3) Just curious...is is possible to tweak the reticle for small turrets?

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

Does billybob bobbybill's 41 million SP in dropsuits make him unkillable to infantry?
HELL NAW

How stupid would it be if i snuck up on commander of black with my breach assault rifle only for him to turn around and kill me in 0.5 seconds.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You mean unique module. (stacking applies against bonuses at times too found on hulls)

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

Blaster doesn't need any more nerfs atm.

Its like you didn't even read what I said, I want the large blasters to have MORE DPS, but at the cost of anti-infantry capabilities. If you raise DPS alone while leaving the large blasters otherwise the same, then it will be extremely overpowerful against infantry.

Rattati said in the OP that he wants them to be primarily for AV, currently railguns are better for AV even at the blaster's optimal range.

Alternatively, the large railguns could have a DPS nerf to make blasters more preferable for close range AV; if that is what happens, I would still prefer if damage got increased and ROF go decreased to make it less effective against infantry while still maintaining the same (or higher) DPS.

The DPS doesn't need raising, nor does it need to be nerfed even harder vs. infantry. That just makes the vehicle TTK worse ( a thing we're trying to fix), and it being even more pointless.

Read the "Alternatively" part about railguns. Either way, large blasters have to become preferable to large railguns at close range, and large railguns should be preferable at longer ranges. If large blasters are meant to be anti-vehicle as Rattati states, then they are awful at it since large railguns have both the range and DPS advantage. Whether if its by buffing large blasters, or nerfing large railguns (while leaving large blaster DPS the same), large blasters need to have a niche as the close range AV option.

Rattati stated that the large blasters are now supposed to only be a suppressor of infantry, but currently even after hotfix Alpha they still just slaughter infantry as if they are meant to be primarily slayers of infantry. Many people I talk to say its now much harder to strafe and avoid being hit by large blasters because the dispersion makes shots fly at their direction even when the driver did not have aim on them.

My comments are based on Rattati's stated goals for large blasters, those goals are not met.

On the subject on TTK, I would recommend looking at damage mods; perhaps lowering their efficacy and/or adding stacking penalties.


As always with everything I post, I'm expecting you to try to get the last word in, I've said what I needed to say, so have fun.

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

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