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

Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 989	Posted - 2014.06.09 18:54:00 - [31] - Quote Jaysyn Larrisen wrote: 3) Just curious...is is possible to tweak the reticle for small turrets? That reticle makes a bigger difference than most think! Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 989	Posted - 2014.06.09 18:56:00 - [32] - 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 This **** seriously needs to be addressed. There is no reason skills should every stack like this. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
manboar thunder fist SAM-MIK General Tso's Alliance 51	Posted - 2014.06.09 19:11:00 - [33] - Quote Well guess what, tankers get cheesed off about being blown up while going 30-0 and getting weekly KD/S like 540 ?! I call bull on this one. Fix the TTk, fix the blaster, but give militia players a fighting chance against Vehicle pilots. Seriously, listen to all these blabber heads, i got 18 mil in vehicles, i got 42 mil in vehicles. Does billybob bobbybill's 41 million SP in dropsuits make him unkillable to infantry? HELL NAW I continue to hunt down protofit players with scores of 40-0s in games and trophy kill them with my basic breach assault rifle... If i was unable to kill a 40 million sp player 1 v1 i would leave this game... SURE, he has a huge advantage, but he isn't UNKILLABLE... I wish you luck in your vehicle balancing endeavours, but hear my words when i say this: Every player should have the ability to kill a tank if he has suprise, modules and coordinated search and destroy tactics on his side... 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. Balance the game sure, but give the militia nubs a fighting chance! NERF SCOUTS, NERF TANKS, NERF AV, NERF ASSAULTS, NERF LOGIS, NERF HEAVIES nerf life
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 1553	Posted - 2014.06.09 19:22:00 - [34] - Quote manboar thunder fist wrote: Does billybob bobbybill's 41 million SP in dropsuits make him unkillable to infantry? HELL NAW That is not a productive statement, but it is awesome. +1 manboar thunder fist wrote: 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. That's Uprising 1.0 thru 1.6 from a Scout's perspective. Indeed, it was "stupid". Shoot scout with yes... - Ripley Riley
Sir Dukey SAM-MIK General Tso's Alliance 1000	Posted - 2014.06.09 19:44:00 - [35] - 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. vehicles can't even kill infantry anymore. Also- they aren't even that powerful. 4 rounds from proto forgegunner hiding in a corner kills most tanks.
Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL Top Men. 257	Posted - 2014.06.09 19:47:00 - [36] - 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. How about make the tracks a sweet spot also like 100% back sweet spot 110% If you want you could harden the front to 80%
Sir Dukey SAM-MIK General Tso's Alliance 1000	Posted - 2014.06.09 19:48:00 - [37] - 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. damage mods don't need the 30% reduced, they need stacking removed. So, only one damage mod at a time.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 15404	Posted - 2014.06.09 19:51:00 - [38] - 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
Sir Dukey SAM-MIK General Tso's Alliance 1000	Posted - 2014.06.09 19:57:00 - [39] - Quote Tebu Gan 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. 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. Shield vehicles suck, 40% resistance is less resistance than I had passive in 1.6. Av is not weak, you know AV when you run into a militia swarmer in your shield tank. Even a militia swarm is enough to scare a shield tank off. Buff shield tank resistance 50% at complex, 40% at ADV, 30% at STD. Shield tank speed is fine and so is acceleration. Missiles need buff against Anti- Infantry, It's literally impossible to kill a moving target without dumping whole clip. It needs better reload. STD missiles need damage buff.. 400 is too low. needs to be around 500, ADv needs 550 and PRO should be 630 per missile. The reload makes up for alpha damage. Also they are sh*t against shield tanks.
Sir Dukey SAM-MIK General Tso's Alliance 1000	Posted - 2014.06.09 19:58:00 - [40] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: 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) Like Nitro and afterburners. You can only put one on a vehicle.

Cyrus Grevare warravens Final Resolution. 222	Posted - 2014.06.09 20:13:00 - [41] - Quote Never been good in a tank and have 0 SP invested on them, but I think missile turrets would be cool if they had an additional fire mode: lock on tracking missiles like the swarm launchers, of course keeping the current dumb fire mode. .02 ISK www.protofits.com - a Dust 514 fitting tool
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 15404	Posted - 2014.06.09 20:38:00 - [42] - 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
Spartan MK420 D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 509	Posted - 2014.06.09 20:59:00 - [43] - Quote Duke mentioned something about making pythons more resistant to swarms in that related feedback thread. I agree with this, you get 3 hit by swarms and 2 hit-3 hit by forges, 2 hit by rail tanks. The incubus is in a very op state, it can tank single proto av users, without having to run off to heal constantly from swarm users, unlike my python which is in/out constantly. My average bombing run is 15-20 seconds, my average running time is 30-45 seconds. It's the same with the repper maddy, armor based vehicles can get too much repps out of stacking their modules (as sica's/rails get too much dmg by stacking the dmg mods) Maybe a stacking penalty would also be in-line for vehicle modules....even my beloved python. I should have to sacrifice more shield depletion time, if I stack shield extenders. (just as the infantry) This would also make that shield depletion skill more useful, and perhaps open the door for more of a variety of builds. Vehicles were meant to hit hard, then run and hide, right? Support Assault changes
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2560	Posted - 2014.06.09 21:14:00 - [44] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: 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). Blaster doesn't need any more nerfs atm. The ttk needs to go up, not down. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2560	Posted - 2014.06.09 21:16:00 - [45] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: 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). Blaster doesn't need any more nerfs atm. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Dunce Masterson Savage Bullet 115	Posted - 2014.06.09 23:11:00 - [46] - 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) true the rate of fire to alpha damage rail turrets is to much either reduce its damage or reduce its rate of fire to more then 2.1. 2) yes they need to bright into line with the hardeners 3) not true its working like its supposed to as a anti infantry tank, its worthless against rails and missiles and the suicide LAV's proxy/remote traps. 4) what? so this is about dropships right? how are you going to balance them if you take there speed tank away? give them staying power? 5) I agree would it be possible to make dust 514 shield tanking(vehicles) work like it does in EVE online? The blaster should have higher DPS then the Rail turrets then. I don't even know why I bother.
Alpha 443-6732 BurgezzE.T.F 496	Posted - 2014.06.09 23:33:00 - [47] - Quote 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.
The Black Jackal The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 1226	Posted - 2014.06.09 23:36:00 - [48] - 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 statement is indeed true. Both ISK and SP wise. You can fit a full Militia Sica with Double Damage Mods on a rail and be a dangerous foe, while in contrast, you can fit double militia reps in your lows and have survivability rivalling that of a Gunloggi. A quick suggestion would be anoverall lowering of their PG / CPU, as well as reducing theiur 'off-slot' by 1, so Somas have 1 / 2, and Gunloggi have 2 /1. 2) Damage modifers having been moved from lows to highs, and made active with a 30% increase in damage really did a number on TTK when it was introduced. It allows things such as heavily tanked armor HAVs with simultaneous high Damage Output on the same hull. Whereas, under the older system, Shield HAVs were more apt to have higher natural DPS output, making up for their lack of eHP. In general, I believe this is the way it should go. Shield Tanks capable of more Gank Vs. Tank, and Vice Versa on Armor HAVs, making them more of a point guard, accommodating larger tanking figures and lower acceleration. 3) Triple reps are very bad. I recently ran an experiment where I side by side n the same match put down a Madrugar with 3 Militia Reps in the lows. It was capable of taking sustained AV fire from both a Blaster Installation, and several AV before going down. I put a Gunloggi, with Hardener, an Extender, and a Booster into the exact same situation and it was torn apart in less than half the time. A fix to this would be to apply diminishing returns to the passive repair modules. Similarly how most other modules are penalised (100%, 80%, 50%) so while it may still be somewhat viable fit (for Infantry Suppression), it would make fitting an armor plate for buffer, or a hardener much more appealing. and Increase the HAV's 'Down Time' 4) I would argue that 'very high top speeds' applies to Dropships more than HAVs, but with the assumption that it applies to both, the overall intention with the Wave of Opportunity design was to give HAVs a short span in which to engage, do their damage, then have to disengage. If you remove the ability to disengage, that hypothetical window of opportunity is diminised greatly. And thus it should be increased in other ways if things such as Vehicle SLow Down effects are added to AV weapons. Noteably in hp / regen of the Vehicles to give them much more staying power. 5) Shield Tanking is broken due to 2 things, imho. Firstly, it has a Cooldown Time. Since the Module reduction, we have no way of increasing our recharge rates as Infantry do, so our 'Down Time' cannot be dramatically decreased like a Triple Rep Madrugar. They can achieve 400+ hp/s without delay, while Gunloggi's areset with sub-200 hp/s with a shield recharge delay to prevent them 'out tanking' incoming DPS... Yet that is what Armor Tanks now have. Coupled with the proposal above to shift Damage Mods back to Passive Lows, this would bring back an equilibrium of Gank Vs Tank for the shield tank. Making it much better suited to 'short' hit and fade engagements comparatively to the Armor Tanks. (Fixing the Booster would also help.) So in essence you'd have a clear delineation of Armor is steady, able to absorb more damage, but the Shield would be able to hit faster, and harder, but have the reduced tank as we have now. The Black Jackal for CPM1
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 15407	Posted - 2014.06.09 23:41:00 - [49] - 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
Alpha 443-6732 BurgezzE.T.F 496	Posted - 2014.06.09 23:51:00 - [50] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: 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. Exactly, railguns are blatantly OP and idiot proof. They are literally the biggest reason why tank v tank is so bad right now. Some other issues however: -Low price of tank hulls -Lack of viable low slot modules for shield tanks ( passive damage mods? the old shield efficiency mods?) -Tanks are mind numbingly simple to drive (I want to take damage when I hit a wall at the speed of sound, I want to slip and slide and flip upside down when my turret catches on something, I want to be punished for going offroad and rewarded for staying on the road) -There needs to be more opportunities for enemy infantry to zone tanks (deployable, nigh invincible tank traps; massive AOE webifier mines and EMP mines that disable a tank's modules and controls for 10 or so seconds) -and so on

Alpha 443-6732 BurgezzE.T.F 496	Posted - 2014.06.09 23:55:00 - [51] - Quote I also believe that the infantry AV gameplay should resemble that of a saboteur and should never compete with vehicles in their specialized area (from a raw stats point of view). With that being said, I also don't believe it is fair to be 3-4 shotted consistently by someone who can drive up 5m from my tank and hold his R1 button down on a massive target. Sorry for going off topic.
Alpha 443-6732 BurgezzE.T.F 496	Posted - 2014.06.09 23:57:00 - [52] - Quote Oh yeah, there will never be any use for shield hardeners when a dmodded sica can take all your shields away with a single blow.
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2560	Posted - 2014.06.10 02:52:00 - [53] - Quote I'd like to say this before I address your points: The fitting for vehicles has become a shell of it used to be. Before, you could make all sorts of neat fits to do an assortment of tasks on the battlefield(within the role of the vehicle of course). a Speedy Shield tanked Kubera (Gal BO HAV) comes to mind, being able to use a 4/4 slot layout, as well as 3 turret slots. Now? I get 3/2 slot layout, and have to make my fit horrible just to fit a small turret. Not both, just one. Oh, and this is without using one of my highs as well.That needs changing, as it was never as broken as it has been in the game's life as it has been in 1.7 and beyond. Also, there's no scaling between active modules. Before, there was an actual difference in the power between tiers.There was a actual point in getting a higher tier module. Now, half the time that's not even a good choice (see the above fitting issue). Lastly, although it seems that you guys are working on it, AV is still sub par. AV nades, FG's and RE's are decent, but swarms needs a lot of help from other AV weapons, or a lot of other swarms to help it out, and from what I hear, PLC's still takes a lot of skill to take down even one, and even then, you'll burn through all of your ammo doing so (I think that's fine, but from what I hear, it is just now, for your statements- 1: Although I'm not sure what you mean by "cheap" (assuming you mean cheap as in cost, and in which you'd mean a Sica with mlt damage mods), but damage mods in general is too effective. So, as I see it, there's two ways to fix them: a- make them passive modules again with the old values, adjust from there (recommended) b- lower their effectiveness 25-50%, and cut their active time. Also, I'd look into decreasing the alpha potential of the rail and the missile in their own right (although make the reload on the missile not sad as hell anymore, and for legion, add actual missiles, because we have rockets now). and lastly, as Dust Fiend pointed out, ADS's strafe runs of hell don't need to happen. 2: Look at 1 3: Bring back the active reps. Problem solved. 4: That is caused by nitro's mainly (for for DS's, AB's, which you shall not touch). and it's not the speed as most have pointed out, it's the insane acceleration. nerf the acceleration on those things. HOwever, don't even think about touching the speed. 5: This is due to the fact that boosters suck now, (imo more so than before), and that the HAV's and vehicles in general seems to be set up kinda like the Amarr and Winmatar in my opinion. I say buff the base shield of Caldari HAV's by just a bit (150-300). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 11070	Posted - 2014.06.10 08:06:00 - [54] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: 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). 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. Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2560	Posted - 2014.06.10 08:14:00 - [55] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: 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). 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 11070	Posted - 2014.06.10 08:32:00 - [56] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: 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). 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. Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 2390	Posted - 2014.06.10 08:33:00 - [57] - Quote 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 "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2560	Posted - 2014.06.10 08:35:00 - [58] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: 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). 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. Probably because I've had little/no sleep in days, but that part didn't appear in my view. That's a lot better. As for your comment about "blasters slaughtering infantry", no, they don't. you'd REALLY have to stand there like a idiot now. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 11070	Posted - 2014.06.10 09:51:00 - [59] - 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 I support these completely. A large railgun nerf would make large blasters preferable as the close range AV, while railguns would be the long range AV turret one. Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2560	Posted - 2014.06.10 10:23:00 - [60] - 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 no return to the active reps? ughh. Otherwise nice. ^ My response like 2 hours ago. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Yoma Carrim Last VenDetta. Dark Taboo 568	Posted - 2014.06.10 10:32:00 - [61] - 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 And we're back to 1.6 damage model for railguns...sigh (as a rail tanker I know this was needed but still doesn't cut back on the disappointment) Nice to see this progression stage to active damage mods and of course anything to cut back on unkillable madies is a good thing. Oh Heck
The dark cloud The Rainbow Effect 3234	Posted - 2014.06.10 10:38:00 - [62] - 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 Dont touch the damage itself on large rails you should instead nerf damage mods. Most people complain that they are getting 2 shotted by a rail tank that just flipped 2-3 damage mods on. Rate of fire and heat build up can be discussed. But if you nerf the damage itself and damage mods in combination then its problematic.
Beren Hurin Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 2405	Posted - 2014.06.10 11:51:00 - [63] - Quote The new heavy damage tank is the one that combines large and small turrets. I think the nerf to both damage mods and turrets is to make the point that you shouldn't be able to make the cheap AV glass cannons that you have been making. Effective and survivable vehicles will be going up in price, because to increase in DPS, you need to have the STD vehicles, ADV/PRO large turrets, and have small turrets.
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 990	Posted - 2014.06.10 13:46:00 - [64] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: manboar thunder fist wrote: Does billybob bobbybill's 41 million SP in dropsuits make him unkillable to infantry? HELL NAW That is not a productive statement, but it is awesome. +1 Umm, more often then not, a MLT dropsuit doesn't hardly stand a chance against a proto suit one vs one. So you are saying that MLT tanks need to stand up one vs one to a proto tank? Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 990	Posted - 2014.06.10 13:49:00 - [65] - 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 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? Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1850	Posted - 2014.06.10 13:50:00 - [66] - 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 - [67] - 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
calisk galern BurgezzE.T.F General Tso's Alliance 2552	Posted - 2014.06.10 15:11:00 - [68] - Quote hmmm with the proposed numbers I suspect drop ships to gain a large amount of survivability, and since most top class drop ship pilots are near indestructible already this should create a new fotm. i'm unsure of how effective or ineffective the stacking penalty will be for triple rep maddies, but since their main counter the rail gun is being nerfed, i suspect them to mostly cancel each other out with a decent bit more survivability in maddies versus rails( their main counter ), but a reduced survivability versus other forms of AV. I suppose although not a big deal the glass cannon fits will become a bit more glass cannon esq as they will need to fit proto damage mods on, while the cheap sica fits will become significantly cheaper
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Dirt Nap Squad. 187	Posted - 2014.06.10 15:23:00 - [69] - Quote Large rail turrets require more range to be viable with proposed damage nerfs. Builds will see 10% to 40% reductions depending on number of damage mods. Not to mention heat build up. A range increase from 300m (old) to 400m (proposed) would allow the rails to perform their function without being outclassed in every way by a forge gun. Going to be ridiculous if it is more viable to jump out of a tank with a forge and fire at every target as ithe forge has more range (just over 300m), faster tracking, ability to aim straight up.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 458	Posted - 2014.06.10 15:35:00 - [70] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 1) Stacking penalties on Armor Repairers Excellent. This should help make Repairer Fits less dominant but still viable. I'm expecting to see two repairers/one hardener become the go-to for rep tankers (which is not unreasonable.) CCP Rattati wrote: 2) Reduction and progression to Damage Amplifiers Sweet zombie baby Jesus, they used to not have stacking penalties?!? Egads man! This proposal MUST follow through. CCP Rattati wrote: 3) Reduction of Large rail damage and ROF, increase of Heat Cost I think these changes are fine for the most part. However, I feel that with these changes a small increase to Large Railgun range should also be implemented: returning to something like 400 would not be unreasonable, and the ROF and heat build-up changes will be most welcome. calisk galern wrote: hmmm with the proposed numbers I suspect drop ships to gain a large amount of survivability, and since most top class drop ship pilots are near indestructible already this should create a new fotm. This is a pretty flawed concept: the top ADS pilots (and all ADS pilots who've actually taken their lumps learning to fly properly) will not be easy to replicate, and that is what FOTM is all about - ease of replication. Flying a standard dropship is not immensely difficult; flying one well is mildly difficult; flying an ADS well is difficult; and flying an ADS well while shooting decently is one of the hardest professions in the game, while also carrying the highest price tag, not only for continued flying but for entry into the skill set. The good ADS pilots out there will get an advantage: Large Railguns have been popping the only-90%-cautious pilots for ages because of their ridiculous ROF and, apparently, the regarded fact that Damage Mods did not have stacking penalties. The changes in Bravo will mean that Large Railguns are not immediately an automatically dead dropship, instead the ADS pilot will have more than half a second to react, meaning the good ones will survive more, but still be forced to disengage their original ground targets. Personally, I think the armour repairers will need a further small tweak, as the true issue with the ADS is the heavy rep Incubus being able to shrug off large amounts of infantry AV: Pythons already rely on mobility and disengaging in the face of one Forge Gunner, one high skilled Swarmer or multiple of any AV.

jaksol JAK darnson Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 14	Posted - 2014.06.10 16:10:00 - [71] - 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. also rails on armor tanks are 2 effective maby a bonus for using all caldary turrents on shield tanks, and all gallente turrents one armor tanks? "Sacrifice is a choice you make. Loss is a choice made for you."
jaksol JAK darnson Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 14	Posted - 2014.06.10 16:13:00 - [72] - Quote allso i have to say i cant fly a standerd dropship very whell but i can do barral rolls and am generaly have a much easiers time flying the assault, so i use it as a transport not to shoot exept for uplink removale "Sacrifice is a choice you make. Loss is a choice made for you."
Alpha 443-6732 BurgezzE.T.F 499	Posted - 2014.06.10 18:32:00 - [73] - 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 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?
Alpha 443-6732 BurgezzE.T.F 499	Posted - 2014.06.10 18:34:00 - [74] - Quote Harpyja wrote: 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. I can tell you right now that the railgun would needs its range back to normal levels to perform adequately as a low DPS, high range weapon
Alpha 443-6732 BurgezzE.T.F 499	Posted - 2014.06.10 18:36:00 - [75] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: 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 missiles (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.
LudiKure ninda SLAYERS UNITE. 89	Posted - 2014.06.10 18:54:00 - [76] - Quote 2 mill ISK for fully PRO tank ,and low pg/cpu on militia tanks,old slot layout ond tanks and dmg mods on 10%. And yeah bring back sagaris and surya <3 Solo player.. SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED!
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 993	Posted - 2014.06.10 19:16:00 - [77] - Quote Harpyja wrote: 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. So all THREE variables need tweaked? I didn't have time to look at the numbers this morning, but now that I have seen them, it might not be all bad. But do all three really need to be changed? Look, the biggest problem with rails that I have seen stem from the damage mods (and the fact there was no stacking penalty) and not the rail damage itself so much. I have run a double hardened / triple hardened fit against other fits similar to my own. Without a damage mod, battles with other tanks (defense oriented tanks) take enough shots to reach overheat, or close to it, depending on driver skill. Which is why I think that changing all three variables is overkill. Let's just think about this for a moment. When we change just one variable, the damage, you inadvertently affect the other two variables. Lower damage means more shots required to kill. Which means more shots to come closer to reaching the overheat. That's what we are talking about right, how a rail tanker must juggle his overheat to overcome it's adversary. (Keep in mind, pre 1.6 we had heatsinks to help us manage overheat) So while changing all three variables might outright seem small, I believe they are far larger than they appear, given one affects the other 2. Rail damage seems rather large atm, but damage mods cloud the reality of the situation. That rails really are not as powerful as many make them out to be. Agreed that damage needs to come down, but changing so much outright seems overkill. And there are other factors that need to be considered, namely how these changes would affect the tanks they are attached to. I feel that that an armor tank with a rail would greatly benefit from these changes while a gunnlogi would go back to being an underdog in comparison. Outright, a armor tank would beat the shield tank hands down as it is MUCH better at taking the damage, better turret depression for shooting behind cover, ect. Then there comes the blaster, which already shreds unhardened shield tanks, and has a noticeable impact against hardeners. I see them being very effective against shield tanks, when an armor tank uses them. Even if said shield tank is using the rail. I'm just worried that it is too much, and doesn't take enough consideration to the tank types. While maddies may not be as effective at triple reping, I've never had much problem with a rail on my gunnlogi against them in the first place. It's the maddies that use plates that stack high defenses in the form of HP that give me the most trouble, when I don't use damage mods. I feel a lot of this would very much favor the maddie over the gunnlogi, even with a stacking penalty on reps. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2568	Posted - 2014.06.10 21:22:00 - [78] - 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? Now it's back to the balanced 1.6 rail click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2568	Posted - 2014.06.10 21:25:00 - [79] - Quote jaksol JAK darnson 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. also rails on armor tanks are 2 effective maby a bonus for using all caldary turrents on shield tanks, and all gallente turrents one armor tanks? Gallente made railguns................ no. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2568	Posted - 2014.06.10 21:28:00 - [80] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: edit: woops, didnt mean to quote that I was also wondering if we could see a buff to large missile turret elevation to combat ADSs more efficiently. I was thinking about something like a 70-80 degree max inclination of the turret, for it to better fulfill its AA/AT role. In regards to Kagehoshi, personally I think the large blaster should have it's rate of fire, ammo and clip size toned down significantly (and it's damage increased to compensate) so that it is remains the most efficient turret to kill infantry with, but requires much greater aim and tracking then before. Generally, I think turret types need to drastically lose their rate of fire (or in the missile's case, it's consistency) as they advance up through the sizes. Higher overall dps and efficiency versus armoured targets should at least warrant a decrease in volume of fire. Currently, all large turrets generally follow this rule, however the large blaster sticks out like a sore thumb in comparison to its smaller variant; they are in direct competition. With that being said, I propose that the large blaster turret be redesigned as a fairly accurate (tone down the dispersion nerf), low RoF weapon (about 150 or so rpm and a damage buff to compensate for the dps loss) with it's current efficiency towards vehicles. The small blaster should have a massive advantage in accuracy (which it does), volume of fire (which it does) and therefore effective range (it definitely needs a large buff to it's effective range) as well as considerable damage (it has this now), to make it a much more effective anti infantry weapon. Also, fix the hit detection on the small turrets and you'd see that this would all fall neatly into place. You want to cut the rof in half. No. It's already been nerfed against infantry. Deal with it, and stop standing there. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Sir Dukey SAM-MIK General Tso's Alliance 1003	Posted - 2014.06.10 22:07:00 - [81] - Quote 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...
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 993	Posted - 2014.06.10 22:21:00 - [82] - 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... Oo, this is also something that needs consideration. Missiles are going to need a change to compensate, like faster reload. And why oh WHY do these things take the MOST skill points to use. They are a novelty and hardly one you want to show to your mother. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 993	Posted - 2014.06.10 22:22:00 - [83] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: jaksol JAK darnson 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. also rails on armor tanks are 2 effective maby a bonus for using all caldary turrents on shield tanks, and all gallente turrents one armor tanks? Gallente made railguns................ no. But caldari are long range snipers, duh. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2570	Posted - 2014.06.11 02:03:00 - [84] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: jaksol JAK darnson 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. also rails on armor tanks are 2 effective maby a bonus for using all caldary turrents on shield tanks, and all gallente turrents one armor tanks? Gallente made railguns................ no. But caldari are long range snipers, duh. 1: this exists 2: rockets and torpedos exists. Yea, I call bullshit. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 993	Posted - 2014.06.11 02:21:00 - [85] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: jaksol JAK darnson 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. also rails on armor tanks are 2 effective maby a bonus for using all caldary turrents on shield tanks, and all gallente turrents one armor tanks? Gallente made railguns................ no. But caldari are long range snipers, duh. 1: this exists 2: rockets and torpedos exists. Yea, I call bullshit. You missed my sarcasm, clearly. I'm aware of this, but consider also that caldari have crap missiles, so **** lore, lol. Are you saying caldari get missiles and gallente get rails AND blasters. Not fair sir, not fair. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Dunce Masterson Savage Bullet 116	Posted - 2014.06.11 02:45:00 - [86] - 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 @ # 1) what the hell man leave that alone for now wait and see how your DPS nerf to rails turns out befor touching the reps. @ # 2&3 +1 I don't even know why I bother.
Glyd Path Nec Tributis 117	Posted - 2014.06.11 03:11:00 - [87] - 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. Not in order but my reply as a tank girl. 3, is not totally valid. While they might seem to be the most effective, personally, I find them to be less so. Of course, I don't want others to know this. Dust is filled with qq spewers and this is just the current favorite. The problem is we listen to qq but they don't relate their side of the story. Were they working alone? What weapon were they using? What about relative positions? Many feel that any AV fit should kill any tank. Also my Maddy gets hit by flux grenades constantly. Wow. No doubt they come back and ***** here about my triple reps. Which I don't run, btw. I tried it a few times but a smart AV pair, not a full squad, can pop you quick. It just takes timing. Much like killing the ccp favorite the 900+ hp bunny hopping invisible scout. The number of times I have sat still destroying whatever I targeted while getting hit by some totally ignorant red berry with a militia swarm launcher is beyond measure. I even get hate mail about it. But a militia AV care barely damage a properly fitted tank - by itself. Yet one scout with an RE can destroy the very same tank. Somebody is seriously wrong about this. And while I would prefer to say it is the RE scout it is actually the ignorant militia AV swarmer that never notices my shields have recovered by the time they reload. Fools. 1 and 2 in combination are the actual problem, but only to other tanks so why do non-tankers care? If 1 is true then how can 5 be true as well? When running a shield tank you cannot stand toe to toe with an armored tank. You Will Die. Shield tanks have speed and maneuverability over armor tanks. Armor have higher damage resistance. Coming up behind or flanking an armor tank a shield tank can take them out. If the rail gun actually fires, if the rounds do damage or if the operator doesn't miss. Two of the three problems are the games fault, BTW. High top speed is still consistent with tanks and the purported goal for the infamous vehicle rebalance of 1.7 if you don't recall I can clarify it for you. Waves of opportunity mean waiting for modules to recharge/cooldown/whatever while reloading ammor and waiting for shields and armor to regen. We are merely doing what ccp demanded we do to run tanks. Rush in guns blazing, use modules to enhance functions/defense, run like frightened rabbits when the modules die down or we have taken too many hits. Then rinse and repeat. Not that much different than many infantry roles. Now, you are saying what exactly? That this is wrong as well? Not mentioned is a guy running a Soma that can one shot any tank he comes across. Yep, two friends of mine went against him in a variety of tanks and he shot each of them once and killed them each and every time. How is that possible? I am actively searching for his name and numbers. Neither noted the damage inflicted which was unfortunate. There is no log, nor statistics that let the players know who is killing who, what is being used to kill what and what is the most effective, common, lethal or cheapest solution. I only hope that CCP Rattiti has some information to base the upcoming changes on. Because the list as its stands is nearly laughable as it is fueled mostly by qq. Nobody at CCP cares because we ain't Legionnaires.
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2571	Posted - 2014.06.11 03:20:00 - [88] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: You missed my sarcasm, clearly. I'm aware of this, but consider also that caldari have crap missiles, so **** lore, lol. Are you saying caldari get missiles and gallente get rails AND blasters. Not fair sir, not fair. 1: That's not lore, that's a real thing.......... 2: Caldari obviously uses hybrids as well, so no, not at all. I'm simply saying that the logic behind making them worse for Gallente is silly as hell. Currently there's only one T I HAV per race, and imo, there needs to be more (but more would require new things, as there's not much of anything ingame to give bonuses for tbh). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2571	Posted - 2014.06.11 03:23:00 - [89] - Quote Glyd Path 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. Not in order but my reply as a tank girl. 3, is not totally valid. While they might seem to be the most effective, personally, I find them to be less so. Of course, I don't want others to know this. Dust is filled with qq spewers and this is just the current favorite. The problem is we listen to qq but they don't relate their side of the story. Were they working alone? What weapon were they using? What about relative positions? Many feel that any AV fit should kill any tank. Also my Maddy gets hit by flux grenades constantly. Wow. No doubt they come back and ***** here about my triple reps. Which I don't run, btw. I tried it a few times but a smart AV pair, not a full squad, can pop you quick. It just takes timing. Much like killing the ccp favorite the 900+ hp bunny hopping invisible scout. The number of times I have sat still destroying whatever I targeted while getting hit by some totally ignorant red berry with a militia swarm launcher is beyond measure. I even get hate mail about it. But a militia AV care barely damage a properly fitted tank - by itself. Yet one scout with an RE can destroy the very same tank. Somebody is seriously wrong about this. And while I would prefer to say it is the RE scout it is actually the ignorant militia AV swarmer that never notices my shields have recovered by the time they reload. Fools. 1 and 2 in combination are the actual problem, but only to other tanks so why do non-tankers care? If 1 is true then how can 5 be true as well? When running a shield tank you cannot stand toe to toe with an armored tank. You Will Die. Shield tanks have speed and maneuverability over armor tanks. Armor have higher damage resistance. Coming up behind or flanking an armor tank a shield tank can take them out. If the rail gun actually fires, if the rounds do damage or if the operator doesn't miss. Two of the three problems are the games fault, BTW. High top speed is still consistent with tanks and the purported goal for the infamous vehicle rebalance of 1.7 if you don't recall I can clarify it for you. Waves of opportunity mean waiting for modules to recharge/cooldown/whatever while reloading ammor and waiting for shields and armor to regen. We are merely doing what ccp demanded we do to run tanks. Rush in guns blazing, use modules to enhance functions/defense, run like frightened rabbits when the modules die down or we have taken too many hits. Then rinse and repeat. Not that much different than many infantry roles. Now, you are saying what exactly? That this is wrong as well? Not mentioned is a guy running a Soma that can one shot any tank he comes across. Yep, two friends of mine went against him in a variety of tanks and he shot each of them once and killed them each and every time. How is that possible? I am actively searching for his name and numbers. Neither noted the damage inflicted which was unfortunate. There is no log, nor statistics that let the players know who is killing who, what is being used to kill what and what is the most effective, common, lethal or cheapest solution. I only hope that CCP Rattiti has some information to base the upcoming changes on. Because the list as its stands is nearly laughable as it is fueled mostly by qq. you must hate actual logic, as most of this post has none in it. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Glyd Path Nec Tributis 117	Posted - 2014.06.11 03:25:00 - [90] - 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: 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. Nobody at CCP cares because we ain't Legionnaires.

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

Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 998	Posted - 2014.06.11 22:02:00 - [121] - 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 don't understand their thought process sometimes. Nerf repair modules to a point of uselessness, so you are forced to either use a nearly useless hardener, or stack plates. What happend to damage mitigation, a combination of heals, HP values, and resistances??? I mean come on, we only have 3 slots to work with, what variety could possibly come of THREE slots. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2583	Posted - 2014.06.11 22:04:00 - [122] - Quote Tebu Gan 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. 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. Are HAV's have even lower eHP's than in 1.6. It makes sense to AT LEAST get them to 1.6 levels. And yes I have, it was pretty easy. And I have not been trolling, I've been saying logic. Do you not like logic? Seems to be a theme around here. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2583	Posted - 2014.06.11 22:05:00 - [123] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: 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 don't understand their thought process sometimes. Nerf repair modules to a point of uselessness, so you are forced to either use a nearly useless hardener, or stack plates. What happend to damage mitigation, a combination of heals, HP values, and resistances??? I mean come on, we only have 3 slots to work with, what variety could possibly come of THREE slots. I've been saying that we should go back to 1.6 fitting style. It wasn't perfect, but it was a hell of a lot better imo. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 999	Posted - 2014.06.12 00:25:00 - [124] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: 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 don't understand their thought process sometimes. Nerf repair modules to a point of uselessness, so you are forced to either use a nearly useless hardener, or stack plates. What happend to damage mitigation, a combination of heals, HP values, and resistances??? I mean come on, we only have 3 slots to work with, what variety could possibly come of THREE slots. I've been saying that we should go back to 1.6 fitting style. It wasn't perfect, but it was a hell of a lot better imo. Agreed it was more fun, but I do not see that as a possibility with CCP. I'm more about working with what we got, not what we had. Things are a LOT different now, and not just the HP values. Things work differently, and shield hardeners provide a LOT more resistances than they used to. And logic would dictate we adjust just ONE variable and observe the changes. 20% reduction to damage (proposed is 10% I think), that way with a damage mod, you have values similar to what we have now at proto level. I don't think that is all that bad. The glass cannon stacking damage would STILL be very easy to drop, and at the same time wouldn't 2 shot you from behind. Maybe adjust the PG/CPU values a bit of damage mods (seem very cheap atm) to stop the use of armor in the lows for gunnlogis, and make them MUCH harder to fit on a maddie. But with a change to damage like this, a single shield hardener will cancel out 2 damage mods. While an armor tank, with a single hardener can cancel 1 damage mod, and stack armor or reps to further mitigate the damage. My point is, the current value (on proto rails) present a decent TTK. Factor in stacking penalties with damage mods, a 20% nerf to damage greatly prolongs the TTK when coupled with the damage mod changes. Glass cannons would still be glass cannons, and defense oriented tanks would become viable again. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Godin Thekiller shadows of 514 2585	Posted - 2014.06.12 02:55:00 - [125] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: 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 don't understand their thought process sometimes. Nerf repair modules to a point of uselessness, so you are forced to either use a nearly useless hardener, or stack plates. What happend to damage mitigation, a combination of heals, HP values, and resistances??? I mean come on, we only have 3 slots to work with, what variety could possibly come of THREE slots. I've been saying that we should go back to 1.6 fitting style. It wasn't perfect, but it was a hell of a lot better imo. Agreed it was more fun, but I do not see that as a possibility with CCP. I'm more about working with what we got, not what we had. Things are a LOT different now, and not just the HP values. Things work differently, and shield hardeners provide a LOT more resistances than they used to. And logic would dictate we adjust just ONE variable and observe the changes. 20% reduction to damage (proposed is 10% I think), that way with a damage mod, you have values similar to what we have now at proto level. I don't think that is all that bad. The glass cannon stacking damage would STILL be very easy to drop, and at the same time wouldn't 2 shot you from behind. Maybe adjust the PG/CPU values a bit of damage mods (seem very cheap atm) to stop the use of armor in the lows for gunnlogis, and make them MUCH harder to fit on a maddie. But with a change to damage like this, a single shield hardener will cancel out 2 damage mods. While an armor tank, with a single hardener can cancel 1 damage mod, and stack armor or reps to further mitigate the damage. My point is, the current value (on proto rails) present a decent TTK. Factor in stacking penalties with damage mods, a 20% nerf to damage greatly prolongs the TTK when coupled with the damage mod changes. Glass cannons would still be glass cannons, and defense oriented tanks would become viable again. Obviously we would keep the improvements to things such as passive shields (quite nicer than before tbh) and ammo. I was just referring to fitting said items like before. As for the rails staying where they are, iirc it takes give or take 5 shots to kill a HAV, and those 5 shots still comes very quick even without damage mods. and PROTO damage mods are still at 20% (so a 10% nerf, not a 20% nerf), so the TTK is still quite low. This needs to happen. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one 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

BlowoutForCPM