DUST Search - [Suggestion] Bring back damage mods (spreadsheet included)

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[Suggestion] Bring back damage mods (spreadsheet included)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
mattphi94 Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2014.06.16 14:37:00 - [31] - Quote Martin0 Brancaleone wrote: in dust 514 all "good" e-war and utility modules in are low slot. Dampeners? low cardiac regulator and kin kats? low codebreakers? low High slots have: shields scan precision enhancers (useless on any non-scout suit due to pathetic scan radius) miofibril stimulants (just LOL) damage mods I have been thinking the same thing, since I started playing this game. Especially after I try a minmatar starter suit, which comes with a miofibril stimulants. They should have at least given them a militia damage mod. CCP should move codebreakers high, and perhpas even the dampeners or range amplifier too. How come they don't move Shield Regulators to high as well? It would make more sense to have all shield modules in one place.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 1917	Posted - 2014.06.16 15:05:00 - [32] - Quote Lynn Beck wrote: What if we nerfed weapons universally by 1-2%(av excluded) to accomodate for the potential decrease in TTK? Might this further widen the gap further between HMG and non-HMG? Shoot scout with yes... - Ripley Riley
Gelhad Thremyr Quebec United 316	Posted - 2014.06.16 15:43:00 - [33] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: Personally I'm more of a fan of 3-5-7% for damage mods, though I think we would also take a look at the PG/CPU usage at the same time. We're also aware that high slots could use more choices, but we haven't decided what we would want to either move over or make to sit in them. If you raise the dmg mod what is the advantage of a commando then ? We will return to caldary logies with rail rifles insta killing all, i think damage mods should be 2-4-6. If you want dmg buff like me then use the commando with the big hit box, else it removes the use of the commandos. I think we are in a sweet spot right now. Also make sure dmg mods are costy cpu and pg wise, so a high dmg only fit is easy to kill cause it cant stack too much armor, choices has to be made, you cannot give a blank card to ultimate killing machines here, and raise the heavy suits cost they are hard to kill ! This is probably why ppl want to buff dmg. If you raise the cost of the heavy armor right now ppl will think twice before putting them on the battlefield...
Martin0 Brancaleone Maphia Clan Corporation 566	Posted - 2014.06.16 18:27:00 - [34] - Quote Gelhad Thremyr wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: Personally I'm more of a fan of 3-5-7% for damage mods, though I think we would also take a look at the PG/CPU usage at the same time. We're also aware that high slots could use more choices, but we haven't decided what we would want to either move over or make to sit in them. If you raise the dmg mod what is the advantage of a commando then ? A free 10% damage boost, reload speed and 2 light weapons? Commandos can use damage mods too, a commando with a single 7% damage mod will have a total 17,7% damage modifier, any other suit fitting THREE will have a 18,04% bonus. On top of that the commando will have a second light weapon (that will get at least the 7% damage bonus).
Lynn Beck NoGameNoLife 1833	Posted - 2014.06.16 18:49:00 - [35] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Lynn Beck wrote: What if we nerfed weapons universally by 1-2%(av excluded) to accomodate for the potential decrease in TTK? Might this further widen the gap further between HMG and non-HMG? Please elaborate. For the record though, i'm fine with HMG's mowing doen all the come across in 0-15 meters, it's when i'm in a 300 shield scout, sprinting at 10 m/s and i die at 41 meters that i get pissed. Either A) drop Dps by 15%, or decrease Optimal to 20m, effective stsys about 45m or so. General John Ripper Like ALL the things!!!
bogeyman m Minmatar Republic 268	Posted - 2014.06.18 04:32:00 - [36] - Quote Lynn Beck wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Lynn Beck wrote: What if we nerfed weapons universally by 1-2%(av excluded) to accomodate for the potential decrease in TTK? Might this further widen the gap further between HMG and non-HMG? Please elaborate. For the record though, i'm fine with HMG's mowing doen all the come across in 0-15 meters, it's when i'm in a 300 shield scout, sprinting at 10 m/s and i die at 41 meters that i get pissed. Either A) drop Dps by 15%, or decrease Optimal to 20m, effective stsys about 45m or so. Ya. I'm more perturbed at getting levelled by Rail Rifles from over 90m away. Duct tape 2.0 ... Have WD-40; will travel. Cross Atu for CPM1
RogueTrooper 2000AD Neckbeard Absolution 94	Posted - 2014.06.18 15:14:00 - [37] - Quote Nocturnal Soul wrote: RogueTrooper 2000AD wrote: Gameplay is in a nice spot with damage and reps vs damage. We can at least react to being shot. Newbs also live longer than half a second. Your idea caters purely to us with proto. Big no. Are you know they could always spec into them their selves instead of brick tanking.... Damage mods are fine I think. They still do comparatively nice damage over 2 or 3 bullets worth of health from a HP mod. It still more damage and still effective vs HP tanking. Service with a smile
NextDark Knight Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 439	Posted - 2014.06.19 02:27:00 - [38] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: We're also aware that high slots could use more choices, but we haven't decided what we would want to either move over or make to sit in them. TATICAL INFORMATION UPLINK HIGHSLOT Transmits and Receives passive scans from anyone who has the module. Penalty is a 80% basic, 60% advanced, and 40% proto increase to Scan profile for having the module fitted. Forge Changes needed Officer Splash 3.0, Proto 2.7 Advanced 2.5 Standard 2.1. Original ROF needs to return!
Thokk Nightshade KNIGHTZ OF THE ROUND 391	Posted - 2014.06.19 02:41:00 - [39] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: Personally I'm more of a fan of 3-5-7% for damage mods, though I think we would also take a look at the PG/CPU usage at the same time. We're also aware that high slots could use more choices, but we haven't decided what we would want to either move over or make to sit in them. Can't you just set it so Damage Mods can go in EITHER High or Low but set a max limit, like 5 (how many I can fit on a Proto Logi Suit if I wanted to). That gives the option for people and wouldn't favor armor tankers over shield tankers. Thokk Kill. Thokk Crush. Thokk Smash.
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2432	Posted - 2014.06.19 03:57:00 - [40] - Quote Lynn Beck wrote: What if we nerfed weapons universally by 1-2%(av excluded) to accomodate for the potential decrease in TTK? I won't argue specific numbers but I think you're onto a strong concept. Shifting base dmg to allow more flex on the value of the dmg mods could prove useful. We need to be sure we're not allowing for dmg mods to push the profile of a weapon so far it distorts it's role/balance but that's within the specific figures. All in all it seems like a useful tool to look at. 0.02 ISK Cross Cross Atu for CPM1- An emergent candidate

Lynn Beck NoGameNoLife 1865	Posted - 2014.06.19 05:33:00 - [41] - Quote Tbh though, i would love to see additional 'weapon modifiers' added in- we hae such a wonderful array of potential addons. RoF mods, for example, could go in low slots, giving shield tankers the ability to empty their clips quicker, or for example a Effective Range mod, to help the Caldari hit at even more ridiculous ranges. Adding in Nanofibers, or 'hull storage' mods(which increase max ammo by 50%, but increase reload speed) could r added o lows, then we can move Kincats to highslots. General John Ripper Like ALL the things!!!
WeapondigitX V7 The Exemplars Top Men. 154	Posted - 2014.06.19 06:49:00 - [42] - Quote How about a new high slot module that is created by the dev team, which increases the damage efficacy to all vehicles. Give them a fancy name like 'AV projectile velocity amplifiers'. Have sidearm, light and heavy versions of them which affect only sidarms, or light weapons, or heavy weapons respectively. They don't increase damage to infantry. Example: (Mostly for the Flaylock users and charge shot iron pistol users, but will work for all sidearms) Sidearm AV projectile velocity amplifiers: (no stacking penalty, affects all sidarms) Increases damage efficacy to vehicles for all sidearm weapons by 10% at standard, reduces sidearm 'max ammo' by 68% except for flaylock Increases damage efficacy to vehicles for all sidearm weapons by 20% at adv, reduces sidearm 'max ammo' by 68% except for flaylock Increases damage efficacy to vehicles for all sidearm weapons by 30% at proto, reduces sidearm 'max ammo' by 68% except for flaylock Light AV projectile velocity amplifiers: (stacking penalty, affects all light weapons) Increases damage efficacy to vehicles for all light weapons by 8% at standard, reduces light weapon 'max ammo' by 68% except for swarm launcher, plasma cannon Increases damage efficacy to vehicles for all light weapons by 15% at advanced, reduces light weapon 'max ammo' by 68% except for swarm launcher, plasma cannon Increases damage efficacy to vehicles for all light weapons by 22% at proto, reduces light weapon 'max ammo' by 68% except for swarm launcher, plasma cannon Heavy AV projectile velocity amplifiers: (stacking penalty, affects all heavy weapons including HMG) Increases damage efficacy to vehicles for all heavy weapons by 10% at standard. Increases damage efficacy to vehicles for all heavy weapons by 16% at adv. Increases damage efficacy to vehicles for all heavy weapons by 23% at proto. Edited
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 592	Posted - 2014.06.19 15:34:00 - [43] - Quote It recently occurred to me to check on the design of damage mods pre-nerf: - When a STD damage mod had 3% bonus a STD shield extender gave 22 hp shields. In a 1-v-1 situation this bonus is worth it if you have more than 660 total hp (calculated as 22/0.03). - When an ENH damage mod had 5% bonus an ENH shield extender gave 33 hp shields. Worthwhile from 660 hp on. - When a CPX damage mod had 10% bonus a CPX shield extender gave 66 hp shields. Again, worthwhile from 660 hp on. So that was the original design behind damage mods before the design document was thrown out the window in the TTK-change of 1.8. Let's see how the suggested numbers from the original post compare: - 33 hp vs 4%: Worthwhile at over 825 hp - 50 hp vs 6%: Worthwhile at over 833 hp - 66 hp vs 8%: Worthwhile at over 825 hp If we went with 3-5-7 that would mean std damage mods are worth it at 1100 total hp, thus never (people who fit STD don't have 1100 hp). ENH ones would become useful at 1000 hp and CPX ones would become useful at 943 hp. Thus CPX ones would be the most useful ones and only so to people who have a ton of ehp anyways. I conclude that the 3-5-7 model would support proto stomping rather than reduce it. On the contrary I think the point of usefulness for damage mods should increase with the tiers. People who fit STD generally have less total hp than those who don't. Here's what a 4-5-6 model would do: - STD mods are useful at 825 ehp - ENH ones at 1000 ehp and - CPX ones at 1100. This would limit the popularity of triple-stacked cpx damage mods, I think. Generally I support the notion that, if damage mods are made useful again, the DPS of all weapons should be reduced by a comparable amount. That way mean engagement time would stay at an enjoyable level, with the added benefit of another useful module that you can fit.


Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.