| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vrain Matari
Mikramurka Shock Troop
Minmatar Republic
1833
   |
Posted - 2014.03.19 12:06:00 -
[91] - Quote
ReGnYuM wrote:The current TANK vs AV imbalance and now continued AV nerf is failure on both the CPM and CCP.
Its just insulting to community.
Also IWS continues to prove why he should never be in a PR or damage control job...ever.
+1. Agreed.
I support SP rollover.
|
Vrain Matari
Mikramurka Shock Troop
Minmatar Republic
1833
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 12:09:00 -
[92] - Quote
killer carrot top wrote:Just reading the entirety of this thread makes me want to biomass both my guys and never look back at this game .
I'm feeling that too. But look on the bright side, we'd have a lot of DUST expats to hit other, better games with. Ther'd be the MAG gypsies, the DUST vagabonds, and the MAG/DUST bersarkers ;)
I support SP rollover.
|
Zero Harpuia
Turalyon 514
Turalyon Alliance
1474
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 17:23:00 -
[93] - Quote
KGB Sleep wrote:The dark cloud wrote:
-SEPERATE THE TURRET FROM THE DRIVER
When it takes 3 guys or more to kill a tank then it should only be logical that 1 guy is responsible for driving and the other 1 in charge of the turret. Seems fair to me cause it requires TEAMWORK.
This is a good idea however a tank is purchased by only 1 person. They should get their turret for that. The solution would be to have teamwork necessary in order to activate modules by requiring a second person to be in the tank for the driver to activate them. Equipping a turret takes away having too many modules as well doesn't it? Tanks would be begging people to get in which is funny because I remember hearing people in 1.5 screaming at blueberries to get out.
There is a flaw with your logic, Sleep. A LAV owner buys his turret, but he never gets to use it. A Dropship owner buys two turrets, but never gets to use them. The ADS was made for the sole purpose of making the HAV look less at-odds with the rest of the vehicular community, and even then it still has two guns it'll never get to use. HAVs can remove their extra guns, and often do because 'waaah blueberries waaah' but always get access to the one source of mobile large turrets in the game.
Personally, I wish HAVs were weaker than they are now, and cheaper, and then they add an HHAV (or SHAV) which requires three people to man: a Gunner, a Pilot, and a Engineer. Engie runs mods, Pilot drives, Gunner shoots. But that's one hell of a pipe dream.
Shields as Weapons
Zelda Dynasty Warriors is a real thing.
|
Jastad
D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
636
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 17:37:00 -
[94] - Quote
Give back my OLD Forge charge time.
can't do much when the enemy armor tank can rep between 2 forge shot.
Amarr SCR user.
Believe in the FORGE, young padawans
C'èSoloDoloreSuCharlie
|
Ninja Troll
General Tso's Alliance
100
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 18:03:00 -
[95] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:jerrmy12 kahoalii wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Korvin Lomont wrote:They can still delay the release of 1.8...but now I am curious  SDE is the only clue Ill give. Remote_explosive_sticky_0? Nope.
FORGE GUN GOT NERFED!
It must be a typo. From 1200 HP damage to 400 HP.
SG Scout. I enjoy killing Heavies, Snipers, and Scanemies
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
5893
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 18:08:00 -
[96] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:
SDE is the only clue Ill give.
So as opposed to communicating with the people your supposed to represent, your forcing us to dig through information that many won't be able to interpret and withholding information that you obviously aren't ordered to withhold by the NDE
(if you were you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place, nor would you inform us of where we could find the information).
Lol?
AV > HAV > INF > AV | Not: HAV > AV GëÑ INF
[s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
Ace Boone
G0DS AM0NG MEN
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
34
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 18:15:00 -
[97] - Quote
The crazy thing is, this was a number one priority fix. Instead ofixing it, they indirectly nerfed AV even more.
meh.
|
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
456
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 18:49:00 -
[98] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Tis' not as easy as you think. In the worst days of AV v V it was being done in the manner you described, haphazardly. These days its a drive by the numbers. Do you know what CCP's stance is on monthly balancing cycles in small incremental steps?
If CCP adjusted the DPS of specific weapons by just 3% per month we would've been very close to a good balance a very long time ago. All CCP needs to do is figure out how popular they want each item to be, sample popularity over a 4 week period and then adjust each item in the direction they would like by a small amount. Overshooting is possible, but not by a large margin. |
Hoover Damn
H.A.R.V.E.S.T.
Legacy Rising
75
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 19:42:00 -
[99] - Quote
Quik Django wrote:An extra problem apparently not foreseen when tanks were changed was that allowing small turrets to be left empty on HAVs means a whole lot of free CPU/PG for better modules and main turret. It is likely this that allows militia tanks to be so ungodly.
Tell me, when was the last time you saw a tank with small turrets?
They're unnecessary because there's nothing infantry can do to a tank that having a guy on a small turret will effectively prevent.
"Any job worth doing with a laser is worth doing with many, many lasers." - Unknown
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |