| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The Robot Devil
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
2023
   |
Posted - 2014.03.18 06:24:00 -
[61] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote: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.
I am suppose to say "this ain't EVE" however I will not. Hardeners work differently in EVE compared to DUST because of cap and all that jazz but you are correct. There is not a capacitor in DUST so modules work off of cool downs. If a pilot is good enough to run all of the hardeners in the correct sequence then they deserve to have a high resist to damage but it shouldn't be so powerful that good teamwork can't overcome it and I think that good, coordinated AV mercs can pop any vehicle as they are now, but that doesn't mean that the mechanic shouldn't be looked at. Prototype modules should perform differently than militia and if that means a change in cool down then I am all for it but again, if the pilot is good at his job then his reward should be a constantly hardened vehicle, even at militia.
I don't know how to fix it but it shouldn't be at the expense of a good pilot and on the other side of the coin we shouldn't reward scrubs whom are only doing it for the win button. It should be determined by the personal skill of the pilot because in EVE T2 is only a small increase in performance but that one or two percent from a damage control in the hands of a good pilot should make the difference.
"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 06:31:00 -
[62] - Quote
The Robot Devil wrote: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.
I agree that 4 is ok, but that is not the point. And I don't agree that 2 is ok, cause that can deny the whole map for dropships, but that is not the point of my post either.
R.I.P. Pre-1.7 tanks, you will be missed.
|
The Robot Devil
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
2023
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 06:34:00 -
[63] - Quote
MarasdF Loron wrote:The Robot Devil wrote: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. I agree that 4 is ok, but that is not the point. And I don't agree that 2 is ok, cause that can deny the whole map for dropships, but that is not the point of my post either.
Meh 50/50 on 2, teamwork fixes almost all problems in this game and if your team can't secure or destroy the turret the maybe you shouldn't be flying.
"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 06:48:00 -
[64] - Quote
The Robot Devil wrote:MarasdF Loron wrote:The Robot Devil wrote: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. I agree that 4 is ok, but that is not the point. And I don't agree that 2 is ok, cause that can deny the whole map for dropships, but that is not the point of my post either. Meh 50/50 on 2, teamwork fixes almost all problems in this game and if your team can't secure or destroy the turret the maybe you shouldn't be flying.
I'm not flying without tank support in Skirmish, but it's funny how those redline rail installations destroy my dropship at the start of a match before I ever get my hands on it, or if it happens to remain untouched then it will be destroyed on lift off, not always, but when the AI decides to go into Chuck Norris mode.
Anyway, still not the point of my post. But what you are saying is that I need to have rail tank on my team to counter the rail installations on enemy redline. Whoever thought that countering fire with fire instead
of using water is what should be done was stupid as hell.
R.I.P. Pre-1.7 tanks, you will be missed.
|
Patrlck 56
14
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 13:25:00 -
[65] - 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.
Yes, I was serious, because I thought the title meant that CCP was going to nerf Forge Guns again. |
NextDark Knight
Hellstorm Inc
League of Infamy
298
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 13:41:00 -
[66] - Quote
The forge gun has been receiving direct and indirect nerfs every build. Unfortunately cpm recently commented they think the forge is fine when as a heavy weapon since 1.6 its been in a poor place. The mass driver like properties need to return and the rate of fire. It need love and some features soon .
Forge Changes needed Officer Splash 3.0, Proto 2.7 Advanced 2.5 Standard 2.1.
Original ROF needs to return!
|
Baal Omniscient
L.O.T.I.S.
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
1219
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 13:57:00 -
[67] - Quote
Your subject line is making my brain bleed. That is all.
MAG ~ Raven
|
Korvin Lomont
United Pwnage Service
RISE of LEGION
759
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 14:21:00 -
[68] - Quote
True Adamance 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. THAT is exactly the opposite of what we need in terms of Vehicle/AV balance. Exactly the ******* opposite. What we need is full content release. Then we need time. Time to establish static AV numbers, identify within the fully fleshed out Vehicle and AV sphere exactly what is what. Then balance vehicles around the static AV damage models. We cannot keep nerfing AV and buffing it from build to build. Or nerfing HAV from build to build. We need all core content for AV and then to balance vehicles around those models.
That's true for sure, but you can't let the game stay in such an unbalanced way either unless you want to **** of everyone apart from Pilots of course.
But I doubt CCP will get the necessary things done just look at their reaction to the current situation instead of improving things they make it worse and it will stay there for at least three month (that's my prediction).
CCP has failed to create different roles for vehicles and infantry and they failed to design maps that can separate infantry from vehicles. Instead CCP gave vehicles basically the same role as Infantry without safe spots for infantry.
To make things worse they gave infantry proto AV weapons (and proto suits) but vehicles users just get proto weaponry without proto hulls (apart from the fact that the current tier system creates a whole bunch of its own problems) under this circumstances CCP will never achive something close to Vehicle AV balance.
And the game will always favor either AV (pre 1.7) or vehicles (1.7+) in both cases this leaves many unhappy players. |
Tectonic Fusion
1261
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 02:10:00 -
[69] - Quote
The main point is damage mods will be useless, so might as well make forge guns useful without them. Removing stacking penaltys wouldn't be enough. It would do 15% more with a proto caldari heavy, but it would be decent and would really suck for a prototype suit...
Solo Player
Squad status: Locked
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |