|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Awry Barux
Ametat Security
Amarr Empire
2273
   |
Posted - 2014.04.28 20:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this.
inb4tankerrage.
Nerdier than thou
|
Awry Barux
Ametat Security
Amarr Empire
2273
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 20:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
Clone D wrote:Awry Barux wrote:This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this.
inb4tankerrage. If there are that many people that support this concept, then this post should get a lot of likes.
 likes are meaningless. CCP has already examined this idea and discarded it, you're doing absolutely nothing useful by bringing it up again.
Dust needs an ISD system so we can lock **** like this.
Nerdier than thou
|
Awry Barux
Ametat Security
Amarr Empire
2333
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:35:00 -
[3] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:Zaaeed Massani wrote:Awry Barux wrote:This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. ^ Blue Tag Link or GTFO?
Here you go.
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1847233#post1847233
CCP LogiBro wrote:Changing HAV control scheme to a LAV-like control scheme - ThreadIt's always been an intriguing idea, one that's been floating around for a while. However, we don't have any plans to do this in the short term.
/thread, shut up, all of you.
Nerdier than thou
|
Awry Barux
Ametat Security
Amarr Empire
2335
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:45:00 -
[4] - Quote
Awry Barux wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:Zaaeed Massani wrote:Awry Barux wrote:This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. ^ Blue Tag Link or GTFO? Here you go. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1847233#post1847233CCP LogiBro wrote:Changing HAV control scheme to a LAV-like control scheme - ThreadIt's always been an intriguing idea, one that's been floating around for a while. However, we don't have any plans to do this in the short term. /thread, shut up, all of you.
Pushing this post so that it's on the last page of the thread instead of the last post of the second-to-last page, for relevance.
Super /thread
Nerdier than thou
|
Awry Barux
Ametat Security
Amarr Empire
2337
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:55:00 -
[5] - Quote
Clone D wrote:The link above is considering the LAV Analogy Argument ... ... but now we have the Dropsuit Analogy Argument: Clone D wrote:If I requested a new class of dropsuit with the following specs, the community would tell me that I am out of my mind.
Dropsuit Class: Demigod
Armor: 2500
Shield: 2500
Movement Speed: 80 km/h
Weapon: Dual Shoulder Mounted Cannon
Damage: 1250
Splash Damage: 250
Rate of Fire: 3 per second
However, people who want a single-operator tank embrace the above idea because it is wrapped up in the form of a tank.
A tank should require a crew, otherwise you're just giving one person a sh*tload of power.
............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,
ULTRA FACEPALM.
The analogy DOES NOT MATTER. The result, the change that you're asking for, has been REJECTED. EXPLICITLY. Regardless of how I, and they, feel about balance, CCP has already said that this is not the balancing route that they're going to take.
Nerdier than thou
|
Awry Barux
Ametat Security
Amarr Empire
2337
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:
Yes, because "in the short term" means never, ever, ever.
lol
It doesn't mean never ever, but it means that this thread is nothing but pointless drivel. Further discussions are useless- CCP is aware of this option, and is "intrigued" by it.
Nerdier than thou
|
Awry Barux
Ametat Security
Amarr Empire
2345
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 21:57:00 -
[7] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:R F Gyro wrote:
The way I read that is they are interested in the idea, but its not something they are planning to do in the next few releases. I can understand that, as it would be a significant change.
In the short term I imagine there's more HAV nerfs coming up though. Capping them at 2 per team in Ambush is a pretty clear acknowledgement that CCP accept they are too strong at the moment.
Unless tank drivers start thinking about options that are relatively balanced they are simply going to get ignored in the discussions when the real fix does happen.
Dude we have half a dozen tankers who have been for months discussion balanced options and out of the box suggestions while taking on board the suggestions of other well thought out AV suggestions. However we are invalidated by the sheer number of thread of poorly thought out calls for nerfs by biased and pissed of AVers and Infantry. For Chirst's sake we DONT NEED NERFS, instead we need rebalances..... Perhaps altering Modules cool down timers, altering their effects, making Armour Repair modules active, Turret tracking alterations, damage efficiency modules depending on where tank is hit, AV damage efficiencies and functionality, etc. NOT hard nerfs or buffs to anything.
^ this guy knows what he's talking about it, especially active armor repair modules!
Though, three things do need a straight up buff: swarms need to not scale stupidly (6 missiles all tiers, +5% and +10% damage for ADV/PRO), and the PLC needs a straight up damage buff to bring its DPS in line. AV grenades should perhaps be buffed by 50% so that the two we carry now are equivalent to 3- AV grenades alone should be sufficient to destroy an unfit LAV, which they currently cannot do.
Nerdier than thou
|
Awry Barux
Ametat Security
Amarr Empire
2354
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 23:00:00 -
[8] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Awry Barux wrote:True Adamance wrote:R F Gyro wrote:
The way I read that is they are interested in the idea, but its not something they are planning to do in the next few releases. I can understand that, as it would be a significant change.
In the short term I imagine there's more HAV nerfs coming up though. Capping them at 2 per team in Ambush is a pretty clear acknowledgement that CCP accept they are too strong at the moment.
Unless tank drivers start thinking about options that are relatively balanced they are simply going to get ignored in the discussions when the real fix does happen.
Dude we have half a dozen tankers who have been for months discussion balanced options and out of the box suggestions while taking on board the suggestions of other well thought out AV suggestions. However we are invalidated by the sheer number of thread of poorly thought out calls for nerfs by biased and pissed of AVers and Infantry. For Chirst's sake we DONT NEED NERFS, instead we need rebalances..... Perhaps altering Modules cool down timers, altering their effects, making Armour Repair modules active, Turret tracking alterations, damage efficiency modules depending on where tank is hit, AV damage efficiencies and functionality, etc. NOT hard nerfs or buffs to anything. ^ this guy knows what he's talking about it, especially active armor repair modules! Though, three things do need a straight up buff: swarms need to not scale stupidly (6 missiles all tiers, +5% and +10% damage for ADV/PRO, basic should be doing maybe 180-200 per missile), and the PLC needs a straight up damage buff to bring its DPS in line. AV grenades should perhaps be buffed by 50% so that the two we carry now are equivalent to 3- AV grenades alone should be sufficient to destroy an unfit LAV, which they currently cannot do. These moderate rebalances for AV, combined with the return of armor repairs as an active module, NOT an always-on passive module, will likely be sufficient to bring V/AV into balance. At the very least, it's a good starting point that is unlikely to cause major balance issues, like we have seen in the past. Yes I cannot deny that Swarms scale poorly per tier......something like a 53% increase from STD to Proto......thats not even remotely right, a rebalancing of this is require taking the STD damage up to a proportionate level damage per volley is absolutely necessary. I am not wholly sure about the PLC.... Would not large magazine capacity suit better? Or is its primary functionality supposed to be that of an arcing RPG round? AV grenades certainly do not need a full 50% buff, certainly some tweaks to their damage models may be required, but no so much so fast without testing or community feed back.
I suppose I agree that my suggestion for AV grenades would be too much. Perhaps carrying capacity should be returned to 3? In any case, their one useful role IMO was dealing with BPO LAV spam, and they are currently useless for that. I'd like them returned to that role.
As for the PLC, I like it working as a one-shot-at-a-time high-alpha weapon. It currently just doesn't have the damage to back up that role. Though, really I'd like to see assault and breach PLC variants, with the assault having lower damage but multiple rounds per clip, and the breach having an even longer reload time but even higher alpha. Either way, some sort of change needs to be made to the PLC to provide some reward to offset how hard it is to hit anything other than a stationary tank at point-blank range.
Nerdier than thou
|
|
|
| |
|