DUST Search - Frankly Speaking CCP you have gone a little bit far....

All Channels

General Discussions

Frankly Speaking CCP you have gone a little bit far....

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8966	Posted - 2014.03.27 11:18:00 - [1] - Quote The first of several I have no doubt addressing the statistics put forth by CCP for their coming "hotfix". As many regular forum goers know I am a strong advocate of vehicles and vehicle based play as well as in primacy a proud tanker despite the general "over poweredness" of the HAV in its current iteration. Additionally as many of the Old Guard might know I am a strong advocate for balance between the two, historically, warring factions trying to be both understand and generous with suggestions that might have repercussion on HAV, my primary experience with vehicles, and by extension dropships and future lighter vehicle frames However I feel as though CCP has once again swung the nerf hammer when only slight tweaks were required to bring AV into the fold more. Mistake me not this is not QQ, how could it be, I haven't tested HAV with the aforementioned statistical changes, and I reserve the right to admit, when and if such changes are implemented, I was wrong. However looking at the proposed, or slated changes I am concerned about Vehicle play in general. My personal opinion regarding vehicles and of course HAV, the prime culprit and source of player concern, is that in many cases it was relatively balanced. In this regard I refer to vehicle vs vehicle gameplay, with the primary exception of the Large Railgun turret which has also been the source of much community wide concern. Though I must admit when it came to AV.... well....infantry based weaponry was sub par with the exclusion of the Forge Gun, which was still practicle but typically at higher Tiers and SP investments. However throughout 1.8 I have seen some very potent combinations and users of AV weaponry which have resulted in my destruction within very short, and IMO very balanced time spans. Regardless I shall address the main issues as I see them. 1.)Vehicle hardeners have been reduced in effectiveness (Armour 40% -> 25%, Shield 60% -> 40%) 2.)Large and small railgun range reduced 3.)Reduced max vehicles deployed per team in Ambush and Ambush OMS to two. 1.) In actuality I had no issues with direct nerfs to the values of the hardener modules across both shield and armour. In many cases I saw the source of infantry/AV frustration with vehicles lay in the Hardeners allowing vehicles to resist insane amount of damage and for all intensive purposes remain perma hardened. However I feel other changes could have been better implemented in conjunction with a smaller nerf to dissuade and relieve the issues surrounding hardners. On the whole I believed that Hardners should have been de-incentivised and opposed to reduced in function, tweaked as opposed to nerfed. As in previous threads I had opened up a number of suggestions regarding manners in which we could achieve this goal without resorting to what currently is scheduled to be done. a.) Reduced the resistance values of Shield hardeners by 10% (from 60% to 50%) and armour Hardeners by 5% (from 40% to 35%) with progressive alterations to the aforementioned values depending on player feed back. I feel like this approach would have worked better than a full and heavy handed alteration as now any such cocerns of statement from pilots regarding this subject are likely to be met with derision and claims of needing a crutch. Instead we as a community could have slightly nerfed the effectiveness and over time as CCP saw it fit to experimented with further resistance value alterations. b.) Increase in the fitting requirements of Hardner units on vehicles. Increases to PG and CPU usage that would have directly de-incentivised the stacking of multiple modules as the higher fitting costs makes it more difficult to fit other modules and turrets of higher tiers. c.) implemented a system akin to the Cloak field recharge time preventing further module activation until initially activated modules have finished half of their cool down timer. This is feel has some promised though feel free to disagree. It would have reinforced the waves of opportunity by preventing multiple and consecutive hardener activation, though not prevented HAV pilot from making tactical module choices to allow for secondary hardeners over other utility based modules. What I fear the current proposed values will do are instead. Encourage more stacking and duplicate activations of modules trying to reach previous, especially in HAV, causing more use of the contentious Nitrous Injector Modules to rush into combat and out before the 36 seconds is up. While I feel it has balanced lower tier AV better against HAV frames..... I fear higher Tier AV for which we Vehicle pilots have no equivalent to are going to decimate the destroy vehicle combat on maps from high locations. I fear this will have a more detrimental affect on Dropships whose armour values are naturally lower and therefore more susceptible to AV. Encourage a type of HAV and dropship gameplay that is less intense, exciting, and generally geared to exploitation of camping, duplicate module activation, and prevent continued use of HAV in support of infantry. However at the same time I see many positives. Pilots will now have to be more cautious and tactical with their modules. AV values remain static for further tweaking of vehicles around AV. HAV are less valuable on the map if a prototype AV presence is active. 2.)I have concerns about hard capping the range value of the Railgun. I feel a better balancing set of tweaks could have been applied without causing issue. I see huge logical fallacy and weakness in the fact that now Large Railguns are essentially large potato guns and even sniper rifles outrange them. I saw no real reason to nerf the range of Rail Turrets despite their use in the redline. Instead I felt other attributes like RoF, tracking speed, and elevation should have been tweaked before touching range. To be Continued. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8966	Posted - 2014.03.27 11:18:00 - [2] - Quote Reserved "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
1pawn dust Algintal Core Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2014.03.27 11:22:00 - [3] - Quote Wait does this mean Swarms will stand a chance against HAV again? breaks out umbrella
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8967	Posted - 2014.03.27 11:30:00 - [4] - Quote 1pawn dust wrote: Wait does this mean Swarms will stand a chance against HAV again? breaks out umbrella In sincerely hope they do. To my understand something was amiss with the swarm damage application....though I have heard it was exclusive to dropships and that swarms were just.....naturally bad.... In any case I would definitely like to see swarms re-establish themselves as a functional and widely used AV weapon. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Kaughst Nyain San Dirt Nap Squad. 357	Posted - 2014.03.27 11:33:00 - [5] - Quote Who is this Frank you talk of? And what is he speaking of.... On the upside of all of this...I will bring out the jihad LAV and run into tanks with twice the efficiency. "He said he has a alt in STB." "Everyone has a alt in STB."
1pawn dust Algintal Core Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2014.03.27 11:36:00 - [6] - Quote Swarms were historically bad against shields, and ADS had that nifty %dmg reduction which meant swarms were generally bad against them anyway. Its a shame CCP are hitting the dmg reduction of hardeners as it kills DS outright now whenever they get in range of whatever their task is if AV is around. Also a hard cap on hardener mounted/ cycle time per meta/ more appropiate stacking penalty etc would have been better. HAV warfare will now be reduced on shotgun miltia rail tanks blazing everything and AV although a long way from fixed, will be superficially somewhat improved although still fundamentally flawed.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8969	Posted - 2014.03.27 11:40:00 - [7] - Quote 1pawn dust wrote: Swarms were historically bad against shields, and ADS had that nifty %dmg reduction which meant swarms were generally bad against them anyway. Its a shame CCP are hitting the dmg reduction of hardeners as it kills DS outright now whenever they get in range of whatever their task is if AV is around. Also a hard cap on hardener mounted/ cycle time per meta/ more appropiate stacking penalty etc would have been better. HAV warfare will now be reduced on shotgun miltia rail tanks blazing everything and AV although a long way from fixed, will be superficially somewhat improved although still fundamentally flawed. Fundamentally flawed and only tapped up with a two dollar pack of bandages. As for vehicle vs vehicle combat we had a nifty thing going on..... I suppose that shouldn't change a great deal with the new changes...... but I am still concerned that against AV HAV will now be untenable.....not that HAV should be able to shrug off everything. But I would like them to retain some measure of durability and presence on the map.....we will have to see how the meta evolves and how HAV develop. I personally cannot speak for Dropships or ADS so I will have an ask around of some that I know, other perhaps I will have to contact to find out their opinions on the matter and bring them to the fore. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Billi Gene 520	Posted - 2014.03.27 11:42:00 - [8] - Quote with any luck these changes are a foreshadow of advanced and proto tanks and dropships (assault dropships come up as standard via intel) edit: less kneejerk nerfhammer would have been better though. Pedant, Ape, Troll. My Beard makes Alpha's sook :P
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8969	Posted - 2014.03.27 11:46:00 - [9] - Quote Billi Gene wrote: with any luck these changes are a foreshadow of advanced and proto tanks and dropships (assault dropships come up as standard via intel) I already feel like HAV are slowly reverting back to 1.6..... I mean 25% hardeners? Those were the prototype armour hardeners of 1.5 and we were able to stack not just those but plates, passive resistance plating, and utility modules. Perhaps with any luck we might see the revival of HAV with module lay outs akin to 1.6 Madrugar as our prototype gear. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
ANON Cerberus Tiny Toons 374	Posted - 2014.03.27 11:49:00 - [10] - Quote Some knee jerk reactions to some gay **** in a gay game = I might just have to try this all out actually :) heh. But seriously, why is it that only now knee jerk reactions come out from CCP when for months people have been discussing proper balance. CCP I appreciate you guys actually doing something, however I HOPE YOU FOLLOW THESE CHANGES UP! Don't just leave this as I am sure further tweaks are required. Also I am sure there are plenty more bugs to fix in 1.8.

1pawn dust Algintal Core Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2014.03.27 11:49:00 - [11] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 1pawn dust wrote: Swarms were historically bad against shields, and ADS had that nifty %dmg reduction which meant swarms were generally bad against them anyway. Its a shame CCP are hitting the dmg reduction of hardeners as it kills DS outright now whenever they get in range of whatever their task is if AV is around. Also a hard cap on hardener mounted/ cycle time per meta/ more appropiate stacking penalty etc would have been better. HAV warfare will now be reduced on shotgun miltia rail tanks blazing everything and AV although a long way from fixed, will be superficially somewhat improved although still fundamentally flawed. Fundamentally flawed and only tapped up with a two dollar pack of bandages. As for vehicle vs vehicle combat we had a nifty thing going on..... I suppose that shouldn't change a great deal with the new changes...... but I am still concerned that against AV HAV will now be untenable.....not that HAV should be able to shrug off everything. But I would like them to retain some measure of durability and presence on the map.....we will have to see how the meta evolves and how HAV develop. I personally cannot speak for Dropships or ADS so I will have an ask around of some that I know, other perhaps I will have to contact to find out their opinions on the matter and bring them to the fore. A good swarm launcher runner can 3 shot a militia HAV currently if he cathces it in cooldown, same for glass cannon STDs. Not being funny but you better brace for tears, now that hardeners have been damaged, commandos have been realised and the hopes of the common man has been raised, HAVs will be getting flushed down the toilet. Also to expand on other things HAV, they fixed the rail turret which could be 'abused' if thats the proper word, via red line. They did nothing about the main problem which was blaster turret. CCP should implement a dmg reduction against infantry much in the same regard infantry weapons are against HAV and give the weapon a slight boost against shields. Then you have perfect HAV vs HAV vs (ammendable AV) combat. Instead they nerf the rail range (worst choice out of a long list) and bring down all HAV to militia bait. Odd way to fix things imho. Good luck on your quest to see things perfected as you stated in your OP. I honestly wish you luck it will be a long road.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3095	Posted - 2014.03.27 11:50:00 - [12] - Quote With hardeners will have to see how it goes If it becomes like pre1.7 infantry will be happy again if proto AV does chew a basic tank, my most expenisve tank is 700k but if it cant stand up to 1 proto AV then give me my proto hull so i can I feel tho that i will have alot more survivability in my DS tbh, redline rail cant shoot far/same with FG, small rails are more useless but even so to hit my DS you will have to be quick and generally come out to play but it could be weaker due to hardener nerf and if it is then it could be a big nerf to the DS again Intelligence is OP
XxGhazbaranxX The New Age Outlaws WINMATAR. 1224	Posted - 2014.03.27 11:54:00 - [13] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 2.)I have concerns about hard capping the range value of the Railgun. I feel a better balancing set of tweaks could have been applied without causing issue. I see huge logical fallacy and weakness in the fact that now Large Railguns are essentially large potato guns and even sniper rifles outrange them. moderately agree with most of the points except this. When a good rail tanker can kill a vehicle in 3 shots, it could hardly be called a potato gun. Their range was too much making them be able to engage without any sort of real threat. This topic has been beat to death already so overall, now railtanker have to actually get in harms way just like every other large turret user does. I use missiles mostly and trust me, they have that range and it won't make the large rails any less effective. Rail tanker will just have to get good now and risk losing it if they want map control. Plasma Cannon Advocate Heavy event survivor
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens League of Infamy 803	Posted - 2014.03.27 11:54:00 - [14] - Quote Glass cannon militia tanks are going to love this change. Tanks lost over a thousand EHP (some two thousand plus) while their damage wasn't changed. Basically, the prey was made less defensive while the predator wasn't altered at all. There really should have been a change to damage to go with the change in defenses. Tank v Tank was fairly equal aside from Railgun in Redline (which is probably not too much of a problem now with less range). Now it will heavily favor "who shoots first" even more than it did before. "People that quote themselves in signatures confuse me." -Joseph Ridgeson
Judge Rhadamanthus Amarr Templar One 1753	Posted - 2014.03.27 11:57:00 - [15] - Quote There seems to be some confusion with the current rail range of 600m being called long range. it's not long range at all. It's close to infinite range. Remember our entire world is the playable map area. This is the only place we exist in. A weapon that can shoot across this entire area can in effect shoot across our entire world. Most maps are only 600 meters wide at their most distant engageable points. 300m lets you shoot halfway across the world. 600m the whole way. 300m is long, 600m is global. The redline raiders are ruining many games. They need to be stopped. A range reduction at least brings them forward a little. Not much mind. You can still cover half the map from the redline even with 300m range. Rails need more changes but we need to consider that if people will not stop abusing an unfair mechanic, then something needs to be done to stop them. More players enjoyment is harmed by the rail tank then the harm done but reducing their ability. The hardener reduction, due tomorrow now, is too much for dropship pilots. BUT I can live with that for now. Tanks need action against them and in the short term since we share modules dropships and lavs are caught in the crossfire. I'm saddened that my dropship is now too weak to survive much AV, but also happy that ambush tanks and rail tanks will not be out their spoiling good matches. I will be testing after all the changes tomorrow and feeding back to CCP. Everything Dropship youtube channel my Community Spotlight
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens League of Infamy 803	Posted - 2014.03.27 11:57:00 - [16] - Quote XxGhazbaranxX wrote: Rail tanker will just have to get good now and risk losing it if they want map control. I have umbrage with these remarks good sir! People that used Rail Tanks on the field will have no problems with these changes. The jerks that sat in the redline with a Sica are in no way "tankers." "People that quote themselves in signatures confuse me." -Joseph Ridgeson
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8970	Posted - 2014.03.27 12:00:00 - [17] - Quote XxGhazbaranxX wrote: True Adamance wrote: 2.)I have concerns about hard capping the range value of the Railgun. I feel a better balancing set of tweaks could have been applied without causing issue. I see huge logical fallacy and weakness in the fact that now Large Railguns are essentially large potato guns and even sniper rifles outrange them. moderately agree with most of the points except this. When a good rail tanker can kill a vehicle in 3 shots, it could hardly be called a potato gun. Their range was too much making them be able to engage without any sort of real threat. This topic has been beat to death already so overall, now railtanker have to actually get in harms way just like every other large turret user does. I use missiles mostly and trust me, they have that range and it won't make the large rails any less effective. Rail tanker will just have to get good now and risk losing it if they want map control. My hyperbole regarding "potato gun" refers to the weapons newly halved range and nothing more. I understand the nature of being popped with 3 shots, however I don't feel that is necessarily game breaking, however the rate of fire and elevation at which the turret could function to were indeed aspects of what made the Rail Turret go above and beyond its role. In many cases, as you say, where and HAV or Dropship is destroyed in 3 shots you are likely hit and shaken by the initial round, as there is no real delay between follow up rounds you are likely to take 2 such rounds to the vehicle before you are able to sufficiently react to its presence. And for dropships the speed of tracking on the rail coupled with the elevation it could aim up to meant that there were very few routes a pilot could take before reaching a "safe zone" beyond the Railguns engagement range. I do not feel like we should penalise Railgunners for having good aim, what we should do instead is focus on making the management of the weapon and vehicles itself more difficult. Though as you say its range still sits firmly above missiles and blasters....though I cannot help but wonder logically how a Sniper Rifle, based on the same technology can engage enemies are a further distance than a cannon 10x's its size and power....... "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens League of Infamy 804	Posted - 2014.03.27 12:00:00 - [18] - Quote Judge Rhadamanthus wrote: . I will be testing after all the changes tomorrow and feeding back to CCP. Can we expect another eloquent video from you on these changes? Seriously, you are already doing the work on a CPM member. Please deeply consider, again if your life situation allows it, to run for CPM. "People that quote themselves in signatures confuse me." -Joseph Ridgeson
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8970	Posted - 2014.03.27 12:02:00 - [19] - Quote Judge Rhadamanthus wrote: There seems to be some confusion with the current rail range of 600m being called long range. it's not long range at all. It's close to infinite range. Remember our entire world is the playable map area. This is the only place we exist in. A weapon that can shoot across this entire area can in effect shoot across our entire world. Most maps are only 600 meters wide at their most distant engageable points. That does make for some perspective. Still, and while I can agree with what you have said, not just in this post, but in your video's which I have watched I still take issue with having a small arms rifle that can engage at longer range than its large cousin.....though I am sure there are logically ways to explain such a mechanic. While sound....it feels counter intuitive. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8970	Posted - 2014.03.27 12:04:00 - [20] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: With hardeners will have to see how it goes If it becomes like pre1.7 infantry will be happy again if proto AV does chew a basic tank, my most expenisve tank is 700k but if it cant stand up to 1 proto AV then give me my proto hull so i can I feel tho that i will have alot more survivability in my DS tbh, redline rail cant shoot far/same with FG, small rails are more useless but even so to hit my DS you will have to be quick and generally come out to play but it could be weaker due to hardener nerf and if it is then it could be a big nerf to the DS again And this is where I need knowledgeable players like you and Judge to present such opinions, to rationalise them through to me so I can then make my own opinions. If I were a competent dropship pilot would I settle for life on the ground? "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two

1pawn dust Algintal Core Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2014.03.27 12:10:00 - [21] - Quote Judge is happy his DS is now immune to troll from above but is still worried about his own hardeners, didnt see that comming I do not agree with the current hardener change but I will never accept a DS having comparative eHP with a HAV, since a good DS pilot needs to only worry about a skilled rail turret in the first place I find the range nerf a bit much. Chopped in half. Wow. There needs to be more intensive changes to the vehicle skill tree and how cycling works, due to all vehicles current speed it should have been hardener active time chopped in half before dmg reduction and weapon range nerfs. Next we will hear stories of why it should only be reasonable to counter a DS with another DS. Fighters arent that far away, they should just take out ADS and bring in logi DS for pilots that want to grief infantry on the ground while staying tough but ill leave that for another thread.
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2272	Posted - 2014.03.27 12:16:00 - [22] - Quote I think the rail gun cap is only "temporary" don't forget we are currently only playing on maps 1/25th of the intended size and with a minimum of 6/28 possible vehicles. It solves the problem of redline rail tanking on these maps but I think CCP will return the range when we move to 5+ù5 km maps. I also agree the hardners seem a bit too much in one go, it probably wasn't necessary to reduce them that much, we will just have to wait d see. I am however concerned about the strength of the turrets against other vehicles now, tank battles won't be nearly as long and drawn out. However like you said lets try em out first, I would like to believe that CCP will have got it right, but only time will tell. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
Fire of Prometheus Alpha Response Command 4059	Posted - 2014.03.27 12:20:00 - [23] - Quote I'm happy that there were vehicle changes, but I'd like to see how this plays out before we go blaming ccp about swinging the nerf hammer And about the large rail gun nerf, as a DS pilot, I'm happy, but I hope it's only temporary until we get those massive maps Fare well my commando's fist of god o7 Patron saint of commandos Ck.0-scout, commando // ak.0- logi (commando soonTM)
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 2439	Posted - 2014.03.27 12:26:00 - [24] - Quote I very much dislike the rail range nerf. It's now nothing more than a giant CQC death machine, and when CCP realises the imbalance it brings to vehicle on vehicle combat at all ranges (I'm of the opinion that missiles should be CQC long, tbh) it'll get nerfed again. And then it'll be even more useless than when our render distance was broken. Good essay though, True. +1 for basically everything you wrote. ak.0 4 LYFE Guess who's butthurt about light-assaults!? <------This guy!!
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8974	Posted - 2014.03.27 12:28:00 - [25] - Quote I'm seeing very valid points from everyone. Please if you all get the chance please post back here with interpretations of the hot fix. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 2442	Posted - 2014.03.27 12:41:00 - [26] - Quote One other thing before I go to bed - hardener nerf = get rid of fucking Jihad Jeeps. They're now unnecessary owing to AV actually being useful now - as soon as FG gets his shit together (ie once skills start applying properly) I want them gone. ak.0 4 LYFE Guess who's butthurt about light-assaults!? <------This guy!!
ResistanceGTA D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 670	Posted - 2014.03.27 12:42:00 - [27] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: With hardeners will have to see how it goes If it becomes like pre1.7 infantry will be happy again if proto AV does chew a basic tank, my most expenisve tank is 700k but if it cant stand up to 1 proto AV then give me my proto hull so i can I feel tho that i will have alot more survivability in my DS tbh, redline rail cant shoot far/same with FG, small rails are more useless but even so to hit my DS you will have to be quick and generally come out to play but it could be weaker due to hardener nerf and if it is then it could be a big nerf to the DS again And this is where I need knowledgeable players like you and Judge to present such opinions, to rationalise them through to me so I can then make my own opinions. If I were a competent dropship pilot would I settle for life on the ground? While I'm just a hobbyist, I'll probably keep my boots on the ground for the time being, more so because of the new suits I have and the fun I'm having super hacking objectives while a Sentinel, Commando, and a Logi create a distraction for me. On the Hardners.. I'm on the fence. As a guy who would pull out Proto Swarms and some Lai Dais, I like it. As a Dropship hobbyist, I'm afraid. I think some form of stacking penalty would have been better (fought in a game with one of those triple hardened Pythons yesterday, and, well, I stopped wasting my Missiles once I realized that was his fit). Or maybe some look at the damage mods, those seem to be one of the bigger issues when it comes to Railguns. As to the range reduction, I think with it being a hotfix, CCP is limited in what all they can change, mainly simple item values. Too much tinkering requires a patch, which requires way more time. All in all, excellent post True. And excellent feedback everyone. PS: If you get a chance, you have a shockingly high number of typos in the OP. xSivartx is my Heavy. There are many like him, but he is my own... So, other Logi's back off, those are my Warpoints!
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8976	Posted - 2014.03.27 12:44:00 - [28] - Quote ResistanceGTA wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: With hardeners will have to see how it goes If it becomes like pre1.7 infantry will be happy again if proto AV does chew a basic tank, my most expenisve tank is 700k but if it cant stand up to 1 proto AV then give me my proto hull so i can I feel tho that i will have alot more survivability in my DS tbh, redline rail cant shoot far/same with FG, small rails are more useless but even so to hit my DS you will have to be quick and generally come out to play but it could be weaker due to hardener nerf and if it is then it could be a big nerf to the DS again And this is where I need knowledgeable players like you and Judge to present such opinions, to rationalise them through to me so I can then make my own opinions. If I were a competent dropship pilot would I settle for life on the ground? While I'm just a hobbyist, I'll probably keep my boots on the ground for the time being, more so because of the new suits I have and the fun I'm having super hacking objectives while a Sentinel, Commando, and a Logi create a distraction for me. On the Hardners.. I'm on the fence. As a guy who would pull out Proto Swarms and some Lai Dais, I like it. As a Dropship hobbyist, I'm afraid. I think some form of stacking penalty would have been better (fought in a game with one of those triple hardened Pythons yesterday, and, well, I stopped wasting my Missiles once I realized that was his fit). Or maybe some look at the damage mods, those seem to be one of the bigger issues when it comes to Railguns. As to the range reduction, I think with it being a hotfix, CCP is limited in what all they can change, mainly simple item values. Too much tinkering requires a patch, which requires way more time. All in all, excellent post True. And excellent feedback everyone. PS: If you get a chance, you have a shockingly high number of typos in the OP. My apologies I have been pulling long hours and unable to sleep as long as I would like..... its 2am here and I've been up this late for the last week and still doing a 7am-5pm shift..... thank god tomorrow is the weekend "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
ANON Cerberus Tiny Toons 377	Posted - 2014.03.27 12:44:00 - [29] - Quote You see if CCP has been slowly but surely balancing things bit by bit step by step, we would not be in this position. I have not even downloaded 1.8 yet. With these changes I am tempted to just to see what the game is like now, however in the back of my head I can hear "Don't bother, I am sure the game sucks more than ever". I guess there is only one way to find out.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3098	Posted - 2014.03.27 13:03:00 - [30] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: With hardeners will have to see how it goes If it becomes like pre1.7 infantry will be happy again if proto AV does chew a basic tank, my most expenisve tank is 700k but if it cant stand up to 1 proto AV then give me my proto hull so i can I feel tho that i will have alot more survivability in my DS tbh, redline rail cant shoot far/same with FG, small rails are more useless but even so to hit my DS you will have to be quick and generally come out to play but it could be weaker due to hardener nerf and if it is then it could be a big nerf to the DS again And this is where I need knowledgeable players like you and Judge to present such opinions, to rationalise them through to me so I can then make my own opinions. If I were a competent dropship pilot would I settle for life on the ground? Im trying to do this commando event atm and when i get a map where i can commando life is good but it seems i have to bring out my tank in most games and end up tank fighting even if i dont want to because blue dots are useless and no one else will do it This is same for me if i want to use my ADS, a redline rail may prevent that but generally its the Large Railgun Installations in the redline which are far more accurate than any blue/red dots so i may have to tank or if in a group ask for them if they already have a tank out to deal with the problems If i was already in the air then dodgying that 600m rail was a challenge Now its 300m, the same as a FG, i already dont have a problem avoiding FG and i cannot see FG unless im closer to the ground, i will have no problem avoiding rails since i can always see the tank on the map even at the flight celing The problem maybe the hardener - Instead of teiring the hardeners to -MLT/STD - 30%, ADV - 40% AND PRO - 50% they just gave a flat standard nerf to it all, armor is back to 25% but less active time that pre 1.7 plus most AV actually causes more damage to armor so armor could be even weaker now My ADS is agile and fast, i can avoid most things and with the changes i think i could avoid more and live longer than i do now Redline rail tanks will decline a little bit, even my glass cannon maybe put away for a more CQC fit but trying to fire at a DS will be a second thought unless it tries to attack me Small rails are now a bit more useless The hardeners are the key part of this nerf - It will decide if vehicles are still useful or become coffins for proto AV Intelligence is OP



Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.