DUST Search - [Feedback] Vehicle to Vehicle TTK

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[Feedback] Vehicle to Vehicle TTK

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 2231	Posted - 2014.06.09 06:28:00 - [1] - Quote We will be trying to make simple tweaks to make this game more fun and fair for everyone. Let me just kick of the discussion by paraphrasing a few common complaints. 1) Cheap glass cannons are too effective 2) Dmg modifiers need to be brought into the fold after hardener nerf 3) Madrugal triple reppers are too effective 4) Very high top speed allows many vehicles to blast into cover and rep to full health at very little risk 5) Shield tanking is less viable than armor right now Let me also clarify, our stated design goals are for Large Blasters to be for a short range Anti-Vehicle role with Infantry suppression while Small Blasters are intended to be for an Anti-Infantry role. The floor is open. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Aeon Amadi Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 5995	Posted - 2014.06.09 07:06:00 - [2] - Quote Like where this is going, in particular because you guys are starting to (or demonstrating that) you're realizing the problem with vehicle/infantry balance is in the lack of clear cut role. If you could, Rattati, what are your thoughts in how a Shield tank and how an Armor tank should operate? What are they doing on the battlefield beyond just being better slayers? IMO, Armor tanks should be more for point defense while Shield tanks should be more for force projection. Just a thought though. Damage Modifiers: I'm not sure if it's entirely true (I don't play with vehicles too too much) but there's the aspect of skill stacking in which having other players with similar skills in the vehicle apparently stacks the bonuses to very powerful levels. Something to be aware about, if it's true. I agree on Damage Modifiers though, they're a bit powerful at times. Triple Reps: I'd have no problem with this if they were active and had a cooldown but when they passively regenerate comparable or even higher HP values as shields, I have a problem. Just be careful you don't over-nerf them and remove their viability. Speed: This is only really a problem, for me, when the vehicle is constantly on the move. If they're stationary at first it's not so bad. My problem is that when the vehicle is about to die a lot of pilots just call a new one in and while the RDV is dropping it off, recall the one that's about to die. It's a really irritating get out of jail free card that could be fixed just by preventing another vehicle call in while you already have one deployed. Useful Links Aeon Amadi for CPM1
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 11044	Posted - 2014.06.09 08:33:00 - [3] - Quote Please please do something about the unkillable 3 repper madrugars. As for the large blasters, they do not do enough DPS to be preferable to large railguns as close range AV. Large blasters need to deal more DPS then the large railguns, but large blasters need much much lower ROF than they currently have now to make them not so powerful against infantry, perhaps also give the shots travel time instead of being hit-scan as well; they still seem like anti-infantry even after hotfix Alpha. Large railguns should be like snipers (high range, low DPS), while large blasters should be more like the vehicle version of a shotgun (short range, high DPS). Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+
The dark cloud The Rainbow Effect 3210	Posted - 2014.06.09 08:56:00 - [4] - Quote nerf damage mods so that a sica with a particle cannon and double damage mods doesnt insta pop anything on the map. The armor reps should be nerfed so that there is a reason to throw a hardener/plate on and not just the 1 fit that rules them all (double rep+hardener). About the speed: you recently removed the "stunlock" effect from infantry weapons. Would there be a way to give AV weapons this effect to slow down vehicles when they get hit? That might be a way to solve the issue that tanks can allways run off from vehicles. And by AV i aswell mean av grenades.
Spartan MK420 D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 502	Posted - 2014.06.09 09:11:00 - [5] - Quote The thing about sica's with 2 dmg mods, is there is no risk for the reward. What if, while the damage mods are active, the heat accumulated per shot is doubled(for 1 dmg mod) or tripled (for 2 dmg mods), or even quadrupled (if they have a guny with 3 dmg mods) That, along with the dmg mod nerf would help out alot. And if you don't like that idea, just make them like afterburners/fuel injectors, you can only have 1 on a valid fitting (including all the loophole aurum/militia versions) Could also do the same with the rep modules. :P Support Assault changes
Spartan MK420 D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 502	Posted - 2014.06.09 09:15:00 - [6] - Quote and for the speed......i dunno if they already are like this, but make the base swarm speed a little bit higher than the max speed of a maddy with a nitro/no plates, and a hair slower than an ads with ab at max velocity. Support Assault changes
Haerr Legio DXIV 782	Posted - 2014.06.09 09:22:00 - [7] - Quote The dark cloud wrote: nerf damage mods so that a sica with a particle cannon and double damage mods doesnt insta pop anything on the map. The armor reps should be nerfed so that there is a reason to throw a hardener/plate on and not just the 1 fit that rules them all (double rep+hardener). About the speed: you recently removed the "stunlock" effect from infantry weapons. Would there be a way to give AV weapons this effect to slow down vehicles when they get hit? That might be a way to solve the issue that tanks can allways run off from vehicles. And by AV i aswell mean av grenades. Make the Plasma Cannons GÇPslowdown on hitGÇ£! (Just do not ever give it to the Forge Guns.) slowdown on hit...
Joseph Ridgeson warravens Final Resolution. 1979	Posted - 2014.06.09 09:47:00 - [8] - Quote I am a full time tanker. I have over 17 million in tanks, have driven them from over a year, from the Triple Staggered Hardener all the way to our current generation. I generally favor the "Holy Trinity" of Booster/Repairer-Hardener-Plate/Extender rather than the other builds. I don't say this as a "you have to listen to me" but I just want you to know where I am coming from. My thoughts and suggestions: 1. Militia Sicas are far too powerful. Sicas have a far better layout of CPU/PG than Somas do. A Sica will has 761/1908 while a Soma has 428/2241. That is 77.8% more CPU for only 14.9% less PG. The big thing though is that both Sica and Somas have a 2/2 loadout. This means that you are better off Armor Tanking a Sica with damage mods than running a Soma. I would suggest making Somas 1/2 and Sicas 2/1. This mirrors what the defense role should be for the respective tanks so it also lets people test if they want to use Caldari or Gallente tanks. It would stop the Armor Sica glass cannon. 2. Hardeners were nefed by 33% and 37.5%. Putting damage mods at 20% is an equivilant hit. 3. Give Armor Repairers a stacking penalty. First is 100%, second is 75%, and the third is 50%. Would make the Complex-Complex-Advanced Repairing Madrugar go to 181.25 + 135.9375 + 75 = 392 rather than 512.5. Complex-Complex-Hardener would go to 317.1875 (422.92 effective HP a second with Hardener on) from 362.5 (483.33 effective HP a second with Hardener on). So perhaps even a greater hit than that. 4. Shield Boosters are incredibly difficult to fit. Complex is 1,048 PG and 214.5 CPU with max optimization. Compared to a 143 CPU and 541.5 PG Complex Repairer. Basically, the stupidly hard to fit shield modules from dropsuits followed over to tanks. 5. Shield Boosters will stop giving shields if they take damage sometimes. Also, it is quite easy to deactivate the booster. The module wheel has a tendency to get stuck, turn on the booster, and then turn it off giving you zero shield. Possibly remove the cycle time. 6. Turret Proficiency still does nothing. "This is B.S! This is B.S! I paid money! Cash money, dollars money, cash money!"
DAMIOS82 warravens Final Resolution. 125	Posted - 2014.06.09 09:49:00 - [9] - Quote Lower PG of complex shield mods or a skill with a better percentage to lower it. For instance i have my gunloggi, i have 1 complex CPU, 1 complex PG, 1 complex heavy shield booster, 1 complex Shield Hardeners and 1 advanced shield Extender. Why not complex well because dispite the fact that i also have my skills at level 5, with Optimization at 3 (which only effects cpu), i do not seem to be able to fit this freeking module. Even with my turret skills at 5 and Optimization at 3 it still won't fit. The remaining 2 lvls won't have much effect towards the pg it's only like a 2% increase which is not enough. So lower the PG on the module, it doesn't matter if i need lvl 5 with all skills, but i would like to fit my modules as i see fit. You know like before you's messed hav all up after 1.7. Same goes for armor tanking, only then reversed. There's no problem PG wise, but CPU wise o'boy. Despite skill levels and complex CPU. So i suggest decreasing the PG/CPU levels on modules or better yet giving a skill that does this. So that when i do have level 5 of everything whatever module i fit won't be to much of a problem. Also stacking reppers, should be more heavy punished. PG/CPU value of militia tanks needs to be reduced, along with HP/armor/shields. The differences between militia and normal HAV should be higher and more effective in going for the last. Now most wannabe tankers go straight for the cheapest option, don't think that's the intention of militia gear.
shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon 2240	Posted - 2014.06.09 09:54:00 - [10] - Quote I will always say that before 1.7 tanks were better. Before tanking was more engaging, the ability of the tanker was both to drive and to manage modules. Now it's only driving, modules are just there as a power up, not something critical to activate in the middle of the fight or before. But, if we have to let thing as they are now, i suggest to: decrease damage mod bonus to 10% change damage mod position from high to low (like it was before -- no armor tanking for your sica/gunlogi --) re-add heat sink (high slot module) change fuel injector to give less acceleration but more top speed increase PG cost of heavy reppers (good nerf to gal ADS too) little buff to madrugar CPU PSN: ogamega Never f* with a Galdari.

Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 4366	Posted - 2014.06.09 09:57:00 - [11] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: We will be trying to make simple tweaks to make this game more fun and fair for everyone. Let me just kick of the discussion by paraphrasing a few common complaints. 1) Cheap glass cannons are too effective 2) Dmg modifiers need to be brought into the fold after hardener nerf 3) Madrugal triple reppers are too effective 4) Very high top speed allows many vehicles to blast into cover and rep to full health at very little risk 5) Shield tanking is less viable than armor right now Let me also clarify, our stated design goals are for Large Blasters to be for a short range Anti-Vehicle role with Infantry suppression while Small Blasters are intended to be for an Anti-Infantry role. The floor is open. Blasters will not ever be short range anti-vehicle superiority weapons without destroying the rest of the weapons. Perhaps in concept, but never in practice. Here is why. Railguns operate effectively from range because they can kill a target in the wink of an eye before that target can react and get to cover. The problem is that they work even better up close, which is where you want blasters to be strong. If they were to receive an RoF nerf, it would indeed make blasters viable, but it would destroy the only thing railguns were good at. Tankers would never be caught in the open again. Especially not after the range nerf you already applied to rails. Assuming you did nerf rails, the blaster might somehow be able to muster enough prowess to kill a rail at close range -- something it cannot do consistently right now against a competent driver. However, by doing this you effectively just destroyed the missile tanks only niche. You see, missile tanks are bad at range and are purely a trolling weapon against infantry. They can kill things, but really it's mostly as an insult. It's a bad weapon. The only way the missile tank is going to kill another tank is if it stacks multiple damage mods, gets right behind them, and unloads an entire salvo into their rear end. And then that tank is worthless until cooldowns expire, unless every other kind of tank. So it has to have complete superiority in that niche. And even though thats the doctrine, missile tanks are still worthless. So, if you make blasters good against tanks, rails become bad against infantry and missiles remain worthless against everything. Rails are currently good, missiles are worthless except for trolling and blasters were decent as infantry suppression but worthless against tanks. It's a joke but its the most use all weapon platforms have ever gotten all at once. If you make missiles good blasters will have no role and rails will either be able to contest missiles at point blank if they dont receive a nerf, or be worthless at range if you do nerf them and even more worthless up close. Making blasters to be the anti-tank weapon and missiles the anti-infantry weapon isn't going to work either, because infantry have already expressed that being killed by a tanker is unacceptable to them (which is why you nerfed blasters in the first place, remember?). This will never change for as long as you attempt to balance the game. Scrubs will always be scrubs.
anaboop Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 89	Posted - 2014.06.09 09:59:00 - [12] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: We will be trying to make simple tweaks to make this game more fun and fair for everyone. Let me just kick of the discussion by paraphrasing a few common complaints. 1) Cheap glass cannons are too effective 2) Dmg modifiers need to be brought into the fold after hardener nerf 3) Madrugal triple reppers are too effective 4) Very high top speed allows many vehicles to blast into cover and rep to full health at very little risk 5) Shield tanking is less viable than armor right now Let me also clarify, our stated design goals are for Large Blasters to be for a short range Anti-Vehicle role with Infantry suppression while Small Blasters are intended to be for an Anti-Infantry role. The floor is open. Glass cannon tanks and damage mods, may coincide with each other. Increasing the cost of railguns could help controlling them or reducing the effectiveness of them by reducing clip size or cost of heat per shot, forcing them to land each hit to kill or overheat and need to flee. Reducing damage mods is the best idea to start with, at least halfing them maybe more if need be. I believe the active time and cooldown are in a good spot. Tripple reppers, considering damage mod reductions will need a bigger hit, I read somewhere about adding increased time between rep, instead of x amount per sec, makinv it x amount per 3-5 sec. I dont think its only the top speed thats the problem, but how fast you can reach top speed especially while using NoS. Shield boosters at the moment are useless, as taking a single shot from anything cancels it, that and the fact armor hulls have 1.5k or so extra hp on them to begin with. If shields repped the same as armor they would be equal, but yeah then why make two separate tanks In the first place, although I think at the moment the tank repping abilities are reversed. Could we also look into missle turrents? At the moment they are the most expensive to obtain skill wise and are least used, that shotgun style reload would be nice, or increased clip size with an overheat function much like the scrambler rifle which damages your tank if u overheat by shooting to much to fast. That or a seperate lockon mode (not onto targets but on locations) so u can lockon a certain spot and fire while moving which would give missles a purpose ( not going over or around objects either) like taking out stationary targets in the turrents range of sight Fully sick Anaboop trading card
The-Errorist SVER True Blood 734	Posted - 2014.06.09 10:28:00 - [13] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: We will be trying to make simple tweaks to make this game more fun and fair for everyone. Let me just kick of the discussion by paraphrasing a few common complaints. 1) Cheap glass cannons are too effective 2) Dmg modifiers need to be brought into the fold after hardener nerf 3) Madrugal triple reppers are too effective 4) Very high top speed allows many vehicles to blast into cover and rep to full health at very little risk 5) Shield tanking is less viable than armor right now Let me also clarify, our stated design goals are for Large Blasters to be for a short range Anti-Vehicle role with Infantry suppression while Small Blasters are intended to be for an Anti-Infantry role. The floor is open. [Vehicle TTK] TTK is way to short and makes using vehicles feel like being in a twitch shooter; here's what I think would help fixing that: Turret damage progression The damage gap between turrets is a flat 30% while for infantry its 10%; the gap needs to be 10%. Damage mods Damage mods give a 30% damage increase and infantry dmg mods give 5% at proto; since its an active module and not a passive module, it should give something like a 10% increase in damage. [Turret Balance] Like how KAGEHOSHI pointed out, turret balance isn't where it needs to be. Here's what I think the large turrets should be like: Blaster: Close range, lowest alpha dmg, High sustained DPS Missile: Mid range, 2nd highest alpha dmg, highest burst DPS with medium sustained DPS. Railgun: Long range, highest alpha dmg, 2nd highest burst DPS, and lowest sustained DPS. Here are the current damage per second numbers (all skills lv5) of the turrets when heat buildup/cooldown, charge time, and reload speed are factored in: STD Large Blaster: 271 HP/s STD Large Railgun: 365 HP/s STD Large Missile: 244 HP/s Large railguns have currently both the 2nd highest burst DPS, and the highest sustained DPS w/ reload, which makes them very overpowered. The main thing that allows it to accomplish that is due to large and small blasters and railguns having the same reload speed. Railgun turrets should have a longer reload speed to balance out their higher burst dps, so that blasters can be the ones that have the best sustained DPS. [Vehicle Speed] I agree with The dark cloud that the slow-down-on-hit effect should be added to AV weapons; this would help with fighting LAVs, tanks, and dropships. [Vehicle reps] Armor Here's an example of very effective rep tanking fit: Madrugar Adv neutron blaster 2 PRO heavy armor repair 1 Adv heavy repairers Armor HP: 4000 Repair rate: 512.5 HP/s Since armor reps are passive and lack the "waves of opportunity" that active modules have, they shouldn't be that crazy strong. Armor reps need less effective and or have a stacking penalty; rep stacking on a gallente tank should be still viable, but they shouldn't be that much more powerful than shield tank's. Shield reps Shield reps on a Caldari heavy repair around 20% of its shields, so why shouldn't that be the same with a shield tank? Shield tanks need to have at least 400 HP/s repairs or even more since they have a long shield recharge delay and don't even have regulators. [Skills] The Vehicle Shield Regeneration skill that gives give 5% reduction to only depleted shield recharge delay per level, should give that bonus to both the regular recharge delay and the depleted recharge delay. [Fitting] I also agree with DAMIOS82, shield modules are too hard to fit on shield vehicles. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill. http://vimeo.com/93181621
Skybladev2 LUX AETERNA INT RUST415 116	Posted - 2014.06.09 11:04:00 - [14] - Quote I also want to note that Large Rail Turrets DPS is too high. If your target is slow (like hovering Dropship) and have low EHP (like hovering Dropship) you can almost instapop it before your target can react to the threat. I suppose LRT to be: * Long range weapon (return old max range) * Have high alpha (so two or three tanks alpha can do heavy damage in first seconds of engagement, but not the single tank release it full DPS at the same period of time!) * Have low fire rate * Keep their low tracking as now * Apply some damage reduction with range increasing, so red rail tanks can apply their damage (they are sniping tanks after all), but not the same amount as with 0 meters. <[^_^]>
The dark cloud The Rainbow Effect 3215	Posted - 2014.06.09 11:06:00 - [15] - Quote I think you should bring back shield recharger modules for vehicles.
Lorhak Gannarsein Legio DXIV 3432	Posted - 2014.06.09 11:10:00 - [16] - Quote Stream of consciousness here, from reading this thread (lots of good stuff, Himiko!) Cut missile damage, cut missile reload (so DoT is significantly higher but burst DPS is lower), tighten the spread (by, like, a LOT. Make them useful at 100m instead of only 25m). Increase railgun range to 400m (need to avoid overlapping and allow for escape ranges). Raise damage per shot (not by too much, but a damage mod nerf should mitigate the impact. Maybe have it so 1x damage mod rail remains approximately equivalent?). Lower RoF (yes, this is the reverse of missiles. Lower DPS a little, and make it more of a skillshot instead of a spam) Rework booster fitting costs. A complex booster is 50% of my fitting (I'm not even joking; I have 2100 PG and it takes like 1050). Increase damage required to break recharge. From memory it's 105 at the moment; change it so it's just enough that a shield hardener prevents an unmodded SL from breaking regen). Increase Gunnlogi base shield total by a small amount; base EHP is 4150 vs 5200 on Madrugar. Oh, and FIX THE DAMAGE PROFILES!!! Railguns deal blaster damage, and have done since like Chromosome, if not before. Missiles still deal the old explosive damage profile of 70/135 instead of 80/120, which really cripples them against shields. I would also like shield rechargers (and maybe even regulators?) but I understand that might not be possible. BlowoutForCPM
Yoma Carrim Last VenDetta. Dark Taboo 566	Posted - 2014.06.09 11:37:00 - [17] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: We will be trying to make simple tweaks to make this game more fun and fair for everyone. Let me just kick of the discussion by paraphrasing a few common complaints. 1) Cheap glass cannons are too effective 2) Dmg modifiers need to be brought into the fold after hardener nerf 3) Madrugal triple reppers are too effective 4) Very high top speed allows many vehicles to blast into cover and rep to full health at very little risk 5) Shield tanking is less viable than armor right now Let me also clarify, our stated design goals are for Large Blasters to be for a short range Anti-Vehicle role with Infantry suppression while Small Blasters are intended to be for an Anti-Infantry role. The floor is open. 1) spot on 2) thank you thank you thank you 3) True just don't nerf them into the ground as that fitting should still be viable for those who want to use it 4) -_- I'm on the fence about this one as my triple shield extended gunnlogi relies on this to stay alive, and its the only passive fitting a gunnlogi can run (I hate active modules, so I run hard to use fits) 5) Drop the PG requirements on shield boosters and maybe hand us back the vehicle shield rechargers you took away in 1.7 Oh Heck
BL4CKST4R warravens Final Resolution. 2760	Posted - 2014.06.09 11:57:00 - [18] - Quote The Blaster turret ROF should be reduced to around 2.5 shots per second, or a bit slower, it should be shooting similarly to this gun (76MM Autocannon). The Rail gun damage should reduced to pre 1.7 levels. So at basic a rail gun will do around 790 DPS, around a 20% DPS reduction. As for the Blaster turret its damage should be increase to 360 at basic level bringing the basic blaster turret to 900 DPS, a 20% buff above the current level and a 13% DPS difference versus a rail gun. Everything together 80GJ Blaster RoF: 150 RPM Damage: 360 Clip: 18 DPS: 900 6.5K damage per clip 80GJ Rail Gun ROF: 34 RPM Damage: 1106.9 DPS: 790 Clip: 6 6.6K damage per clip Along with the Dispersion changes, some speed reductions to tanks and some balancing to the rail gun on how it can be used. The blaster tank will be able to cut through other tanks in CQC, but with a slow rof and high dispersion infantry killing will be extremely difficult. supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Alldin Kan Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1096	Posted - 2014.06.09 12:46:00 - [19] - Quote For damage mods consider this: Mlt- 15% damage bonus Std- 20% damage bonus Adv- 25% damage bonus Pro- 30% damage bonus Alldin Kan has joined the battle!
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 31	Posted - 2014.06.09 13:45:00 - [20] - Quote As the damage mod issue is being discussed to death...the issue of speed I think the top speed of the HAVs is fine where it is...it feels right both while I'm behind the wheel, and boots on the ground...but the acceleration is all off. It's a tank, not a racecar...and speaking of racecars...any chance LAVs can get a buff to their hill climbing ability (as in actually be able to go up slightly steep inclines without instantly loosing all momentum).

DUST Fiend Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 14413	Posted - 2014.06.09 13:59:00 - [21] - Quote Stacking pilot skills in ADS to get 100% RoF instead of 50% makes vehicle TTK too low. You can kill basically every vehicle in the game in a single pass that way. Please remove pilot stacking from ADS and only use the highest skill of the pilot or gunner, not both
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1845	Posted - 2014.06.09 14:02:00 - [22] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: We will be trying to make simple tweaks to make this game more fun and fair for everyone. Let me just kick of the discussion by paraphrasing a few common complaints. 1) Cheap glass cannons are too effective 2) Dmg modifiers need to be brought into the fold after hardener nerf 3) Madrugal triple reppers are too effective 4) Very high top speed allows many vehicles to blast into cover and rep to full health at very little risk 5) Shield tanking is less viable than armor right now Let me also clarify, our stated design goals are for Large Blasters to be for a short range Anti-Vehicle role with Infantry suppression while Small Blasters are intended to be for an Anti-Infantry role. The floor is open. 1) Caused by damage mods and railguns. See #2 for damage mod feedback. Railguns need their damage nerfed by about 10-20%, possible increase of heat costs because currently everything dies before overheat, and decrease RoF so that dropships have time to react before getting two-shotted. 2) Lower damage mods down to 10%, and maybe even make them low slot modules. That'd be a buff for shield vehicles and make them more competitive with their lower EHP. Also because there's nothing useful to fit in our low slots other than ammo units, though even those I could go without. 3) Make armor reps active modules, with armor being repaired at the end of each pulse. 4) I believe that's a problem caused by fuel injectors, because they allow you to reach top speed almost instantaneously. Leave acceleration unaffected by fuel injectors while top speed gets buffed. 5) See #2. Another possible suggestion would be to remove the regular shield delay while increasing the depleted shield delay. A shield vehicle should be passively recharging constantly, making it a challenge to kill while it becomes easy to kill once its shield is dropped. I'm fine if you make blasters viable CQC AV IF you make missiles viable out to 250 meters as well. This is by giving them slight passive tracking abilities against vehicles so that you can rapid fire a full volley without missing at range. Currently, the massive recoil missiles are best used for CQC AV. Making blasters CQC AV will only make missiles inferior once again. Why use missiles when you can kill both infantry and vehicles with blasters? Also, large blasters don't need buffing. An ion cannon is capable of wiping out my Gunnlogi as I'm reloading my second volley. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Velociraptor antirrhopus Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 164	Posted - 2014.06.09 14:03:00 - [23] - Quote Militia modules being just as effective as proto is ridiculous and should be changed. Getting instakilled in a full proto tank by a Sica is ridiculous. Also I have been told people are not experiencing this issue, but I am and others probably are as well: Railgun tanks are hitting and killing my Forge gunner from outside of my range. More than double in fact. See my thread in Bug Reports. My thoughts on Hotfix Alpha: First I noticed a scout running from my AR. Then a heavy. Then a COMBAT RIFLE USER. CCP +1
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1102	Posted - 2014.06.09 14:14:00 - [24] - Quote Thanks for opening the discussion up on this. I think CCP Rattati captured the major notes that I had for vehicle fixes. I have two quick notes though that I wanted to put on the table: 1) Reference small turrets...I think buffing small blasters specifically by in creasing their optimal range to roughly Scram / CR distance and tightening the dispersion a little bit would definitely increase the attractiveness of small blaster turret usage on ground vehicles (and possibly DS). Conceptually the small blaster turret should fill the role of the "heavy machine gun" so it's an excellent choice for anti-infantry protection in a tank. The secondary effect is that it would increase the value of having a second player manning the turrets which would be pretty nice. One caution on small turret buffs...based on the current DS effectiveness with rockets and small rails I would NOT look at touching those turrets specifically. 2) Orbital Strike effectiveness vs Vehicles. I have still seen vehicle rep / harden through an OB and that conceptually just doesn't feel right. Not sure that's something that needs to be touched up on in vehicles per se or on the damage numbers for the OB and i have no idea if it's really even something that can be handily fixed. 3) Just curious...is is possible to tweak the reticle for small turrets? Would it be within the constraints of what the Dev team can do with Dust to simply take existing reticles from some light weapons and use them for small turrets? If not very understandable...I'm basically just looking for some brackets around the small aiming dot. Small change but would be pretty handy. "Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero Skype: jaysyn.larrisen Twitter: @JaysynLarrisen
Ryme Intrinseca The Rainbow Effect 1330	Posted - 2014.06.09 14:52:00 - [25] - Quote You realize that increasing vehicle-vehicle TTK is essentially a buff to vehicles and a nerf to infantry? At present the only realistic counters to high SP tanks and ADSes are burst damage (e.g. railgun tank with damage mods). If you remove these counters by increasing TTK, high SP vehicle users will be in full time infantry farming mode.
Dauth Jenkins Ultramarine Corp Covert Intervention 541	Posted - 2014.06.09 16:42:00 - [26] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Stacking pilot skills in ADS to get 100% RoF instead of 50% makes vehicle TTK too low. You can kill basically every vehicle in the game in a single pass that way. Please remove pilot stacking from ADS and only use the highest skill of the pilot or gunner, not both That's still 3 people (or 2) to kill 1 person. If it takes 3 people for an assault gunship to kill a tank, then I am completely fine with it. Leave that as it is. On a side note, small blasters could use a rate of fire increase and a damage buff. It's still the most useless of any turret, large or small -Sincerely --The Dual Swarm Commando
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone Psychotic Alliance 1277	Posted - 2014.06.09 18:09:00 - [27] - Quote Here is the issue with vehicle mods: militia is just as good as proto, with the only change being g the cool down. Vehicle mods need to increase in effectiveness as you go through the tiers, and cool down times should be standardized. For example, currently shield hardeners look like this. MLT/STD: 40% resistance, 100sec cool down ADV: 40% resistance, 80 sec cool down PRO: 40% resistance, 60 sec cool down They should look like this: MLT/STD: 40% resistance, 100 sec cool down ADV: 50% resistance, 100 sec cool down PRO: 60% resistance, 100 sec cooldown That's what you get!! - DA Rick
Slim Winning Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 107	Posted - 2014.06.09 18:29:00 - [28] - Quote It seems this is centered around tanks. But there are 3 types of vehicle to choose from in this game, and they are all grossly unblanaced with one another. Tanks are in a good place vs other tanks and AV effort. EXCEPT the triple repped Madruger. Lowering the base armor of the Gallente HAV maybe be a solution. Forcing players to have to use a plate. The lack of need to tank onto an already 4000 base armor leads to only needing reppers. Especially due to tanks' speed. Triple reps were still more effective, even before the hardener nerf. Another soultion could be to bring back Actice Armor Repair. STD- 2500/sec. 3 second duration. 45s cooldown ADV- 2500/sec. 5 second duration. 45s cooldown PRO- 2500/sec. 5 second duration. 30s cooldown ADSes are also in a good place. They have a large number of advantages that are countered by their large ISK and SP sink. Perhaps though, a more modern form of defense. Instead of just HP tanking your drop ship, perhaps they have a flare system, where they automatically absorb/defelct an AV effort, by railgun, swarm, or FG. Low-slot Flare System Module STD- 2 flares. 45 second reloading time ADV- 3 flares. 35 second reloading time PRO- 3 flares. 20 second reloading time Eliminate the modified efficiency ratings dropships carry. A HAV Railgun shouldn't have to stack 3 damage mods in order to combat a dropship, especially since the drop ship as the gross advantage of flight and speed. LAVs are basically throw away transport vehicles now, as they take 2 players to operate to be offense, and are easily done in by AV or other vehicles. I suggest bringing back the Logi LAVs. They can support HAVS and ADSes more so. Perhaps giving them a much slower acceleration and top speed change. Right now, LAVs are only viable tor HMG wielding players to counter their slowness. Also, making LAVs more stable on terrain would help in their being implemented more. An all-terrain 4WD vehicle should not flip and roll so easily
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 989	Posted - 2014.06.09 18:49:00 - [29] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: We will be trying to make simple tweaks to make this game more fun and fair for everyone. Let me just kick of the discussion by paraphrasing a few common complaints. 1) Cheap glass cannons are too effective 2) Dmg modifiers need to be brought into the fold after hardener nerf 3) Madrugal triple reppers are too effective 4) Very high top speed allows many vehicles to blast into cover and rep to full health at very little risk 5) Shield tanking is less viable than armor right now Let me also clarify, our stated design goals are for Large Blasters to be for a short range Anti-Vehicle role with Infantry suppression while Small Blasters are intended to be for an Anti-Infantry role. The floor is open. 1) Cheap glass cannons, you have them because the modules are time based. Rather than scaling the effectiveness of mods, all you get is an increase in active time or shorter cooldowns. For instance, damage mods provide 30% ACROSS THE BOARD. When a battle last less than 5 seconds, what use is the extra cooldown time or any extra uptime? I say, mods cooldown and uptime, SHOULD BE THE SAME ACROSS THE BOARD. In this way, the 2 skills that affect uptime and cooldown time can be utilized by real tankers then scale the mods from there. Maybe tweak those skills a little too eh. For example: Shield hardener Std - 20% at 25 seconds Adv - 25% at 25 seconds Pro - 30% at 25 seconds Get the picture. Why use the proto version when all I need is the STD version, as it provides the exact same benefit at a MUCH reduced cost. 2) Damage mods, this is a no brainer. I can personally attest to how incredibly useless hardeners are when it comes to hunting other tanks. While a tank may stack as many hardeners as they please, it's STILL only 2 to 3 shots for my double damage modded setup, with all active. Additionally, while I may be weak on the shield side, using damage mods allows me to stack armor in the lows, meaning a triple hardened fit will need more shots to drop me in kind. Honestly though, I really feel damage need to come down on turrets as a whole. Is dropping another tank in 5 shots NOT USING DEFENSES really too much to ask for? We need time to actually use SKILL in a tank battle. 3) I have a piece up on the forums that does mention this, that I imagine you have read already. Increase how often reps are applied, IE every 3 to 5 seconds or greater. It's very simple and easy, and I really feel that would have the largest impact with them. It would place a bit less importance on having triple reps and more on a plate to mitigate the damage for reps to heal. And would also mean they have to disengage FAR more often from their enemies to survive. 4) As I've mentioned before as well, the speed is fine. It's the fact that you can go from 0 to 100 in the blink of the eye that poses the largest problem. Increasing the time it takes to reach max speed is the way to go here. A tank would have to react and back away from a dangerous situation much earlier, decreasing their total time in an engagement. Or be destroyed, like it used to be before these stupid tank "Improvements" came about. 5) What? Shield tanks are my babies, and always have been. Those noobs need to learn to drive, is all I have to say. But I can see a little truth to this. -Shield booster don't work properly -Turret depression makes a HUGE difference (A maddie can easily shoot from cover while a shield tank must position themselves at a downward angle. Fix this please so that only the blaster has that kind of turret depression) -Incredibly low eHP in comparison to the maddie, and a pathetic one time use heal that just doesn't help with damage mitigation I run a double damage mod, nitro fit, stacking armor in the lows. I have killed MANY shield and armor tanks. Armor tanks though ALWAYS require more shots than a shield tank to drop. Which leads me to believe that yes, they are a bit OP when compared to the gunnlogi, but not by a huge margin. 6) Large blasters are good AV weapons against shield tanks, but against armor they seem to fizzle out. This is part due to the fact that armor tanks are very tough to start with (without fittings) and those damned reps the possess. Now I personally have not had the chance to try the blaster after you fixed them (rocky mountain spotted fever is really taking a toll on my brain) so I can't comment on them much, nor have I seen many speak of their infantry effectiveness. Or did you leave the large blaster changes out? Sorry, heads been very fuzzy of late, hope to get better soon and provide a more thorough analysis. I will say though that anything you do is simply putting a bandaid on a gushing wound. Tanks were stripped to nothing, with the intention to rebuild them in future patches, and then forgotten with that pathetic thing they call "legion". Unless you address the fact that they are unfinished products, I really don't see much coming from tanks or even vehicles for that matter. They will still remain very easy, unskilled items in the game in comparison to what infantry is. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 989	Posted - 2014.06.09 18:52:00 - [30] - Quote Ryme Intrinseca wrote: You realize that increasing vehicle-vehicle TTK is essentially a buff to vehicles and a nerf to infantry? At present the only realistic counters to high SP tanks and ADSes are burst damage (e.g. railgun tank with damage mods). If you remove these counters by increasing TTK, high SP vehicle users will be in full time infantry farming mode. This is very untrue. The more time tanks spend dealing with one another, the less time they have to deal with infantry. Sides, only the blaster causes true devastation, while the other two types require much skill to properly counter infantry with. Tanks - Balancing Turrets



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.

BlowoutForCPM