|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1845
   |
Posted - 2014.06.09 14:02:00 -
[1] - 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
|
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1850
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 13:50:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:We propose the following: 1) Stacking penalties on Armor Repairers 2) Reduction and progression to Damage Amplifiers 3) Reduction of Large rail damage and ROF, increase of Heat Cost We won't change shield modules for tanks this time around, but with these changes Shield tanked vehicles should be more viable and Armor tanked a little less, such as the Madrugar and ADS. Here are the numbers: Numbers
Yes, thank you! No more 0 SP Sicas two-shotting me 
And damage amps had no stacking penalties before, really? Well that was just dumb. No wonder those damned Gunnlogis could wipe out my extended hardened Gunnlogi shields in one shot, or insta kill my 4000 EHP Python.
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1850
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 13:52:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:We propose the following: 1) Stacking penalties on Armor Repairers 2) Reduction and progression to Damage Amplifiers 3) Reduction of Large rail damage and ROF, increase of Heat Cost We won't change shield modules for tanks this time around, but with these changes Shield tanked vehicles should be more viable and Armor tanked a little less, such as the Madrugar and ADS. Here are the numbers: Numbers I don't really like most of what is suggested here. I'll go into more detail later this afternoon. Damage, ROF AND heat cost. Are you crazy?
It's all needed to bring them back to 1.6 levels. No railgun in 1.6 had everything like it does now. Railguns just can't have negligible heat costs, high RoF, AND high damage.
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1858
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 04:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:Harpyja wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:We propose the following: 1) Stacking penalties on Armor Repairers 2) Reduction and progression to Damage Amplifiers 3) Reduction of Large rail damage and ROF, increase of Heat Cost We won't change shield modules for tanks this time around, but with these changes Shield tanked vehicles should be more viable and Armor tanked a little less, such as the Madrugar and ADS. Here are the numbers: Numbers Yes, thank you! No more 0 SP Sicas two-shotting me And damage amps had no stacking penalties before, really? Well that was just dumb. No wonder those damned Gunnlogis could wipe out my extended hardened Gunnlogi shields in one shot, or insta kill my 4000 EHP Python. nerf to damage mod = nerf to missiles, no more killing shield tanks...
Pfft I already kill shield tanks without a damage mod. It's called stalking your prey and using a fuel injector when things don't end up so nicely. I'm still f***ed either way if I come across a hardened rail Sica/Gunny, damage mod or no damage mod missiles. At least now (with the proposed changes) I'll be less f***ed, if at all, with the nerf to damage mods and railguns. Though particle cannons with complex damage amps will still hurt; it just won't be so one-sided anymore.
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
|
|
|
| |
|