Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tectonic Fusion
1252
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 01:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
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.
Also buff swarm launchers.
Solo Player
Squad status: Locked
|
Christiphoros von Poe
Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn
203
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 01:50:00 -
[2] - Quote
Firge girns!
Never used them.. So I don't know.
(1) "Exile" Assault Rifle reserved for: Fire of Prometheus
Uprising->Replication->E3->Codex->Chromosome->Uprising->???
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows
1835
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 01:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
Did they take yer jerb too?
Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!!
Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8340
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 01:54:00 -
[4] - 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.
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.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
THEAMAZING POTHEAD
Nyain San Renegade Alliance
1049
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 01:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
they terk er jobs
and tanks are broken OP. cus hardeners.
Your post is making me facepalm very hard right now.
|
Joel II X
Dah Gods O Bacon
1756
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 01:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
There was an issue with parsing this post's BBCode |
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows
1835
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 01:58:00 -
[7] - 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. I agree with this post entirely.
However, in order to do that, I am afraid that they would need to remove all Vehicles and AV until all (basic; i.e. ADS, DS, HAV, LAV) Vehicles were in the game.
Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!!
Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
|
Tectonic Fusion
1254
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 01:59:00 -
[8] - Quote
ok
Solo Player
Squad status: Locked
|
RemingtonBeaver
Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance
231
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:01:00 -
[9] - Quote
der derp der deeeeeerrrrrrrrr!!!
perberbably der ilerminerty
We can pickle that.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8342
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:05:00 -
[10] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote: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. I agree with this post entirely. However, in order to do that, I am afraid that they would need to remove all Vehicles and AV until all (basic; i.e. ADS, DS, HAV, LAV) Vehicles were in the game.
I dont feel something that drastic is necessary. Yes I agree HAV are too powerful for what they are, high SP investments arent rewarded as well through the vehicle tiers.
But in all honesty I feel AV is in a good place, however balance against HAV specifically is bad.
I cannot stress to CCP that racial equality across all suits and vehicles is crucial in successfully balancing this games content.
Once we can actually see how all aspects of Vehicles vs AV actually work then we can balance around that. Until then demanding ridiculous 10% or 20% buffs would only harm the game, causing more problems than solving.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
|
Tectonic Fusion
1254
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:07:00 -
[11] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote: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. I agree with this post entirely. However, in order to do that, I am afraid that they would need to remove all Vehicles and AV until all (basic; i.e. ADS, DS, HAV, LAV) Vehicles were in the game. I dont feel something that drastic is necessary. Yes I agree HAV are too powerful for what they are, high SP investments arent rewarded as well through the vehicle tiers. But in all honesty I feel AV is in a good place, however balance against HAV specifically is bad. I cannot stress to CCP that racial equality across all suits and vehicles is crucial in successfully balancing this games content. Once we can actually see how all aspects of Vehicles vs AV actually work then we can balance around that. Until then demanding ridiculous 10% or 20% buffs would only harm the game, causing more problems than solving. Not really. The only reason it's good is because of double damage mods which equals approx. 18%. 15-20 is pretty fair if they make the FG crap. 5-6 shots to kill an unhardened tank? LOL
Solo Player
Squad status: Locked
|
Temias Mercurial
ANGEL FLEET
15
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:08:00 -
[12] - Quote
Forge guns really don't need buffing... they're powerful enough as is with a decent aim. I'm speced into AV, ADS, and partially into tanks (I don't really like using them). I would again be entirely unable to fly due to OP forges. They are in a very good place now... no need for buffs... absolutely none. |
Alena Ventrallis
The Neutral Zone
853
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:09:00 -
[13] - Quote
Because HAV are the only vehicle in dust. Nah, **** those LAV and drop ship guys.
Best PVE idea I've seen.
|
Patrlck 56
12
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:13:00 -
[14] - Quote
Where can one find this Forge Gun nerf? :3 |
Dheez
Kinsho Swords Caldari State
85
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:15:00 -
[15] - Quote
Fusion, are you from Washington?
Swarm Launchers should also be given back their previous lock on range. |
Kigurosaka Laaksonen
DUST University Ivy League
644
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:15:00 -
[16] - 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.
Thank you thank you thank you!
It seems like everyday I post something about how we need to get the basic racial content out the door and the make meaningful balance efforts with a complete foundation. This brings a tear to my eye.
EDIT: As I understand it, swarm launchers are actually broke, like literally. They don't actually do the damage in game that their attributes would lead you to believe. Fixing that problem would be an effective buff to swarms. Source is a Judge Rad video. Too lazy to look it up. Do it yourself.
DUST 514 Recruit Code - https://dust514.com/recruit/zluCyb/
EVE Buddy Invite - Too damn long. Ask me for it.
|
jerrmy12 kahoalii
530
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:15:00 -
[17] - Quote
Dey duk ur' jerbs!
Closed beta vet
Logi,
Heavy,
Python,
Scout.
Dark souls 2 new game plus.
|
Asha Starwind
DUST University Ivy League
517
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:16:00 -
[18] - Quote
ERMAHGHERD FERGE GUNZ!!
32db Mad Bomber.
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows
1839
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:17:00 -
[19] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote: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. I agree with this post entirely. However, in order to do that, I am afraid that they would need to remove all Vehicles and AV until all (basic; i.e. ADS, DS, HAV, LAV) Vehicles were in the game. I dont feel something that drastic is necessary. Yes I agree HAV are too powerful for what they are, high SP investments arent rewarded as well through the vehicle tiers. But in all honesty I feel AV is in a good place, however balance against HAV specifically is bad. I cannot stress to CCP that racial equality across all suits and vehicles is crucial in successfully balancing this games content. Once we can actually see how all aspects of Vehicles vs AV actually work then we can balance around that. Until then demanding ridiculous 10% or 20% buffs would only harm the game, causing more problems than solving. Swarms are a ******* joke now.
They either need their damage rolled back or their lock range rolled back, both was one step too far.
TBH, I'd rather they give the lock range back, I am fine with them being an area denial tool and opportunistic vehicle killer.
I've gotten several HAV kills with swarms in 1.7 (no where near what I'd get in a week pre-1.7 though), however, each and every one of them was a kill stolen from a tanker.
Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!!
Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8345
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:17:00 -
[20] - Quote
Tectonic Fusion wrote:True Adamance wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote: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. I agree with this post entirely. However, in order to do that, I am afraid that they would need to remove all Vehicles and AV until all (basic; i.e. ADS, DS, HAV, LAV) Vehicles were in the game. I dont feel something that drastic is necessary. Yes I agree HAV are too powerful for what they are, high SP investments arent rewarded as well through the vehicle tiers. But in all honesty I feel AV is in a good place, however balance against HAV specifically is bad. I cannot stress to CCP that racial equality across all suits and vehicles is crucial in successfully balancing this games content. Once we can actually see how all aspects of Vehicles vs AV actually work then we can balance around that. Until then demanding ridiculous 10% or 20% buffs would only harm the game, causing more problems than solving. Not really. The only reason it's good is because of double damage mods which equals approx. 18%. 15-20 is pretty fair if they make the FG crap. 5-6 shots to kill an unhardened tank? LOL
As I said I agree balancing is required. But it is required on the part of the HAV not on AV. You are failing to consider the effects such buffs will have on lighter frame vehicles like LAV, Dropships, Assault Dropships and soon the MAV.
You cannot make arbitrary decision to buff specific vehicles resistances to certain forms of AV, this would break immersion and balance. As such we must work off of the solid foundation of AV values, for example the current ones, and balance Vehicles and vehicle tiers around anti vehicle content.
Additionally why do you AV solo? That's just plain counter intuitive. I dont make use of any forgeguns besides the basic Sturmborne and recently in squad I have seen exactly how flimsy most tanks really are.
I'm not about to sit here and blindly defend HAV, they ARE powerful, possibly too powerful.
Buffing AV is not going to fix that, only break the game from LAV, Dropshippers, and possibly make HAV soloable......that does not sound like an acceptable solution to me.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8345
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:20:00 -
[21] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:True Adamance wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote: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. I agree with this post entirely. However, in order to do that, I am afraid that they would need to remove all Vehicles and AV until all (basic; i.e. ADS, DS, HAV, LAV) Vehicles were in the game. I dont feel something that drastic is necessary. Yes I agree HAV are too powerful for what they are, high SP investments arent rewarded as well through the vehicle tiers. But in all honesty I feel AV is in a good place, however balance against HAV specifically is bad. I cannot stress to CCP that racial equality across all suits and vehicles is crucial in successfully balancing this games content. Once we can actually see how all aspects of Vehicles vs AV actually work then we can balance around that. Until then demanding ridiculous 10% or 20% buffs would only harm the game, causing more problems than solving. Swarms are a ******* joke now. They either need their damage rolled back or their lock range rolled back, both was one step too far. TBH, I'd rather they give the lock range back, I am fine with them being an area denial tool and opportunistic vehicle killer. I've gotten several HAV kills with swarms in 1.7 (no where near what I'd get in a week pre-1.7 though), however, each and every one of them was a kill stolen from a tanker.
That is because as I am led to understand the damage application is broken and swarms do not deal their full damage per salvo.
Against Armour HAV swarms are pretty effective....but again the balance issues are not a result of AV doing too little damage but instead hardeners being able to be perma run and resisting too much damage.
Pre 1.7 was a nightmare for tankers as we could never see the source of AV fire nor engage you.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
Tectonic Fusion
1256
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:27:00 -
[22] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Tectonic Fusion wrote:True Adamance wrote: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. I agree with this post entirely. However, in order to do that, I am afraid that they would need to remove all Vehicles and AV until all (basic; i.e. ADS, DS, HAV, LAV) Vehicles were in the game. I dont feel something that drastic is necessary. Yes I agree HAV are too powerful for what they are, high SP investments arent rewarded as well through the vehicle tiers. But in all honesty I feel AV is in a good place, however balance against HAV specifically is bad. I cannot stress to CCP that racial equality across all suits and vehicles is crucial in successfully balancing this games content. Once we can actually see how all aspects of Vehicles vs AV actually work then we can balance around that. Until then demanding ridiculous 10% or 20% buffs would only harm the game, causing more problems than solving. Not really. The only reason it's good is because of double damage mods which equals approx. 18%. 15-20 is pretty fair if they make the FG crap. 5-6 shots to kill an unhardened tank? LOL
As I said I agree balancing is required. But it is required on the part of the HAV not on AV. You are failing to consider the effects such buffs will have on lighter frame vehicles like LAV, Dropships, Assault Dropships and soon the MAV.
You cannot make arbitrary decision to buff specific vehicles resistances to certain forms of AV, this would break immersion and balance. As such we must work off of the solid foundation of AV values, for example the current ones, and balance Vehicles and vehicle tiers around anti vehicle content.
Additionally why do you AV solo? That's just plain counter intuitive. I dont make use of any forgeguns besides the basic Sturmborne and recently in squad I have seen exactly how flimsy most tanks really are.
I'm not about to sit here and blindly defend HAV, they ARE powerful, possibly too powerful.
Buffing AV is not going to fix that, only break the game from LAV, Dropshippers, and possibly make HAV soloable......that does not sound like an acceptable solution to me.[/quote] Heavy AV = OP against Light Vehicles, good against Medium Vehicles, and decent against Heavy Vehicles.
Solo Player
Squad status: Locked
|
The Robot Devil
Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance
2017
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:28:00 -
[23] - Quote
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.
"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
2017
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:29:00 -
[24] - Quote
Double post. Stupid smart phone.
"One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production."
Raoul Duke
|
jerrmy12 kahoalii
531
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:33:00 -
[25] - Quote
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. Not a buff like the logi stuff Get to level 5 just to have any effectiveness
Closed beta vet
Logi,
Heavy,
Python,
Scout.
Dark souls 2 new game plus.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8345
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:35:00 -
[26] - Quote
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 wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
The Robot Devil
Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance
2017
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 03:44:00 -
[27] - 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.
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.
"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 03:54:00 -
[28] - Quote
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.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
The Robot Devil
Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance
2018
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 03:59:00 -
[29] - Quote
jerrmy12 kahoalii 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. Not a buff like the logi stuff Get to level 5 just to have any effectiveness
The logi and equipment adjustment is good for the game. Logi equipment is very powerful as it is and there is little reason to skill into a different logi. We, the real #logilove mercs, should probably agree that something needed to be done and I for one like how the changes should change how we think about our role and use our suits. If you didn't see this coming then you either are a newer player or don't understand how New Eden works. Specialization is the backbone of New Eden and it should be rewarded and non specialization should not be.
Racial specialization isn't anything new in New Eden and shouldn't be looked at like a punishment. The way it works currently is way more broken than the changes we are going to be getting. We shouldn't let our love of a broken fit dissuade us from what is good for the game. It will be better with the new bonuses and more fun.
"One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production."
Raoul Duke
|
Tectonic Fusion
1259
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 04:01:00 -
[30] - Quote
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.
Solo Player
Squad status: Locked
|
|
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.
|
|
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] |