a long term concern I have with this game is one they are experiencing EVE side to a degree: being too balanced. Sounds odd, but you can get to the point where things have been "balanced" to the degree that they have all become vanilla and ultimatly mild variations of one another vice distinct options for the players. I don't think we are there yet but you could see how that path might form for Dust in the heated discussions over racial rifles and dropsuits.
ps...I can't resist giving some good natured hate face to Kevall over his comments on the Rail Rifle.
"Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
|
Canari Elphus
Ancient Exiles.
Renegade Alliance
1245
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 22:29:00 -
[7] - Quote
My concern is not for the changes to the game per se but how much it has been tested through by CCP for gameplay. This is usually where a lot of the problems occur because what may look good on paper may not be so great when the boots hit the ground.
- Are scouts going to be effective with the lower TTK? This is a class that relies on speed and surprise rather than EHP tank. Will they be able to use this to their advantage or will it just give bricks the chance to turn round and shred them?
- With no mention to an HMG nerf, will heavies be a little too powerful in CQC spots (especially when paired with a min logi)?
Canari Elphus for CPM1
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
2778
|
Posted - 2014.03.07 15:33:00 -
[8] - Quote
I had been optimistically anticipating a 12% (or there about) damage buff to Swarm Launchers as the 30% nerf in 1.7 had clearly gone too far.
Instead Swarm Launchers are getting a 5% to 12% damage nerf due to Damage Mod changes.
Swarm Launchers are getting a second Nerf to shield damage from changes to the Proficiency skill.
If Swarm Launchers were giving a 12% damage buff now, it would still be a Net Nerf.
We should also note that the Forge Gun which was generally considered to be balanced in 1.7 is also being nerfed by the Damage Mod and Proficiency changes.
Tank Spam made 1.7 the most frustrating patch since the Open Bata, but there was always the assumption that changes would be made to the V/AV balance in 1.8 to at least reduce the problem. How could CCP possibly drop the ball on this?
Since Swarm Launchers canGÇÖt target infantry, changes to the Swarm Launcher would not effect the TTK. Is there any chance that CCP can slip a Damage buff for the Swarm Launcher in at the last minute to mitigate the issue somewhat? A 5% buff to Forge Gun direct damage would be helpful as well.
And finally the AV grenade. If CCP reduced AV grenades from 3 to 2 and does not give them a damage buff when they were already considered under powered...
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Spartacus Dust
The-Legionnaires
The CORVOS
181
|
Posted - 2014.03.08 23:37:00 -
[9] - Quote
Tears from DAMAGE MODS seems to be a big deal with veterans, they are butt hurt about them getting reduced, I don't see it as a big deal, small percentages count especially when adding other support skills 2% In EVE the damage mod increases are very marginal. It also seems like people aren't happy with the AR nerf especially since the rail rifle is the go to gun these days anyway, I thought the AR was fine the way it was, it was OP a while back ago, but there was nothing wrong with it in 1.7 IMO
I'm happy with the introduction of new weapons, a teaser trailer would be nice to show us a little how they operate etc, and I hope they do that in the future as well :)
As a Mass Driver player, I can't complain about the BUFF :P
That's not to say it needed one though, since I was doing just fine, flux grenades and mass drivers, done.
The changes to AV suck, AV is an issue that needs to be looked at :/ I've never been happy with the fact that a Dropship can hide behind a building, or a tank can just speed near a wall and dodge them. :/
Twitter @Matthew_Dust
Candidate for the CPM1 One Universe//One War
|
Spectral Clone
Dust2Dust.
Top Men.
1595
|
Posted - 2014.03.10 07:52:00 -
[10] - Quote
I think the AV damage has to be hotfixed ASAP. CCP have changed weapon stats after patch before (Uprising 1.1 when they upped all damage on weapons by 10%). So I am guessing they dont have to change anything in the code to do it. Perhaps just update their database?
Fix it already.
Drop it like its hat.
|
|
|
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
1657
|
Posted - 2014.03.10 12:39:00 -
[11] - Quote
Spectral Clone wrote:I think the AV damage has to be hotfixed ASAP. CCP have changed weapon stats after patch before (Uprising 1.1 when they upped all damage on weapons by 10%). So I am guessing they dont have to change anything in the code to do it. Perhaps just update their database?
Fix it already.
I think they can, although the numbers on everyone's clients are then wrong until the next patch. And they haven't shown a willingness to do it in a long time. They could've refactored out their ability to do it though. Just depends on things.
I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
|
Canari Elphus
Ancient Exiles.
Renegade Alliance
1248
|
Posted - 2014.03.10 13:21:00 -
[12] - Quote
I think swarm and av damage is fine if they just fixed the ability for tanks to run rotating hardeners or dual reps constantly. Vehicles desperately need capacitors as this would reduce the use of these tactics and really give a 'window of opportunity' that infantry was supposed to get.
Modifying straight damage will never truly balance vehicles and infantry as it will always lean one way or the other.
Canari Elphus for CPM1
|
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
796
|
Posted - 2014.03.10 14:31:00 -
[13] - Quote
Canari Elphus wrote:I think swarm and av damage is fine if they just fixed the ability for tanks to run rotating hardeners or dual reps constantly. Vehicles desperately need capacitors as this would reduce the use of these tactics and really give a 'window of opportunity' that infantry was supposed to get.
Modifying straight damage will never truly balance vehicles and infantry as it will always lean one way or the other.
I think you are onto the meat of the issue.
We all want vehicles to be a value add to the game and provide some serious tactical scenarios for players. To that end i think there are couple points we can all agree on:
1) HAVs should reflect the ISK risk vs reward structure. Most of us have non-PC quality drop suits that easily cost more than many of the HAVs running around.
2) Actually provide the described "waves of opportunity". HAVs shouldn't be able to run hardeners near constantly or rep / harden through an Orbital Strike. As Canari noted, the damage is probably fine, but there is no real opportunity to use the existing AV weapons between hardener cycles, speed of HAVs / Dropships, and the current Swarm Lock range, lock time, and slow missile speed. High end forges are still viable but situational and requires a more significant investment of SP and ISK (weapon and suit) whereas the infamous militia tank requires none of that.
"Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
|
Canari Elphus
Ancient Exiles.
Renegade Alliance
1249
|
Posted - 2014.03.10 15:40:00 -
[14] - Quote
Jaysyn Larrisen wrote:Canari Elphus wrote:I think swarm and av damage is fine if they just fixed the ability for tanks to run rotating hardeners or dual reps constantly. Vehicles desperately need capacitors as this would reduce the use of these tactics and really give a 'window of opportunity' that infantry was supposed to get.
Modifying straight damage will never truly balance vehicles and infantry as it will always lean one way or the other. I think you are onto the meat of the issue. We all want vehicles to be a value add to the game and provide some serious tactical scenarios for players. To that end i think there are couple points we can all agree on: 1) HAVs should reflect the ISK risk vs reward structure. Most of us have non-PC quality drop suits that easily cost more than many of the HAVs running around. 2) Actually provide the described "waves of opportunity". HAVs shouldn't be able to run hardeners near constantly or rep / harden through an Orbital Strike. As Canari noted, the damage is probably fine, but there is no real opportunity to use the existing AV weapons between hardener cycles, speed of HAVs / Dropships, and the current Swarm Lock range, lock time, and slow missile speed. High end forges are still viable but situational and requires a more significant investment of SP and ISK (weapon and suit) whereas the infamous militia tank requires none of that.
Agreed... The premise that CCP is going for with HAVs is good, they just need to work on he execution more. I like the idea of them being used for 'pushes' against enemy but that isnt the case right now. They can just sit and 'tank' most damage thrown at them without ever needing to withdraw. When they do, they are fast enough that infantry cannot take advantage of it.
I do not think that swarms need a damage buff but I would be happy with one of the following:
- large clip size
- more range
- faster missiles
Honestly, I would lean more towards faster missiles as that would give them some use against dropships that can easily outrun them right now. As stated, swarms are extremely niche as they have no damage against infantry so they need to have some all around punch versus vehicles. If they get too powerful damage wise though, then they can be OP and imbalanced against either tanks or dropships and we are back to making one group happy over the other.
A weapon's bonus should be based on its use.
The Forge is a LOS weapon that is going to be facing vehicles when they are probably at their most powerful. It should have the ability to make them withdraw through direct damage without being powerful enough to instapop a standard tank in 2-3 shots
The Swarm is a tracking weapon that is going to be about taking advantage of vehicles that are withdrawing and at their weakest. It should be used for chasing down vehicles so its focus should be on range and/or speed rather than pure damage.
Canari Elphus for CPM1
|
Judge Rhadamanthus
Amarr Templar One
1580
|
Posted - 2014.03.11 22:22:00 -
[15] - Quote
I'm not on the list of candidates in this forum, but even so; but this seemed a good place to ask this question. You all mention vehicles and AV. Many complain about swarms. How much damage do swarms do now? and what change to damage would you make if any?
Everything Dropship youtube channel
my Community Spotlight
|
Kevall Longstride
DUST University
Ivy League
1057
|
Posted - 2014.03.11 22:36:00 -
[16] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:I'm not on the list of candidates in this forum, but even so; but this seemed a good place to ask this question. You all mention vehicles and AV. Many complain about swarms. How much damage do swarms do now? and what change to damage would you make if any?
Of the top of my head I believe its 300 HP per missile.
As to any change other than a DPS buff, I don't like the tracking mechanic for them at all. I'd have them act like a javelin missile does in real life. Fly to a predetermined height then fast straight and true to their target. It would still give the opportunity for LAV HAV and Dropships use terrain and structure for cover but get rid of the wasteful and ridiculous notion of having missiles slamming into a slight hill or incline.
Mercenary Clone of Dennie Fleetfoot
CEO of DUST University
CPM1 candidate
|
Canari Elphus
Ancient Exiles.
Renegade Alliance
1250
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 01:18:00 -
[17] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:I'm not on the list of candidates in this forum, but even so; but this seemed a good place to ask this question. You all mention vehicles and AV. Many complain about swarms. How much damage do swarms do now? and what change to damage would you make if any?
I pretty much posted my thoughts on swarm changes above. I dont think they should have a damage buff because of their functionality. I honestly think that what they need is a boost to flight time. They should not be more effective killers due to dps but they should be effective to drive away vehicles or make them pay if they are out in the open too long.
The issue isnt so much with AV as it is with vehicle modules. Ive seen ADS' tank proto swarms quite easily and, if they take enough damage, simply fly away because they can outrun the missiles.
Its all a very tricky subject because you have players that are career vehicle users due to how skill intensive it is. This presents the issue that you have something that is a very effective killer in terms of tanks and dropships that cannot simply rule the battlefield but still has to be a viable career path for players. The main issue is when it comes to pub matches, you are never guaranteed that there will be an effective balance of vehicles on both sides or dedicated AV to deal with it. This is especially true in Ambush where there is very little chance to swap out suits at a depot. In an ideal world, you would have vehicles facing off against other vehicles.
Sadly, there is no quick fix to the situation that would not require a large overhaul to the game. Some options would be:
- Large player counts in matches to justify dedicated AV teams
- A 'mobile depot' type of equipment or vehicle module that would not give ammo but allow for a limited number of times players could swap out their suits
- More complex maps that are more similar to the Research Outpost where there are areas of cover against vehciles
Canari Elphus for CPM1
|
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
802
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 01:56:00 -
[18] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:I'm not on the list of candidates in this forum, but even so; but this seemed a good place to ask this question. You all mention vehicles and AV. Many complain about swarms. How much damage do swarms do now? and what change to damage would you make if any?
As noted above, the raw damage is probably fine. Missile flight time and lock-on range probably need to be increased a fair touch to even things up as a baseline.
I do have a thought that you could perhaps create an Anti-air swarm variant that his longer lock on time but significantly increased range; again faster missile flight time is required. Other variants could be a very short range, higher damage model to change things up. Additionally, having something that can effectively engage a shield tanked vehicle is pretty key as well...but that might be a bridge too far at the moment.
To be clear, I'm in favor of minor touches and adjustments...even if it takes a patch or too to get this right.
"Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1799
|
Posted - 2014.03.13 09:01:00 -
[19] - Quote
As you know I have expressed my frustration with the rapid inflation of damage of infantry weapons in the game for a very long time. As damage grows to such extreme values, it decreases the value of other important factors such as health, speed, and general tactics. The nerf to damage and specifically damage mods has been long needed and I am happy to see it finally come. However, things often look great on paper but are quite different in practice, so I'll save any final judgement on the issue until I see it in action at 1.8's launch.
However I will agree that a further decrease to the effectiveness of AV weapons is very irresponsible, especially for Swarm Launchers. Options breed ingenuity, and unfortunately AV weapons have been very lacking in viable options for far too long. I believe that much like EVE, missiles should come in all shapes and sizes. For example, short range missiles that do high damage for burst damage, to lower damage long range high-velocity missiles for continual long range bombardments. I believe that this paired with a general increase to the damage dealt would be appropriate, though exact amounts will need to be determined once we are able to test these weapons under the new damage values.
Rising Dust - Dust514 Training Video
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
2793
|
Posted - 2014.03.13 23:42:00 -
[20] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:I'm not on the list of candidates in this forum, but even so; but this seemed a good place to ask this question. You all mention vehicles and AV. Many complain about swarms. How much damage do swarms do now? and what change to damage would you make if any?
In 1.6 Swarms did 330 damage per missile. Range was 400m.
Standard 4x330 = 1320
Advanced 5x330 = 1650
Proto+ 6x330 = 1980
In 1.7 swarms do 220 damage per missile. (a nerf of 33%) Range is 175m.
Standard 4x220 = 880
Advanced 5x220 = 1100
Proto+ 6x220 = 1320 (Same as the free starter fit swarm in 1.6)
I was asking for a 12% buff to damage and range.
So I wanted 250 damage per missile and 200m range.
Standard 4x330 = 1000
Advanced 5x330 = 1250
Proto+ 6x330 = 1500
If this 12% buff was applied now it would mean that a 3 Damage mod AV fit would do the same damage in 1.8 as a no Damage mod fit does now in 1.7.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
|
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
2793
|
Posted - 2014.03.13 23:49:00 -
[21] - Quote
Jaysyn Larrisen wrote:Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:I'm not on the list of candidates in this forum, but even so; but this seemed a good place to ask this question. You all mention vehicles and AV. Many complain about swarms. How much damage do swarms do now? and what change to damage would you make if any? As noted above, the raw damage is probably fine. Missile flight time and lock-on range probably need to be increased a fair touch to even things up as a baseline. I do have a thought that you could perhaps create an Anti-air swarm variant that his longer lock on time but significantly increased range; again faster missile flight time is required. Other variants could be a very short range, higher damage model to change things up. Additionally, having something that can effectively engage a shield tanked vehicle is pretty key as well...but that might be a bridge too far at the moment. To be clear, I'm in favor of minor touches and adjustments...even if it takes a patch or two to get this right.
I like the idea of a long range/lower damage anti air variant, and a short range/high damage anti/armor variant.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Judge Rhadamanthus
Amarr Templar One
1618
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 00:01:00 -
[22] - Quote
We have to tread carefully here Fox. I pulled my last swarm video today from you tube after reading this thread so i can make the swarm issues and vehicle balance clearer, as there seems to be a real need for knowledge on this topic.
I'll repost the video tomorrow. But there seems to be almost no knowledge about swarms and the 55% efficiency against dropships and how this really makes balancing vehicles extremely tricky. There also seems to be some slight of hand going on when we get to armour after going through the shields. This detail makes many suggestions on swarm balance of no use if this is not considered.
Everything Dropship youtube channel
my Community Spotlight
|
Canari Elphus
Ancient Exiles.
Renegade Alliance
1256
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 00:29:00 -
[23] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:We have to tread carefully here Fox. I pulled my last swarm video today from you tube after reading this thread so i can make the swarm issues and vehicle balance clearer, as there seems to be a real need for knowledge on this topic. I'll repost the video tomorrow. But there seems to be almost no knowledge about swarms and the 55% efficiency against dropships and how this really makes balancing vehicles extremely tricky. There also seems to be some slight of hand going on when we get to armour after going through the shields. This detail makes many suggestions on swarm balance of no use if this is not considered. I modeled your 250 per missile 1.8 damage mod x3 engagement. This is the Incubus (top end) result. Looks like a 7 shot kill. But that based on a bug we have now. Ill remodel tomorrow to see how it works out if the bug is fixed The beige bar on the 3D graph is the shots to kill. When it hits the axis the ADS is dead. When the red hits the axis, the swarmer is dead.
I cannot see the wording on that image Judge, even when I try to zoom in. I just know, first hand, that it is extremely hard to kill or even deter an ADS with swarms. And this is coming from someone who is proto with prof 3 and 2 complex damage on the suit. I have hit a volley dead on and only saw about a 10% drop in shields. When I took fire from the missile turret, I had to play peek-a-boo with the ship which only gave more time for the harders to cool down. My suit would easily be 2-3 shotted from the ship so there was almost no chance for an engagement where I could drive it away, let alone kill it. That also doesnt take into account that, should I have started making a dent, it could easily have disengaged and bugged out with my swarms not being able to keep up.
I am an amateur militia dropship pilot and, even with no skills into it, the only thing I really fear is a railgun or a good forge gunner.
Canari Elphus for CPM1
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
2793
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 00:32:00 -
[24] - Quote
I was not aware of the 55% efficiency against dropships, although I can understand why a dropship might need some sort of additional protection against a weapons balanced to take out heavily armored Tanks.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Judge Rhadamanthus
Amarr Templar One
1631
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 11:42:00 -
[25] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:I was not aware of the 55% efficiency against dropships, although I can understand why a dropship might need some sort of additional protection against a weapons balanced to take out heavily armored Tanks.
I am not surprised Almost no-one I meet knows about it. Its actually 25%. 20% comes from the shields resistance to explosives...well ..maybe..his is where It gets a bit odd hence the video. Which I am still fixing. This was my point and why I made the video.
There is talk in this thread by people about balancing and talking about swarms but they use the word vehicle when they mean HAV or talk about damage when they should be looking at resistance and innates. Try making suggestions based on this confusing use of language and not mentioning the real areas where the issues lie could lead to errors.
Hence the video to try help people understand the nuance of the swarm and av balance issues.
Everything Dropship youtube channel
my Community Spotlight
|
Judge Rhadamanthus
Amarr Templar One
1631
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 11:46:00 -
[26] - Quote
Canari Elphus wrote:I cannot see the wording on that image Judge, even when I try to zoom in.
You are not supposed to be able to. Just look at the colours. When the 3D beige bars hits the lower axis, the dropship is dead. Each little back mark is a hit. I can produce all sorts of detail is needed, but I may be pushing the communities tolerance for charts limits with my videos as it is.
It was just a quick chart to show that that change from 220 to 250 makes a 22% or so TTK difference. Thats a big change.
Everything Dropship youtube channel
my Community Spotlight
|
Judge Rhadamanthus
Amarr Templar One
1631
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 11:54:00 -
[27] - Quote
Canari Elphus wrote:...... I just know, first hand...... I have hit a volley dead on and only saw about a 10% drop in shields.....
"I Just know" and "about" are terms we do not, and must not, use when talking balance.
Everything Dropship youtube channel
my Community Spotlight
|
Canari Elphus
Ancient Exiles.
Renegade Alliance
1262
|
Posted - 2014.03.15 15:43:00 -
[28] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:Canari Elphus wrote:...... I just know, first hand...... I have hit a volley dead on and only saw about a 10% drop in shields..... "I Just know" and "about" are terms we do not, and must not, use when talking balance.
By no means was I using what I said as a basis for balance. It was merely a subjective remark based on what I have seen in game. I would hope that CCP has the actual game data to analyze actual engagements to see what happens during the course of a fight with infantry versus dropships. From my experience with swarms mainly and dropships lightly, I would say that rails and forges are a much bigger threat to dropships than swarms.
Swarms are the only 'AV' weapon that has no impact against infantry (aside from av grenades) and yet they are the least preferred to engage vehicles.
Personally, I think they need to be completely rethought out as a weapon. It would almost be cool to have them be like a Javelin type setup (as said before) that is carried by a logi but requires two people to use it..
Logi drops 'equipment' ... takes X amount of seconds to setup using the interact button. One merc paints the target while the other fires the missile. The painter has to keep on target the entire time for the missile to hit but, when it does, it deals massive damage. When the missile is fired, the pilot (HAV or DS) gets a warning pop up. That gives them x amount of seconds depending on the missiles flight time. If the pilot can break the LOS of the painter, the missile will fly straight based on the last known coordinates.
Canari Elphus for CPM1
|
CommanderBolt
ACME SPECIAL FORCES
RISE of LEGION
1045
|
Posted - 2014.03.16 10:57:00 -
[29] - Quote
I have a very simple suggestion and hope you guys can see my logic.
Could we have 2 separate types of swarms / missile launchers?
1. - The current one we have that is Anti Tank / Anti ground vehicle.
and
2- A new second type of missile launcher that is predominately anti air?
I'm thinking of how other games like battlefield handle this and while I dont wish for DUST to be a direct copy of Battlefield, I do believe in this regard an AA missile launcher might be just what we need. Of course then this new launcher can be balanced properly VS aircraft (Aircraft of all types too including possible future fighters and such)
What do you guys think?
Join our public channel -
ACME SPECIAL FORCES PUB
ZERG EVENT 1MILLION CLONES! LETS DO THIS
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
2795
|
Posted - 2014.03.17 18:16:00 -
[30] - Quote
Well, hopefully CCP will do something about the AV balance in the next patch after 1.8. In preparation for that debate I have created a Tank alt, so I can gain some experience and perspective on the other side of the argument.
I thought I was completely horrible at tanking, from trying the default Sica fit with no skills, but once I trained Large Rail Turret to 5, I was no longer horrible. That turret rotation speed bonus makes all the difference in the world. It sort of shoots down the argument that Melita tanks are an AV choice available to anyone. Without full turret skills, anyone in a militia tank is a sitting duck against other tanks.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |