|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
15404
   |
Posted - 2014.06.09 19:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote: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. damage mods don't need the 30% reduced, they need stacking removed. So, only one damage mod at a time.
You mean unique module. (stacking applies against bonuses at times too found on hulls)
CPM 0 Secretary
Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist
\\= Advanced Gallente Logistics =// Unlocked
|
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
15404
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 20:38:00 -
[2] - 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. This has more to with turrets overall in terms of power, the railgun and missile launchers have some of the highest damage compressions where the blaster's damage is a bit more spread out.
There is also the simple fact that militia HAVs are too easy to fit and that they give up very little for performance where the military grade ones really suffer in fitting especially with lower fitting skills involved making the militia HAVs even far more favorable.
Both of these issues would have to be addressed at the same time. For Militia vs Military Grade the slot parity should be the same as it currently with suits. Militia vehicles however should have significantly less fittings while the military grade ones are a bit more capable in their realm; overall Militia needs to be a means of previewing a game style before one can commit sp into it. Military Grade should be the break point in ideal performance. Most HAV fits do not fit the extra turrets these days not because it is out of choice because of the necessity to fit everything else and the extra guns makes it extremely hard to do so. This now creates a problem in the power of higher tiered modules and weapons and to a degree higher skilled pointed players who can then make the HAVs truly monstrous. Ultimately this I fear is a problem that will scope beyond Bravo BUT if we continue the high pace changes it may be feasible to get away with doing parts at a time.
It may involve making the Railgun little bit more inline with common tank cannons in rate of fire and range but lowering the overall damage and compression of its dps while still making it the premier anti vehicle cannon currently available. Missiles are nearly there with their very long reload times but with the parity difference in tiers the XMLs can easily destroy most other unprepared tanks in a single volley making them absolutely dangerous in CQC.
2. Damage Modifier changes need to happen; Some say straight off nerf others suggested limitation of one, I disagree but in turn this kills not only freedom but allows favoring overstacking hardeners again making AV lives just as terrible. Lowering the overall bonus provided is most optimum in resolving the issue.
3. This is a bit of a conundrum as well. Multiple Repairers should be a thing still post nerf because the player favors faster recovery over endurance. To get could possibly be resolved by giving repairers stacking penalties. Stacking penalties for repairers is I feel an item of last resort as it will eventually lead to players making cookie cutter fits where every armor tank is the game. Alternatively is playing around with activation timers and making them activated things again.
My suggestion is activation timers similar to cloaks (as long as its active and has 'fuel' it can repair. )
4. For Main Battle Tanks from a game perspective the tanks are too fast and are more akin to 'light tanks.' However there is a fine point between being slow and being clunky; responsiveness must be preserved or even further improved if vehicles where to be slowed down. Nothing frustrates vehicle pilots more than a vehicle that doesn't do exactly what they tell it to do.
5. Shields have too small of a buffer to be viable.Once the damage starts incomming its hard to recover from it whereas the armor tanks can continuously eat the damage thanks to their passive repairs. I say resolve the repairer problem first before we can analyze the roles of armor and the roles of shields in vehicular combat. Normally in eve Armor is tougher to loose but harder to recover while shields are easier to lose and easiest to recover.
CPM 0 Secretary
Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist
\\= Advanced Gallente Logistics =// Unlocked
|
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
15407
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 23:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
Alpha 443-6732 wrote:Bring back the railgun's old range, but nerf it's ROF (halve it at the very least)
An average ttk of 5 seconds may be good for infantry, but tanks cannot dart in and out of cover like them either.
Make the railgun the longest range, highest alpha (but the lowest dps in exchange) ambush and kiting weapon it should - no, it DESERVES to be
Right now the railgun does the job of the other turret, but far more efficiently
missiles only reach their max burst potential at close range, medium to max range is controlled firing (thus the railgun wins except for extremely scenarios at close range). Missiles are only useful in comparison to rails if you go proto dmod rails (seriously, the missiles burst is great, but its damage potential is severely lacking in comparison to the railgun)
Blasters were mediocre AV at best, but now are almost worthless in comparison to the railgun
Also, who thought 6 railgun shots before overheating was a great idea? The standard rail got triple buffed (at 1.7) when it shouldn't have been buffed at all.
Railguns win at all ranges. There is really no rail weak spot when most railgun fitted tanks can just drive faster than the turret can turn. Overheating and reload are the only two currently and unlike missiles you're likely to destroy most targets before overheating or reloading and this is without damage mods. Where as most missiles turrets have to reload and improper management of blasters can lead to a tank surviving your onslaught.
CPM 0 Secretary
Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist
\\= Advanced Gallente Logistics =// Unlocked
|
|
|
| |
|