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)
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2571	Posted - 2014.06.11 03:40:00 - [91] - Quote Glyd Path 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: Fantastic! You are acting just like the original developers. Wow, that was a fast change. You promised to make small changes and now you are going to hammer tanks with a three way whack to just make us cringe. Fun guy, I cannot express how happy I am that you fit in the ccp developer mind set so quickly. Cause I ain't happy at all. I noticed that the stacking penalties are still unknown as is the tradition at ccp. Keep the information away from the users so they will waste sp and isk having to test it themselves. Why is it so difficult just to tell us the information? And no mention of the rotation speed actually being correct thus no mention of returning sp for anything that you are now making useless. Cause decisions have consequences even though most of those are because of actions by ccp after the fact. Well, publish when you take your shot at tanks so I can log in for an hour or so to see how bad it is. Then I can log out and play something else. Again, no logic click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1858	Posted - 2014.06.11 04:47:00 - [92] - 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
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2571	Posted - 2014.06.11 04:56:00 - [93] - 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... explosive weapon, and you expect to easily kill a shield tanked HAV........ click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 2464	Posted - 2014.06.11 07:36:00 - [94] - Quote Added numbers on Heavy Armo Repairers, stacking 3 complex reps would be the same rate as 2 complex reps currently. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

MINA Longstrike 851	Posted - 2014.06.11 07:44:00 - [95] - Quote I'm not really a huge fan of heavyhanded nerfs to armor repairers, Ideally I would like to see fitting other modules like armor plates / hardeners incentivized. It feels like plates don't give enough HP currently - whether that's a function of incoming damage being so high or plates being underpowered I'm not sure. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2572	Posted - 2014.06.11 07:50:00 - [96] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: I'm not really a huge fan of heavyhanded nerfs to armor repairers (I know that they are technically overpowered currently), Ideally I would like to see fitting other modules like armor plates / hardeners incentivized. It feels like plates don't give enough HP currently - whether that's a function of incoming damage being so high or plates being underpowered I'm not sure. If the slot layout wasn't so ****, maybe brick tanking would be a thing. But even then, logistics would be needed again for that to be viable.......... click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
MINA Longstrike 851	Posted - 2014.06.11 08:18:00 - [97] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: I'm not really a huge fan of heavyhanded nerfs to armor repairers (I know that they are technically overpowered currently), Ideally I would like to see fitting other modules like armor plates / hardeners incentivized. It feels like plates don't give enough HP currently - whether that's a function of incoming damage being so high or plates being underpowered I'm not sure. If the slot layout wasn't so **, maybe brick tanking would be a thing. But even then, logistics would be needed again for that to be viable.......... If slot layouts were good, you could brick out and slap a small armor repper on there or something, then go sit next to a supply depot for +100hp/s Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.** I have a few alts.
Lorhak Gannarsein Legio DXIV 3449	Posted - 2014.06.11 08:22:00 - [98] - Quote PLEASE! If you do nothing else, fix the damage profiles! One of the reasons shields are so marginalised is because rails deal blaster-type damage! Missiles also deal the old damage of 70/135 rather than 80/120 as they should be. Fixing this would help with missiles vs. shields and would change nothing about TTK vs armour (where it takes two volleys anyway, especially with damage mods nerfed). BlowoutForCPM
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2574	Posted - 2014.06.11 08:45:00 - [99] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: I'm not really a huge fan of heavyhanded nerfs to armor repairers (I know that they are technically overpowered currently), Ideally I would like to see fitting other modules like armor plates / hardeners incentivized. It feels like plates don't give enough HP currently - whether that's a function of incoming damage being so high or plates being underpowered I'm not sure. If the slot layout wasn't so ****, maybe brick tanking would be a thing. But even then, logistics would be needed again for that to be viable.......... If slot layouts were good, you could brick out and slap a small armor repper on there or something, then go sit next to a supply depot for +100hp/s 9k HP vs a missile HAV....... missile HAV wins hands down. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS 335	Posted - 2014.06.11 08:48:00 - [100] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: PLEASE! If you do nothing else, fix the damage profiles! One of the reasons shields are so marginalised is because rails deal blaster-type damage! Missiles also deal the old damage of 70/135 rather than 80/120 as they should be. Fixing this would help with missiles vs. shields and would change nothing about TTK vs armour (where it takes two volleys anyway, especially with damage mods nerfed). thers that. but missiles have other problems: - volleys are too small - full auto fire is bugged - reloads are too long (only a problem because full auto is bugged) - need more range - need less dispersion

SponkSponkSponk The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 871	Posted - 2014.06.11 11:00:00 - [101] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Added numbers on Heavy Armor Repairers, stacking 3 complex reps would be the same rate as 2 complex reps currently. Why not just make their fitting requirements a lot higher instead? Dust/Eve transfers
Lorhak Gannarsein Legio DXIV 3453	Posted - 2014.06.11 11:56:00 - [102] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: PLEASE! If you do nothing else, fix the damage profiles! One of the reasons shields are so marginalised is because rails deal blaster-type damage! Missiles also deal the old damage of 70/135 rather than 80/120 as they should be. Fixing this would help with missiles vs. shields and would change nothing about TTK vs armour (where it takes two volleys anyway, especially with damage mods nerfed). thers that. but missiles have other problems: - volleys are too small - full auto fire is bugged - reloads are too long (only a problem because full auto is bugged) - need more range - need less dispersion Well, yes. But the only actual bugs there are the full-auto fire, which isn't too hard to subvert (spamming the trigger is frustrating but effective). Aside from that, and the damage profiles, missiles are 'working as intended' strictly speaking. CCP Rattati Best Dev Sorry, Blowout...
The-Errorist SVER True Blood 747	Posted - 2014.06.11 12:09:00 - [103] - Quote I also want to reemphasize what I and mostly others have said: Don't nerf tank speed. Fix skill stacking so that it only takes the skills of the highest level into account. Fix the problem of militia modules being is just as good as proto. Currently the only difference is the cool down and PG/CPU. Vehicle mods need to increase in effectiveness as you go through the tiers (like you're doing with damage mods), and cool down times should be standardized. I think only afterburners should be exempt; they should be changed to have high cooldowns (45s) at std and low cooldown times (25s) at proto. Large Missile turret reload speed need to be lower and it needs lower dispersion to be effective at mid range like its supposed to be. 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. Shield tanks need to have around 400 HP/s repairs which is 20% HP/s like Caldari heavies have. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill. http://vimeo.com/93181621

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 2487	Posted - 2014.06.11 12:42:00 - [104] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: I also want to reemphasize what I and mostly others have said: Don't nerf tank speed. Fix skill stacking so that it only takes the skills of the highest level into account. Fix the problem of militia modules being is just as good as proto. Currently the only difference is the cool down and PG/CPU. Vehicle mods need to increase in effectiveness as you go through the tiers (like you're doing with damage mods), and cool down times should be standardized. I think only afterburners should be exempt; they should be changed to have high cooldowns (45s) at std and low cooldown times (25s) at proto. Large Missile turret reload speed need to be lower and it needs lower dispersion to be effective at mid range like its supposed to be. 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. Shield tanks need to have around 400 HP/s repairs which is 20% HP/s like Caldari heavies have. All things except speed go into evaluation, acceleration is probably more something to look at rather than top speed. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Apothecary Za'ki Biomass Positive 39	Posted - 2014.06.11 14:43:00 - [105] - 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. lower top speed but faster turning will be good. shield tanking is completly under powered. boost vehicle rep amount on the Infantry repair gun making buffer fit logi support viable as well make armor reppers on vehicals active, or give shield tank vehicals a passive repair modual (like the passive armor reppers so it reps hp/s under fire.. and when out of combat its hp/s plus the normal out of combat shield repair) this may make shield tanking look appealing and make people risk running a shield tank with only a light armor repper so they can carry more ammo. Give people Points for Repairing vehicles, and structures (spawn, supply, turret) raise the Hp on Turrets by 2x so there is more strategic importance on them but also makes it a little harder to rofl-stomp with vehicles till the turrets are all destroyed. give caldari LAV a little more hp to be a little more balanced with gallente LAV let reppers(infantry) also repair shield dmg (no points for shield repping except guardian bonus) lower the time other players have to wait till they are allowed to get into my vehicle when it is freshly dropped. give a "mobile clone bay" for tanks so they rock with 3 small turrets( instead of large turret+ x small) AND a clone bay (new role for more support tank?) would mean tank VS Inf is down but still effective and Tank vs vehicle is waaaay down but its an armored mobile spawn bay so it balances well :X more torque for vehicles on hills especially LAVs Minmatar Logibro in training. Rusty needles anyone? No Mic and no time for "Squeekers" Nerf scout cloak+shotgun
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2576	Posted - 2014.06.11 17:29:00 - [106] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: PLEASE! If you do nothing else, fix the damage profiles! One of the reasons shields are so marginalised is because rails deal blaster-type damage! Missiles also deal the old damage of 70/135 rather than 80/120 as they should be. Fixing this would help with missiles vs. shields and would change nothing about TTK vs armour (where it takes two volleys anyway, especially with damage mods nerfed). thers that. but missiles have other problems: - volleys are too small - full auto fire is bugged - reloads are too long (only a problem because full auto is bugged) - need more range - need less dispersion It shouldn't take 1 volley to kill a HAV. And they aren't getting more range until they are actual missiles. These are rockets. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2576	Posted - 2014.06.11 17:48:00 - [107] - Quote Apothecary Za'ki 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. lower top speed but faster turning will be good. shield tanking is completly under powered. boost vehicle rep amount on the Infantry repair gun making buffer fit logi support viable as well make armor reppers on vehicals active, or give shield tank vehicals a passive repair modual (like the passive armor reppers so it reps hp/s under fire.. and when out of combat its hp/s plus the normal out of combat shield repair) this may make shield tanking look appealing and make people risk running a shield tank with only a light armor repper so they can carry more ammo. Give people Points for Repairing vehicles, and structures (spawn, supply, turret) raise the Hp on Turrets by 2x so there is more strategic importance on them but also makes it a little harder to rofl-stomp with vehicles till the turrets are all destroyed. give caldari LAV a little more hp to be a little more balanced with gallente LAV let reppers(infantry) also repair shield dmg (no points for shield repping except guardian bonus) lower the time other players have to wait till they are allowed to get into my vehicle when it is freshly dropped. give a "mobile clone bay" for tanks so they rock with 3 small turrets( instead of large turret+ x small) AND a clone bay (new role for more support tank?) would mean tank VS Inf is down but still effective and Tank vs vehicle is waaaay down but its an armored mobile spawn bay so it balances well :X more torque for vehicles on hills especially LAVs 1: As most have said before you, top speed is fine, it's acceleration. 2: obviously, but a lot of other things is up as well. brick tanking has become unviable due to the slot layout becoming horrid, and the logistics being removed. 3: Why? vehicles are constantly moving, and infantry won't catch up. I don't even know why that thing is in the game (iirc it doesn't even rep installations well). We need vehicle logistics (specifically the LLV), not infantry trying to become vehicle logistics and failing at it. 4: Obviously you'd make the repairers active. They should just change how shield recharging back to the origional way, just make it better (like everyone else said they should). 5: This should have been put back into the game when the WP limiter was put in. 6: Then take their AI away as well. There is a reason why Pilots kill them, and no, it's not because free points. 7: Fine with that. Should be for the HAV too. 8: That's not how reps work. It's either shield, or it's armor, not both. Otherwise, it'll be OP as hell. bring in shield boosters. Also, read 3. This would just make turrets unreasonably hard to kill. 9: Yes for squads, no for bluedots. 10: a- support HAV doesn't make sense, nor will probably ever happen. Large ground vehicle that is a support vehicle? Doubt it (it would get on the MAV's turf), but possible. b- That's not how turrets work. The slot layout can't just change by adding in a module. c- mCRU's already exists. 11: That's not how torque works. You can't just add more when you go up a hill, it would be the same overall. And that would increase the acceleration even more so. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 3678	Posted - 2014.06.11 18:32:00 - [108] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: 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, unlike 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+tanks 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. With the Damage Mod nerf, and maybe a slight Rail nerf a Rail tank should be able to kill another tank in 3 to 5 shots depending on whether they are hitting the engin block (3 shots) or the hard spots (5 shots). This will mean they are still effective at distance. If Blaster turrets are given a bit more Direct damage they will be better than Rail Turrets at close range. Dispersion can reduce their effectiveness against infantry and against Tanks at longer range. I would think that to compensate for the Damage Mod nerf the Missile turrets should get a buff to direct damage (but not splash damage) to increase their effectiveness against tanks without making them OP against infantry. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Joseph Ridgeson warravens Final Resolution. 1989	Posted - 2014.06.11 18:38:00 - [109] - Quote I find it curious how harshly Repairers were hit when stacking was seen as the biggest problem: 100 -> 80 (20%) 120 -> 90 (25%) 145 -> 110 (24.14%) CCP has a tendency of nerfing too many things at once. "Tanks are too powerful so lets lower their PG, remove Vehicle Engineering, and increase the damage of AV weapons." "Wow, Tanks are too weak so lets remake them completely and lower the damage of AV weapons." "Wow, Tanks are repairing too much damage when they stack Armor Repairers so lets add a Stacking Penalty and nerf the amount that is repaired." This has the potential of causing them same thing as before. Why not do the Stacking Penalty and if Repairers are still too powerful then drop the amount? If it has already been proposed, is there harm in saying "we may do this but we want to see how the first rounds of balance adjustments go; if they are still too effective we will reduce the amount"? It is kind of funny how you are going about it. "We want to see different styles of Madrugars. At the moment, Double or Triple Repairer is too powerful and to common so we are lowering the Repair rate." Which will have the opposite result to an extent on the people that ran 1 Repairer because they will want to run another to get back to what they were Repairing before. I dunno. "This is B.S! This is B.S! I paid money! Cash money, dollars money, cash money!"
jaksol JAK darnson Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 17	Posted - 2014.06.11 18:40:00 - [110] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 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 You are a godsend my friend. This is taking community interaction to a whole new level. I reckon this is because Dust has now become the practical beta for legion? lowering rail rate of fire and damage will not help shields becouse then the armor tank with 7k or 8k shields will just plain have an advantage becouse they can just take the damage while using there rail to dish out more then a shield can unless we just run health only tanks "Sacrifice is a choice you make. Loss is a choice made for you."

jaksol JAK darnson Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 17	Posted - 2014.06.11 18:44:00 - [111] - Quote SponkSponkSponk wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Added numbers on Heavy Armor Repairers, stacking 3 complex reps would be the same rate as 2 complex reps currently. Why not just make their fitting requirements a lot higher instead? A 20% boost to power grid should work. cpp has allready removed aaround a 1000 pg from armor and around 800 cpu for shield "Sacrifice is a choice you make. Loss is a choice made for you."
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 3678	Posted - 2014.06.11 18:49:00 - [112] - Quote Joseph Ridgeson wrote: I find it curious how harshly Repairers were hit when stacking was seen as the biggest problem: 100 -> 80 (20%) 120 -> 90 (25%) 145 -> 110 (24.14%) CCP has a tendency of nerfing too many things at once. "Tanks are too powerful so lets lower their PG, remove Vehicle Engineering, and increase the damage of AV weapons." "Wow, Tanks are too weak so lets remake them completely and lower the damage of AV weapons." "Wow, Tanks are repairing too much damage when they stack Armor Repairers so lets add a Stacking Penalty and nerf the amount that is repaired." This has the potential of causing them same thing as before. Why not do the Stacking Penalty and if Repairers are still too powerful then drop the amount? If it has already been proposed, is there harm in saying "we may do this but we want to see how the first rounds of balance adjustments go; if they are still too effective we will reduce the amount"? It is kind of funny how you are going about it. "We want to see different styles of Madrugars. At the moment, Double or Triple Repairer is too powerful and to common so we are lowering the Repair rate." Which will have the opposite result to an extent on the people that ran 1 Repairer because they will want to run another to get back to what they were Repairing before. I dunno. I tend to agree. It might be best to add the stacking penalty on Repair modules in Bravo and then adjust repair rate in Charily if it still seems to be needed. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2577	Posted - 2014.06.11 18:56:00 - [113] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Himiko Kuronaga wrote: 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, unlike 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+tanks 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. With the Damage Mod nerf, and maybe a slight Rail nerf a Rail tank should still be able to kill another tank in 3 to 5 shots depending on whether they are hitting the engin block (3 shots) or the hard spots (5 shots). This will mean they are still effective at distance. If Blaster turrets are given a bit more Direct damage they will be better than Rail Turrets at close range. Dispersion can reduce their effectiveness against infantry and against Tanks at longer range. I would think that to compensate for the Damage Mod nerf the Missile turrets should get a buff to direct damage (but not splash damage) to increase their effectiveness against tanks without making them OP against infantry. rockets needs nerfing, not buffing. Well, the reload needs buffing............ click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
jaksol JAK darnson Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 17	Posted - 2014.06.11 18:59:00 - [114] - Quote Joseph Ridgeson wrote: I find it curious how harshly Repairers were hit when stacking was seen as the biggest problem: 100 -> 80 (20%) 120 -> 90 (25%) 145 -> 110 (24.14%) CCP has a tendency of nerfing too many things at once. "Tanks are too powerful so lets lower their PG, remove Vehicle Engineering, and increase the damage of AV weapons." "Wow, Tanks are too weak so lets remake them completely and lower the damage of AV weapons." "Wow, Tanks are repairing too much damage when they stack Armor Repairers so lets add a Stacking Penalty and nerf the amount that is repaired." This has the potential of causing them same thing as before. Why not do the Stacking Penalty and if Repairers are still too powerful then drop the amount? If it has already been proposed, is there harm in saying "we may do this but we want to see how the first rounds of balance adjustments go; if they are still too effective we will reduce the amount"? It is kind of funny how you are going about it. "We want to see different styles of Madrugars. At the moment, Double or Triple Repairer is too powerful and to common so we are lowering the Repair rate." Which will have the opposite result to an extent on the people that ran 1 Repairer because they will want to run another to get back to what they were Repairing before. I dunno. true if they want more variaty they need to give us our moduales back i know before these were the only ones i never used any of them i fan 180mm polycystiline plates (gave about 3k health) ionized armor plates (a weak passive armor hardener) crisis control units (a weak shield and armor hardener) milita overdrive module (a passive traction increaser that allowed me to climb steeper walls) and a particle accelerator (it use to be a basic turrent that hit harder but fired slower) a scatter blaster (a very powerful anti infantry weapon that was not the most acurite) and even the polycrysteline chassis (made you tank faster but cut its armor by about 10%) i did not run these all on one tank as the 180 mm plates cost more cpu and pg then tanks even have these days if you fit a turret. tanking was a serious job and milita tank were nothing to the gunlogi and mati witch makes since. and as such propose that you bring back turrent types modules types our pg and cpu but give av a buff also (to you ADS pilot you should recive a slight pg and cpu increase) "Sacrifice is a choice you make. Loss is a choice made for you."
poison Diego Last VenDetta. Dark Taboo 410	Posted - 2014.06.11 21:03:00 - [115] - Quote Speed is only defence for madrugars against rails
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone Psychotic Alliance 1296	Posted - 2014.06.11 21:21:00 - [116] - Quote Remove all railgun nerfs proposed for bravo. The glass cannon fits are too powerful because of how effective damage mods are. Tweak those, then test out everything else. That's what you get!! - DA Rick
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2581	Posted - 2014.06.11 21:24:00 - [117] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Remove all railgun nerfs proposed for bravo. The glass cannon fits are too powerful because of how effective damage mods are. Tweak those, then test out everything else. Even then, by itself it's still way too strong. This brings it back to 1.6 levels. Deal with it. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Alpha 443-6732 BurgezzE.T.F 504	Posted - 2014.06.11 21:25:00 - [118] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Remove all railgun nerfs proposed for bravo. The glass cannon fits are too powerful because of how effective damage mods are. Tweak those, then test out everything else. Even then, by itself it's still way too strong. This brings it back to 1.6 levels. Deal with it. Except it needs it range back for it to be relevant
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2583	Posted - 2014.06.11 21:53:00 - [119] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Remove all railgun nerfs proposed for bravo. The glass cannon fits are too powerful because of how effective damage mods are. Tweak those, then test out everything else. Even then, by itself it's still way too strong. This brings it back to 1.6 levels. Deal with it. Except it needs it range back for it to be relevant If it's at 1.6 levels of strength, it can have it's optimal back. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 998	Posted - 2014.06.11 21:57:00 - [120] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Remove all railgun nerfs proposed for bravo. The glass cannon fits are too powerful because of how effective damage mods are. Tweak those, then test out everything else. Even then, by itself it's still way too strong. This brings it back to 1.6 levels. Deal with it. That's not entirely true. I know tankers keep asking for pre 1.6 stats, but we no longer have the stuff from 1.6. This thought process is backwards and illogical. It's a different time and place, dreaming of how things USED to be isn't productive. While I agree that damage needs to come down, ROF and Heat should be untouched in the first go around just to see how things pan out. Ever actually TRY a railgun without a damage mod against a defense oriented tanker? Just last night, as I ran my double dam modded fit, my mods were down and I was forced to engage basically in a bare gunnlogi. I won of course, but it took upwards to 5 shots (or more, good tankers are a rarity though) to drop the maddie / gunnlogis without the mods. So I really don't think that changing all of those variables are necessary. I would like a bit more proof, Godin, and less trolling from you. Would bringing the rails back to 1.6 values REALLY be the best thing for rails. And have you stopped to consider a gunnlogi vs a maddie using a rail? Taking into consideration, plates, hardeners, PG/CPU, ect. 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