|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Aeon Amadi
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
5690
   |
Posted - 2014.05.22 07:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
Tanking Modules
Armor
Be very, very careful with how you work with PG/CPU costs on these things. Because the current meta is buffer tanking, a lot of shield tankers hybrid/brick tank and use plates instead of regulators/utility. Cutting costs makes an easier fit for armor tankers, but shields as well. No problems with shield tanking, but it's too easy to hybrid tank for certain suits.
Love the increase in repair modules though, will definitely help those of us who active tank.
Weapons
Personally, I disagree in having the Forge Gun as the strongest AV weapon because of the way damage/range evaluate. I don't think it should do the most damage just because it's a heavy weapon, it's a powerful tool with it's range/magazine capacity alone. The PLC needed a buff, and I'm honestly surprised that it's taken since Uprising 1.1 to actually make changes, but I'm grateful.
Going to have to see the changes on the Plasma Rifle/Combat Rifle before I can comment. Currently the ACR outclasses the Plasma Rifle in all categories (save max ammo efficiency) so if it's just tiny buffs, probably just going to put them on par with one another. In that case, balancing armor modules might negatively impact this balance because it may just give further reason to use the CR and we've accomplished nothing.
Curious as to what you intend to do about the Ion Pistol's hit detection/dispersion issues, though.
Vehicles
Good job on AV grenade thoughts. Although, increasing nanite cost might come as an oddity to some players who are just trying to get ammo for their normal weapons. Be careful that you don't accidentally prevent players from being able to reload just because they used their grenades. HMGs getting a damage increase toward LAVs sort of concerns me because of their sheer power and use in-game with the TTK having been lengthened. Be careful you don't make them too powerful or everyone will just run sentinel, especially with changes to cloaking as it's their hard counter right now.
Commandos
Pro decisions. Looks good.
Sentinels
I personally think that the Uprising 1.7 HMG changes were fine (even had a thread signifying my concerns about 1.8). The changes in their dispersion meant more rounds hit at closer ranges and the increased rate of fire gave them a very healthy DPS boost. However, having not been touched in the TTK changes of 1.8 which effectively nerfed the rifles puts the HMG in a different class. Again, I don't feel that a weapon should be more powerful just because it's a heavy weapon, and I think it suits it's role a little too well at the moment.
This is exactly the case in Ambush matches as it always seems to turn into a horde of sentinels and logistics all piling into a room. Once that happens, your only real option is to use explosives which they're resistant to. Repeating my concerns from earlier, we'll need to see how the cloaking changes play out but it might just cause the meta to shift to Sentinels being the only thing anyone runs due to their power.
Assault
Meh. Gal Commando is just far more useful than the Gal Assault right now. I personally think the Caldari/Gallente Assaults should have had their bonuses switched as to benefit more to their play-styles.
Turrets
Good changes. Ever consider bringing splash damage back to Small Blasters? Worked very well back in 1.5 and I think it'd make them an impression suppression tool for aerial options. Might change up the monotony of just using Small Missiles.
Planetary Conquest
My big concern is how hard it's going to be for new entities to get into PC. You're not going to stop large alliances from using clone packs by increasing the price, they're just too tactically viable when you consider clone attrition rates, district clone capacity, and the loss of defensive forces when deploying clones from said district. The decrease/removal of passive ISK generation might help to discourage blindly throwing clone packs out but, again, you're also making it a lot harder for new entities to break into PC.
Who's really paying to get out there? Why would they want to if they have to not only pay to break into PC, but have to exhaust resources to make use of their newly owned district that no longer has any means of ISK generation?
In essence it seems like it's costing new entities to go out there and fight with a high risk factor (it is a clone pack after all) so that the defending team gets a massive pay bonus at the end of the match and the loser gets nothing. If they win, they get a district that doesn't provide them a way to recover their losses of future battles that can just be repeatedly hit by the defender's neighboring systems.
To me, it seems that you're encouraging an entity to camp in and wait for someone to throw a clone pack at them to make ISK. Seems like a buff to alliances that are already in PC, more than anything.
Useful Links
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133588
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134182
|
Aeon Amadi
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
5691
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 08:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
Spectral Clone wrote: In my opinion commandos should be equally fast as assaults due to the trade off of speed/HP.
.... what?
Useful Links
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133588
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134182
|
Aeon Amadi
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
5694
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 08:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
Zatara Rought wrote:Appia Vibbia wrote:There is no point for dampening to exist if there is always a way to overcome it I agree, but it should be a massive sacrifice when the other person is making an equally massive sacrifice. A cal scout using 4 precision should not be negated by a gal that's not even required to use 2 complex. A cal logi using 5 complex precision being negated by 1 basic from a gal. The gal bonus needs nerfed, the cal bonus needs nerfed, squad vision needs to be turned off aside from squad scans. perhaps scout profile needs lowered and the precision module needs buffed. But I absolutely agree taking the profile reduction off the cloak and making it so cloaks aren't also a free complex damp that isn't affected by stacking penalties is a step in the right direction.
To expand on what Zatara is saying; no specialization should be without it's counters - however min/maxxy they may be. The Gallente Scout -should- be good for low profile work and the Caldari Scout would make a great counter to it. If you only have to worry about the one suit being able to find you, I don't think it's too much to ask. This is the rock/paper/scissors balancing method that the game has been attempting for a long time but never actually gotten right.
I don't think that the Caldari Scout having a high precision is a bad thing, but it's range surely is. It shouldn't bleed over into the role that the Gallente Logi plays. The Gallente Logi plays the role of general, broad information. The Caldari Scout should be highly specialized hunter.
Useful Links
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133588
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134182
|
Aeon Amadi
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
5703
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 09:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
Zatara Rought wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:
To expand on what Zatara is saying; no specialization should be without it's counters - however min/maxxy they may be. The Gallente Scout -should- be good for low profile work and the Caldari Scout would make a great counter to it. If you only have to worry about the one suit being able to find you, I don't think it's too much to ask. This is the rock/paper/scissors balancing method that the game has been attempting for a long time but never actually gotten right.
I don't think that the Caldari Scout having a high precision is a bad thing, but it's range surely is. It shouldn't bleed over into the role that the Gallente Logi plays. The Gallente Logi plays the role of general, broad information. The Caldari Scout should be highly specialized hunter.
You hit the nail on the head. My only qualm is that i think at the end of the day a cal shouldn't be able to scan a gal, only a gal focused should counter scouts min maxing BECAUSE it's not passive, it's got huge drawbacks, and even then a gal and amarr can get under it IF they massively sacrifice.
See, when you explain it like that it makes more sense. I'm more on board with it now.
Useful Links
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133588
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134182
|
Aeon Amadi
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
5710
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 15:07:00 -
[5] - Quote
After some debate in Skype and some re-consideration, here's what I have to say about the proposed PC changes:
I say that it shouldn't be completely removed because it takes away the incentive to actually hold territory and making a 100% active-battle based system could potentially encourage PC entities to lock down their districts with blues. People are just going to fight their friends in non-competitive matches to farm biomass, probably with a bunch of BPO gear.
Another consideration is what happens when one alliance wins, owns a bunch of turf and then has no-one left to fight? Are they expected to just give it away free of charge so they can immediately take it all back in order to get ISK?
I'm down for reducing the passive ISK income to pathetic levels as it still gives some incentive to holding territory besides "waiting for someone to come and fight us". Still puts something in the corp wallet and motivates new entities to get out there.
Useful Links
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133588
//forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134182
|
|
|
| |
|