DUST Search - With the current nerf to firge guns...

All Channels

General Discussions

With the current nerf to firge guns...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2018	Posted - 2014.03.18 04:04:00 - [31] - Quote True Adamance wrote: The Robot Devil wrote: True Adamance wrote: The Robot Devil wrote: Dheez wrote: Swarm Launchers should also be given back their previous lock on range. No, they need to add modules that improve AV and add a suit that is bonused towards AV. Similarly, vehicles need to be nerfed slightly and introduce a pilot suit to buff them back up. MORE everything is the answer not constant buff/nerf cycles. Indeed I see your point. However the issue with AV is that AV cannot be something that is abused by players to kill HAVers by ensuring that they never have to enter the Tanks engagement range. For example. Pre 1.7 a tanks engagement range was determined my rendering which was poor and stopped at 50-60m. Swarms had massive range over that threshold and were able to engage with high DPS auto locking, and home missiles which quickly would cripple any and all vehicles on the map, with no risk to the AVer. I prefer swarm engagement ranges this build. It ensure that my enemy has to be engageable, not a tiny figure on top of a mountain strafing for days. However I can appreciate that not all AVers like this. However I stand by and defend a need for overlapping zones of engagement. As such I disagree with increasing swarm locks back to 1.6 levels...however a slight change could be tastefully implemented and tested. The improvement to AV from modules don't need to be game breaking but they do need to reward the AV dedicated merc. To me the reward for specialization should be noticeable but not to the point where is discourages good pilots with well planned fits from calling in the vehicles. I don't pilot anything in DUST and I rarely enter vehicles because it is boring to me, I say that to say this, I like where vehicles are at right now. I don't want to be able to solo a vehicle easily, I can and have solo vehicles a good bit. Especially HAVs because the pilot is cocky and feels like they can run roughshod over infantry. When I soloed a HAV it is always because the pilot didn't make wise choices. I feel like it should take at least two mercs that are highly skilled in AV to be able to destroy a HAV before the pilot has a chance to escape. People act like the HAVs are too fast but show me a vehicle in a modern army that doesn't do at least 20-MPH over rough terrain. Scouts already run at almost 17 MPH so a vehicle should be faster. Vehicles are in a decent spot but I would recommend a 30% (just throwing out a number) nerf and add a pilot suit that buffs 25% at level five. I totally agree with you that if AV is too powerful then vehicles won't have a chance and we need to slowly tweak them to make work well for good pilots but be an ISK/SP sink to anyone else. I am not a game designer so it is difficult to for me to put forth an educated suggestion. My point is that specialization should be rewarding in both AV and piloting. Right now HAVs are OP to a single merc or a few unskilled mercs but not to two high skilled AV guys but I think it should be that way, maybe not for militia but ever other tier should be. CCP is trying to work it out but the variables involved are complex and it takes tons of data to arrive at a balanced solution. Hmmmm weapon modifications are fine as I see it as long they do not drastically affect or modify a weapons intended role of natural characteristics. I will post here in more depth when I get back home.....but point is I am willing and supportive of discussion that allows us to develop a means of customising our weapons and altering their basic utilities as long as those do no drastically alter the functionality of that weapon, and as long as the modules come with draw backs. +100 "One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production." Raoul Duke
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8349	Posted - 2014.03.18 04:04:00 - [32] - Quote Tectonic Fusion wrote: The Robot Devil wrote: [quote=True Adamance][quote=The Robot Devil][quote=Dheez]When I soloed a HAV it is always because the pilot didn't make wise choices. Also if it's a militia tank they are easy to kill. But if they are double or triple hardened they are European extreme mode even if you have 3 dedicated forge gunners. You kind of have to consider MLT HAV the unofficial Standard AV, and Maddy/ Gunlogi the unofficial adv tanks. It still pisses me off that players can drive MLT tanks and be essentially as effective as an invested tanker. MLT HAV are not just a thorne in Avers side. I hate them too. " ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters" - Malleus Malificorum
Rynoceros Rise Of Old Dudes 3177	Posted - 2014.03.18 04:08:00 - [33] - Quote Mer ferjizz! Derm mudda trukkaz needses ter gerrmee berk mer DeezPeeceSesases ern splersheres. I GÖú Kittens.
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2018	Posted - 2014.03.18 04:18:00 - [34] - Quote Tectonic Fusion wrote: The Robot Devil wrote: [quote=True Adamance][quote=The Robot Devil][quote=Dheez]When I soloed a HAV it is always because the pilot didn't make wise choices. Also if it's a militia tank they are easy to kill. But if they are double or triple hardened they are European extreme mode even if you have 3 dedicated forge gunners. European Extreme is the only game mode that I can't beat MGS on. I can do anything in any of those games on any level except European Extreme. That **** is very, very, very difficult. I digress, I am not saying that vehicles don't need some tweaks but we should be very, very careful on how we progress with AV vs vehicles. Now they are very close to be pretty balanced. Yeah triple hardeners are difficult but if I alone can keep a triple hardened HAV at half shields/armor with advanced PLC/proxs and nades then they aren't that bad. My downfall is always that I am almost the only merc actively trying. Yes it sucks to have to have three mercs fighting one HAV but they pop fast or flee if more than one person tries. The problem is teamwork and specialization, we shouldn't punish pilots because we don't work together. If every merc put prox mines out in well traveled areas then vehicles wouldn't be a problem at all. We need to understand and respect that others play the game differently and we should be able to adapt to and overcome those styles. it may be difficult but it should be because if it is easy it isn't fun and it doesn't give that feeling of accomplishment when we succeed. "One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production." Raoul Duke
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone 856	Posted - 2014.03.18 04:25:00 - [35] - Quote Honestly, HAVs are where they should be. The problem is the implementation of vehicle modules. There is no "wave of opportunity" if they can permaharden their vehicles. In order to fix this, they need to all have the same uptime and cooldown as you go through the tiers. Let's give them all militia uptime and cooldowns for this. Then, increase their bonuses as you go up the tiers. Hardeners will get more resistance, scanners will have better precision, damage mods will give more damage. But they will all have a long cooldown where they can't be used. 1. Standardize all modules with the same uptime and cooldown in each of their categories. Shield hardeners will all share a cooldown time, damage mods will share a cooldown time, etc. 2. Make module effectiveness increase through the tiers. Shield hardeners would be 60%/70%/80% as you go through the tiers. Best PVE idea I've seen.
Henrietta Unknown Sooper Speshul Ponee Fors Dropsuit Samurai 41	Posted - 2014.03.18 04:25:00 - [36] - Quote Strange how Militia swarms do considerable damage to Turret Installations, close to the damage output of a forge gun, but do nothing to tanks. Railgun installations are useless against tanks up close, but can be potentially lethal to an unsuspecting MLT railgun tank perched on a vulnerable outcrop. The cycle continues...
Tectonic Fusion 1260	Posted - 2014.03.18 04:28:00 - [37] - Quote The Robot Devil wrote: European Extreme is the only game mode that I can't beat MGS on. Actually it's easy I didn't read anything past what you said here Solo Player Squad status: Locked
Rusty Shallows 1142	Posted - 2014.03.18 04:30:00 - [38] - Quote Patrlck 56 wrote: Where can one find this Forge Gun nerf? :3 On the off chance you are serious last December we had the Uprising 1.7 patch. CCP basically nerfed all Infantry AV into junk while simultaneously buffing vehicles. In short a repeat disaster of Uprising 1.0 but in a more limited group. What stings is we had a reassurance they were going to be more careful with nerfing but in the end every nerf was demanded by a select group of people on the forums. So not only was no effort put into game design but we were lied to. I use to liked Forge Guns. Unfortunately they changes in the game since Chromosome to now made whatever place they had awkward. Increases in LAV speeds and the old brick-tanked-HAV over a year ago pretty much forced people to the assault variant. When only one (Ishukone Assault Forge) is combat effective then there is something wrong with the entire class. If the Devs were using them in games they would have noticed this. Or at the very least it would have been obvious nerfing the charging time was the worst decission possible. The entire class needs a complete redesign from the ground up. Without Assault or Breach variants. Or just remove them from the game. Frankly I care more about the wasted SP. Also what the O.P. said, buff Swarms Launchers. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
Tectonic Fusion 1261	Posted - 2014.03.18 04:32:00 - [39] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: Patrlck 56 wrote: Where can one find this Forge Gun nerf? :3 On the off chance you are serious last December we had the Uprising 1.7 patch. CCP basically nerfed all Infantry AV into junk while simultaneously buffing vehicles. In short a repeat disaster of Uprising 1.0 but in a more limited group. What stings is we had a reassurance they were going to be more careful with nerfing but in the end every nerf was demanded by a select group of people on the forums. So not only was no effort put into game design but we were lied to. I use to liked Forge Guns. Unfortunately they changes in the game since Chromosome to now made whatever place they had awkward. Increases in LAV speeds and the old brick-tanked-HAV over a year ago pretty much forced people to the assault variant. When only one (Ishukone Assault Forge) is combat effective then there is something wrong with the entire class. If the Devs were using them in games they would have noticed this. Or at the very least it would have been obvious nerfing the charging time was the worst decission possible. The entire class needs a complete redesign from the ground up. Without Assault or Breach variants. Or just remove them from the game. Frankly I care more about the wasted SP. Also what the O.P. said, buff Swarms Launchers. Actually I was talking about damage mods.........but that's true too! Solo Player Squad status: Locked
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8350	Posted - 2014.03.18 04:34:00 - [40] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: Patrlck 56 wrote: Where can one find this Forge Gun nerf? :3 On the off chance you are serious last December we had the Uprising 1.7 patch. CCP basically nerfed all Infantry AV into junk while simultaneously buffing vehicles. In short a repeat disaster of Uprising 1.0 but in a more limited group. What stings is we had a reassurance they were going to be more careful with nerfing but in the end every nerf was demanded by a select group of people on the forums. So not only was no effort put into game design but we were lied to. I use to liked Forge Guns. Unfortunately they changes in the game since Chromosome to now made whatever place they had awkward. Increases in LAV speeds and the old brick-tanked-HAV over a year ago pretty much forced people to the assault variant. When only one (Ishukone Assault Forge) is combat effective then there is something wrong with the entire class. If the Devs were using them in games they would have noticed this. Or at the very least it would have been obvious nerfing the charging time was the worst decission possible. The entire class needs a complete redesign from the ground up. Without Assault or Breach variants. Or just remove them from the game. Frankly I care more about the wasted SP. Also what the O.P. said, buff Swarms Launchers. Infantry AV is most certainly not useless. " ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters" - Malleus Malificorum

The Robot Devil Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2019	Posted - 2014.03.18 04:43:00 - [41] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Honestly, HAVs are where they should be. The problem is the implementation of vehicle modules. There is no "wave of opportunity" if they can permaharden their vehicles. In order to fix this, they need to all have the same uptime and cooldown as you go through the tiers. Let's give them all militia uptime and cooldowns for this. Then, increase their bonuses as you go up the tiers. Hardeners will get more resistance, scanners will have better precision, damage mods will give more damage. But they will all have a long cooldown where they can't be used. 1. Standardize all modules with the same uptime and cooldown in each of their categories. Shield hardeners will all share a cooldown time, damage mods will share a cooldown time, etc. 2. Make module effectiveness increase through the tiers. Shield hardeners would be 60%/70%/80% as you go through the tiers. The "wave of opportunity" is in the competence of the pilots who drive the vehicle, good pilots should be rewarded with staying power but not indestructible. As they are they can be destroyed with coordinated attacks and skilled AV mercs. Spending SP should give diminishing rewards with higher tiers only offering small buffs to the module used. I do agree that the modules seem a little strong sometimes but I think it is more pilot experience than module effectiveness. I read in a post once that being able to turn off a module should be removed and then a good pilot replied that if a pilot isn't turning off the module to put into cool down early then they are doing it wrong. This, to me, is the sign of a good pilot and the one asking for the removal probably isn't up to snuff. Good pilots need to be rewarded and poor pilots should see their ISK and SP go up in a cloud of smoke. "One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production." Raoul Duke
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2019	Posted - 2014.03.18 04:47:00 - [42] - Quote Tectonic Fusion wrote: The Robot Devil wrote: European Extreme is the only game mode that I can't beat MGS on. Actually it's easy I didn't read anything past what you said here I consider myself to be pretty good at MGS and if you say it is easy then I tip my hat to you because the word EXTREME tends to state otherwise. Either way those are some of the best games ever put on the market. Of course I was trying to do it with no kills through the entire game. Zero kills is the only way I will play now because killing is easy, maybe I should switch to the red gun. "One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production." Raoul Duke
Rusty Shallows 1142	Posted - 2014.03.18 04:52:00 - [43] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: Patrlck 56 wrote: Where can one find this Forge Gun nerf? :3 On the off chance you are serious last December we had the Uprising 1.7 patch. CCP basically nerfed all Infantry AV into junk while simultaneously buffing vehicles. In short a repeat disaster of Uprising 1.0 but in a more limited group. What stings is we had a reassurance they were going to be more careful with nerfing but in the end every nerf was demanded by a select group of people on the forums. So not only was no effort put into game design but we were lied to. I use to liked Forge Guns. Unfortunately they changes in the game since Chromosome to now made whatever place they had awkward. Increases in LAV speeds and the old brick-tanked-HAV over a year ago pretty much forced people to the assault variant. When only one (Ishukone Assault Forge) is combat effective then there is something wrong with the entire class. If the Devs were using them in games they would have noticed this. Or at the very least it would have been obvious nerfing the charging time was the worst decission possible. The entire class needs a complete redesign from the ground up. Without Assault or Breach variants. Or just remove them from the game. Frankly I care more about the wasted SP. Also what the O.P. said, buff Swarms Launchers. Infantry AV is most certainly not useless. The exact same could be argued vehicles pre-1.7 but that doesn't mean they were in a good place then any more than Infantry AV is now. As far as I'm concerned things haven't been right for all of Uprising. We just have a new set of problems that aren't any better than the last. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2019	Posted - 2014.03.18 04:54:00 - [44] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: True Adamance wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: Patrlck 56 wrote: Where can one find this Forge Gun nerf? :3 On the off chance you are serious last December we had the Uprising 1.7 patch. CCP basically nerfed all Infantry AV into junk while simultaneously buffing vehicles. In short a repeat disaster of Uprising 1.0 but in a more limited group. What stings is we had a reassurance they were going to be more careful with nerfing but in the end every nerf was demanded by a select group of people on the forums. So not only was no effort put into game design but we were lied to. I use to liked Forge Guns. Unfortunately they changes in the game since Chromosome to now made whatever place they had awkward. Increases in LAV speeds and the old brick-tanked-HAV over a year ago pretty much forced people to the assault variant. When only one (Ishukone Assault Forge) is combat effective then there is something wrong with the entire class. If the Devs were using them in games they would have noticed this. Or at the very least it would have been obvious nerfing the charging time was the worst decission possible. The entire class needs a complete redesign from the ground up. Without Assault or Breach variants. Or just remove them from the game. Frankly I care more about the wasted SP. Also what the O.P. said, buff Swarms Launchers. Infantry AV is most certainly not useless. The exact same could be argued vehicles pre-1.7 but that doesn't mean they were in a good place then any more than Infantry AV is now. As far as I'm concerned things haven't been right for all of Uprising. We just have a new set of problems that aren't any better than the last. I don't agree but I can see why you say that. "One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production." Raoul Duke
Mobius Wyvern Ahrendee Mercenaries General Tso's Alliance 4818	Posted - 2014.03.18 04:54:00 - [45] - Quote Tectonic Fusion wrote: I think they need a 15-20% damage buff. Why will they not be OP? Because of the LOLcharge time and no ADS and blaster will still out DPS us. EDIT: Damage nerf is GEYYYYYYYY!!! Also buff swarm launchers. Yeah, so then even my Hardeners won't save me from getting blasted out of the air before I can even react. Let's **** on ADS pilots even more. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2019	Posted - 2014.03.18 04:58:00 - [46] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Tectonic Fusion wrote: I think they need a 15-20% damage buff. Why will they not be OP? Because of the LOLcharge time and no ADS and blaster will still out DPS us. EDIT: Damage nerf is GEYYYYYYYY!!! Also buff swarm launchers. Yeah, so then even my Hardeners won't save me from getting blasted out of the air before I can even react. Let's **** on ADS pilots even more. I agree that hardcore swarms should only be for maxed out AV trees and then should give the opportunity to escape. All play styles should be considered and respected when nerfing/buffing bats are swung. "One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production." Raoul Duke
Mobius Wyvern Ahrendee Mercenaries General Tso's Alliance 4820	Posted - 2014.03.18 04:59:00 - [47] - Quote The Robot Devil wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Tectonic Fusion wrote: I think they need a 15-20% damage buff. Why will they not be OP? Because of the LOLcharge time and no ADS and blaster will still out DPS us. EDIT: Damage nerf is GEYYYYYYYY!!! Also buff swarm launchers. Yeah, so then even my Hardeners won't save me from getting blasted out of the air before I can even react. Let's **** on ADS pilots even more. I agree that hardcore swarms should only be for maxed out AV trees and then should give the opportunity to escape. All play styles should be considered and respected when nerfing/buffing bats are swung. Well Swarms are a joke right now. You're damn lucky if you get even a single kill using them, and I use a CBR7 with 2 Complex Damage Modifiers. Judge's video pointed out that they seem to be bugged and doing far less damage than they should, so rather than a buff, they just need to be fixed. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2019	Posted - 2014.03.18 05:01:00 - [48] - Quote I use PLC, AV nades and prox mines so I don't really know much about swarms, I haven't used them since closed beta. "One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production." Raoul Duke
jerrmy12 kahoalii 534	Posted - 2014.03.18 05:02:00 - [49] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Honestly, HAVs are where they should be. The problem is the implementation of vehicle modules. There is no "wave of opportunity" if they can permaharden their vehicles. In order to fix this, they need to all have the same uptime and cooldown as you go through the tiers. Let's give them all militia uptime and cooldowns for this. Then, increase their bonuses as you go up the tiers. Hardeners will get more resistance, scanners will have better precision, damage mods will give more damage. But they will all have a long cooldown where they can't be used. 1. Standardize all modules with the same uptime and cooldown in each of their categories. Shield hardeners will all share a cooldown time, damage mods will share a cooldown time, etc. 2. Make module effectiveness increase through the tiers. Shield hardeners would be 60%/70%/80% as you go through the tiers. No Complex shield hardeners are up enouh Shuelds dont need any more cooldown or im just gunna recall and get another. Closed beta vet Logi, Heavy, Python, Scout. Dark souls 2 new game plus.
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2019	Posted - 2014.03.18 05:15:00 - [50] - Quote jerrmy12 kahoalii wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Honestly, HAVs are where they should be. The problem is the implementation of vehicle modules. There is no "wave of opportunity" if they can permaharden their vehicles. In order to fix this, they need to all have the same uptime and cooldown as you go through the tiers. Let's give them all militia uptime and cooldowns for this. Then, increase their bonuses as you go up the tiers. Hardeners will get more resistance, scanners will have better precision, damage mods will give more damage. But they will all have a long cooldown where they can't be used. 1. Standardize all modules with the same uptime and cooldown in each of their categories. Shield hardeners will all share a cooldown time, damage mods will share a cooldown time, etc. 2. Make module effectiveness increase through the tiers. Shield hardeners would be 60%/70%/80% as you go through the tiers. No Complex shield hardeners are up enouh Shuelds dont need any more cooldown or im just gunna recall and get another. Recall is a different story, I do thing that vehicle recall needs looking at, it is needed but sometimes it negates AV and hurts AV moral. I know that sounds kind of crazy but if every HAV I tied to destroy got recalled I would be demoralized and not want to use AV to try to fight the next one. It should be a risk to call in a vehicle and I do think something should be done about recalls. I am not a pilot so I am only speaking from the AV side. Infantry webs would probably fix most if not all AV QQ and add an extra layer to the AV/vehicle dichotomy, "One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production." Raoul Duke

MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 214	Posted - 2014.03.18 05:16:00 - [51] - Quote True Adamance wrote: The Robot Devil wrote: Dheez wrote: Swarm Launchers should also be given back their previous lock on range. No, they need to add modules that improve AV and add a suit that is bonused towards AV. Similarly, vehicles need to be nerfed slightly and introduce a pilot suit to buff them back up. MORE everything is the answer not constant buff/nerf cycles. Indeed I see your point. However the issue with AV is that AV cannot be something that is abused by players to kill HAVers by ensuring that they never have to enter the Tanks engagement range. For example. Pre 1.7 a tanks engagement range was determined my rendering which was poor and stopped at 50-60m. Swarms had massive range over that threshold and were able to engage with high DPS auto locking, and home missiles which quickly would cripple any and all vehicles on the map, with no risk to the AVer. I prefer swarm engagement ranges this build. It ensure that my enemy has to be engageable, not a tiny figure on top of a mountain strafing for days. However I can appreciate that not all AVers like this. However I stand by and defend a need for overlapping zones of engagement. As such I disagree with increasing swarm locks back to 1.6 levels...however a slight change could be tastefully implemented and tested. I would say that instead of range they could have much higher travel speed... Just my opinion. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 tanks, you will be missed.
jerrmy12 kahoalii 534	Posted - 2014.03.18 05:18:00 - [52] - Quote The Robot Devil wrote: jerrmy12 kahoalii wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Honestly, HAVs are where they should be. The problem is the implementation of vehicle modules. There is no "wave of opportunity" if they can permaharden their vehicles. In order to fix this, they need to all have the same uptime and cooldown as you go through the tiers. Let's give them all militia uptime and cooldowns for this. Then, increase their bonuses as you go up the tiers. Hardeners will get more resistance, scanners will have better precision, damage mods will give more damage. But they will all have a long cooldown where they can't be used. 1. Standardize all modules with the same uptime and cooldown in each of their categories. Shield hardeners will all share a cooldown time, damage mods will share a cooldown time, etc. 2. Make module effectiveness increase through the tiers. Shield hardeners would be 60%/70%/80% as you go through the tiers. No Complex shield hardeners are up enouh Shuelds dont need any more cooldown or im just gunna recall and get another. Recall is a different story, I do thing that vehicle recall needs looking at, it is needed but sometimes it negates AV and hurts AV moral. I know that sounds kind of crazy but if every HAV I tied to destroy got recalled I would be demoralized and not want to use AV to try to fight the next one. It should be a risk to call in a vehicle and I do think something should be done about recalls. I am not a pilot so I am only speaking from the AV side. Infantry webs would probably fix most if not all AV QQ and add an extra layer to the AV/vehicle dichotomy, Ok well if a ytbing ahueld hardener downtime needs a decrease, as its isnt as long nor are you as tanky as armor.... Closed beta vet Logi, Heavy, Python, Scout. Dark souls 2 new game plus.
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2020	Posted - 2014.03.18 05:24:00 - [53] - Quote MarasdF Loron wrote: True Adamance wrote: The Robot Devil wrote: Dheez wrote: Swarm Launchers should also be given back their previous lock on range. No, they need to add modules that improve AV and add a suit that is bonused towards AV. Similarly, vehicles need to be nerfed slightly and introduce a pilot suit to buff them back up. MORE everything is the answer not constant buff/nerf cycles. Indeed I see your point. However the issue with AV is that AV cannot be something that is abused by players to kill HAVers by ensuring that they never have to enter the Tanks engagement range. For example. Pre 1.7 a tanks engagement range was determined my rendering which was poor and stopped at 50-60m. Swarms had massive range over that threshold and were able to engage with high DPS auto locking, and home missiles which quickly would cripple any and all vehicles on the map, with no risk to the AVer. I prefer swarm engagement ranges this build. It ensure that my enemy has to be engageable, not a tiny figure on top of a mountain strafing for days. However I can appreciate that not all AVers like this. However I stand by and defend a need for overlapping zones of engagement. As such I disagree with increasing swarm locks back to 1.6 levels...however a slight change could be tastefully implemented and tested. I would say that instead of range they could have much higher travel speed... Just my opinion. I think there should be mods that change travel time, lock speed, damage applied, amount carried and lock ranges. There should be so many modules that it is to the point of overwhelming. "One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production." Raoul Duke
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2020	Posted - 2014.03.18 05:26:00 - [54] - Quote jerrmy12 kahoalii wrote: The Robot Devil wrote: jerrmy12 kahoalii wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Honestly, HAVs are where they should be. The problem is the implementation of vehicle modules. There is no "wave of opportunity" if they can permaharden their vehicles. In order to fix this, they need to all have the same uptime and cooldown as you go through the tiers. Let's give them all militia uptime and cooldowns for this. Then, increase their bonuses as you go up the tiers. Hardeners will get more resistance, scanners will have better precision, damage mods will give more damage. But they will all have a long cooldown where they can't be used. 1. Standardize all modules with the same uptime and cooldown in each of their categories. Shield hardeners will all share a cooldown time, damage mods will share a cooldown time, etc. 2. Make module effectiveness increase through the tiers. Shield hardeners would be 60%/70%/80% as you go through the tiers. No Complex shield hardeners are up enouh Shuelds dont need any more cooldown or im just gunna recall and get another. Recall is a different story, I do thing that vehicle recall needs looking at, it is needed but sometimes it negates AV and hurts AV moral. I know that sounds kind of crazy but if every HAV I tied to destroy got recalled I would be demoralized and not want to use AV to try to fight the next one. It should be a risk to call in a vehicle and I do think something should be done about recalls. I am not a pilot so I am only speaking from the AV side. Infantry webs would probably fix most if not all AV QQ and add an extra layer to the AV/vehicle dichotomy, Ok well if a ytbing ahueld hardener downtime needs a decrease, as its isnt as long nor are you as tanky as armor.... Posting from a Vita? Because I am having a hard time with this post. "One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production." Raoul Duke
jerrmy12 kahoalii 534	Posted - 2014.03.18 05:31:00 - [55] - Quote The Robot Devil wrote: jerrmy12 kahoalii wrote: The Robot Devil wrote: jerrmy12 kahoalii wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Honestly, HAVs are where they should be. The problem is the implementation of vehicle modules. There is no "wave of opportunity" if they can permaharden their vehicles. In order to fix this, they need to all have the same uptime and cooldown as you go through the tiers. Let's give them all militia uptime and cooldowns for this. Then, increase their bonuses as you go up the tiers. Hardeners will get more resistance, scanners will have better precision, damage mods will give more damage. But they will all have a long cooldown where they can't be used. 1. Standardize all modules with the same uptime and cooldown in each of their categories. Shield hardeners will all share a cooldown time, damage mods will share a cooldown time, etc. 2. Make module effectiveness increase through the tiers. Shield hardeners would be 60%/70%/80% as you go through the tiers. No Complex shield hardeners are up enouh Shuelds dont need any more cooldown or im just gunna recall and get another. Recall is a different story, I do thing that vehicle recall needs looking at, it is needed but sometimes it negates AV and hurts AV moral. I know that sounds kind of crazy but if every HAV I tied to destroy got recalled I would be demoralized and not want to use AV to try to fight the next one. It should be a risk to call in a vehicle and I do think something should be done about recalls. I am not a pilot so I am only speaking from the AV side. Infantry webs would probably fix most if not all AV QQ and add an extra layer to the AV/vehicle dichotomy, Ok well if anything shield hardener downtime needs a decrease, as its isnt as long nor are you as tanky as armor.... Posting from a Vita? Because I am having a hard time with this post. Fixed Closed beta vet Logi, Heavy, Python, Scout. Dark souls 2 new game plus.
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2021	Posted - 2014.03.18 05:39:00 - [56] - Quote jerrmy12 kahoalii wrote: Fixed To me, shields are hit and run and armor is supposed to be in your face brawling. Again, I am not a pilot so it is difficult for me to be objective about what needs to be done. I want all play styles to be competitive and have a place on the battlefield because easy is not fun. "One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production." Raoul Duke
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 214	Posted - 2014.03.18 05:42:00 - [57] - Quote Henrietta Unknown wrote: Strange how Militia swarms do considerable damage to Turret Installations, close to the damage output of a forge gun, but do nothing to tanks. Railgun installations are useless against tanks up close, but can be potentially lethal to an unsuspecting MLT railgun tank perched on a vulnerable outcrop. The cycle continues... I cannot even count how many times rail installations have killed me up close cause of 2 situations: 1) I get there when it is blue, turns red, kills me faster than I can turn the turret, or if I am able to turn it, it will not fire 2) I am being chased by enemy tank / dropship and then I go around a corner and it kills me. At range they kill me in 4 situations: 1) shoots me through the terrain 2) shoots me outside of my rail range (yes rail installations have unlimited range in the hands of AI) 3) I cannot render it and 4) I am fighting enemy HAV at the same time So that just leaves one situation where rail installations don't kill me, I know where they are, I know to expect them and I can therefor avoid getting shot by them too many times before I kill them. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 tanks, you will be missed.
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2021	Posted - 2014.03.18 05:51:00 - [58] - Quote MarasdF Loron wrote: At range they kill me in 4 situations: 1) shoots me through the terrain 2) shoots me outside of my rail range (yes rail installations have unlimited range in the hands of AI) 3) I cannot render it and 4) I am fighting enemy HAV at the same time One and three are bad but the other two are okay. "One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production." Raoul Duke
Henrietta Unknown Sooper Speshul Ponee Fors Dropsuit Samurai 45	Posted - 2014.03.18 06:01:00 - [59] - Quote MarasdF Loron wrote: Henrietta Unknown wrote: Strange how Militia swarms do considerable damage to Turret Installations, close to the damage output of a forge gun, but do nothing to tanks. Railgun installations are useless against tanks up close, but can be potentially lethal to an unsuspecting MLT railgun tank perched on a vulnerable outcrop. The cycle continues... I cannot even count how many times rail installations have killed me up close cause of 2 situations: 1) I get there when it is blue, turns red, kills me faster than I can turn the turret, or if I am able to turn it, it will not fire 2) I am being chased by enemy tank / dropship and then I go around a corner and it kills me. I did lose a Sica to one once up close. I was like wtf other tankers do it so easily.
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone 857	Posted - 2014.03.18 06:05:00 - [60] - Quote The Robot Devil wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Honestly, HAVs are where they should be. The problem is the implementation of vehicle modules. There is no "wave of opportunity" if they can permaharden their vehicles. In order to fix this, they need to all have the same uptime and cooldown as you go through the tiers. Let's give them all militia uptime and cooldowns for this. Then, increase their bonuses as you go up the tiers. Hardeners will get more resistance, scanners will have better precision, damage mods will give more damage. But they will all have a long cooldown where they can't be used. 1. Standardize all modules with the same uptime and cooldown in each of their categories. Shield hardeners will all share a cooldown time, damage mods will share a cooldown time, etc. 2. Make module effectiveness increase through the tiers. Shield hardeners would be 60%/70%/80% as you go through the tiers. The "wave of opportunity" is in the competence of the pilots who drive the vehicle, good pilots should be rewarded with staying power but not indestructible. As they are they can be destroyed with coordinated attacks and skilled AV mercs. Spending SP should give diminishing rewards with higher tiers only offering small buffs to the module used. I do agree that the modules seem a little strong sometimes but I think it is more pilot experience than module effectiveness. I read in a post once that being able to turn off a module should be removed and then a good pilot replied that if a pilot isn't turning off the module to put into cool down early then they are doing it wrong. This, to me, is the sign of a good pilot and the one asking for the removal probably isn't up to snuff. Good pilots need to be rewarded and poor pilots should see their ISK and SP go up in a cloud of smoke. A pilot should be rewared for spending more SP and ISK. In Eve, when you train your skills up, and spend more ISK, you are rewarded with better modules (ie: using Tech 2 guns instead of Tech 1) Because you invested the time, you invested the money, and therefore you should reap the benefit. Having a standard cooldown ensures that even if you stack 3 hardeners, there will always be a time where you are unhardened. Therefore, it is useless to stack them. The main reason that resistance should increase is that the survivability of a tank with proto mods is the exact same as one with militia mods. The only difference is in the cooldown. This should not be. If I get proto mods, I should have a distinct advantage over someone with militia mods. Best PVE idea I've seen.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.