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)
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 586	Posted - 2014.06.15 10:16:00 - [1] - Quote Hey, ever since damage mods were nerfed they aren't worth it anymore in almost any scenario. I'd like to reinstate damage mods so we get a bit more diverse fittings in the wild. I'll go ahead and suggest these new values for damage mods: STD: 4% ENH: 6% CPX: 8% (STD: Standard, ENH: Enhanced, CPX: Complex) Stacking 3 of these damage mods you'll end up with this damage increase: STD: 10% ENH: 15% CPX: 20% ...which reduces TTK by the following factor: STD: 08.9% ENH: 12.6% CPX: 16.3% If it took 1.5 seconds to kill a medium suit before damage mods then 3 stacked damage mods of this type make the kill this much faster: STD: 0.13 s ENH: 0.19 s CPX: 0.24 s Any feedback to these numbers? Are my calculations correct? Would you fit these damage mods? If so, which one (STD/ENH/CPX)? Would you feel disgusted by the reduced TTK? These numbers are also available in spreadsheet format here.
Lorhak Gannarsein Legio DXIV 3552	Posted - 2014.06.15 11:38:00 - [2] - Quote I use a ScR, so I would probably fit two. I don't like bricking my high slots, but there's really nothing else to fit there at the moment; even with the brick my EHP doesn't climb past 800 at proto. There's no real reason for me to use damage mods (although having said this I might give 1x Cx mod a shot for kicks) CCP Rattati Best Dev AmLogi 5 GÇó AmAss 5 GÇó AmSent 4 GÇó CalScout 4 (3 days left...)
RogueTrooper 2000AD Neckbeard Absolution 86	Posted - 2014.06.15 11:46:00 - [3] - Quote 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. Service with a smile
Apothecary Za'ki Biomass Positive 72	Posted - 2014.06.15 12:12:00 - [4] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Hey, ever since damage mods were nerfed they aren't worth it anymore in almost any scenario. I'd like to reinstate damage mods so we get a bit more diverse fittings in the wild. I'll go ahead and suggest these new values for damage mods: STD: 4% ENH: 6% CPX: 8% (STD: Standard, ENH: Enhanced, CPX: Complex) Stacking 3 of these damage mods you'll end up with this damage increase: STD: 10% ENH: 15% CPX: 20% ...which reduces TTK by the following factor: STD: 08.9% ENH: 12.6% CPX: 16.3% If it took 1.5 seconds to kill a medium suit before damage mods then 3 stacked damage mods of this type make the kill this much faster: STD: 0.13 s ENH: 0.19 s CPX: 0.24 s Any feedback to these numbers? Are my calculations correct? Would you fit these damage mods? If so, which one (STD/ENH/CPX)? Would you feel disgusted by the reduced TTK? These numbers are also available in spreadsheet format here. no damage mods were overpowered and gave armor tankers far too much advantage over shield tankers. Minmatar Logibro in training. Rusty needles anyone? No Mic and no time for "Squeekers" Nerf scout cloak+shotgun
Martin0 Brancaleone Maphia Clan Corporation 558	Posted - 2014.06.15 14:39:00 - [5] - Quote 4-6-8% is too high. I would do 3 - 5 - 7% I've never stopped using damage mods, but i no more use proto ones, 5% for that amount of pg/cpu is too low.

CCP Logibro C C P C C P Alliance 8125	Posted - 2014.06.15 16:03:00 - [6] - Quote 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. CCP Logibro // Patron Saint of Logistics // Distributor of Nanites (a¦á_a¦á)

Aeon Amadi Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 6065	Posted - 2014.06.15 17:14:00 - [7] - 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. Armor repairers would be a hilarious change just because of the explosive community reaction Useful Links Aeon Amadi for CPM1
Nocturnal Soul Immortal Retribution 3318	Posted - 2014.06.15 17:36:00 - [8] - Quote 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.... Its alright everyone, no need to worry it's just an Amarr scout :(
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 11140	Posted - 2014.06.15 18:01:00 - [9] - 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. I wish you were here when I suggested the 3-5-7% thing after hearing about the radical damage mod nerf of 1.8. Actually I wish you were here as the benevolent dictator of Dust balance since the beginning; you are doing more good for balance. Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+
Snake Sellors Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 104	Posted - 2014.06.15 19:51:00 - [10] - Quote very, very glad to hear this I would really love to see a return to these numbers, the damage mod nerf was yet another of the pendulum examples that were pre rattati era for this game. yes Please

Mobius Kaethis Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1486	Posted - 2014.06.15 19:54:00 - [11] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf 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. I wish you were here when I suggested the 3-5-7% thing after hearing about the radical damage mod nerf of 1.8. Actually I wish you were here as the benevolent dictator of Dust balance since the beginning; you are doing more good for balance in such a short time then I have seen in over a year. No kidding. The changes you've made since joining the team have been massive. You and Rattati have helped keep this game alive for me. Fun > Realism
Martin0 Brancaleone Maphia Clan Corporation 561	Posted - 2014.06.15 20:05:00 - [12] - 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. random ideas spewing: - a module increasing the maximum ammo count - a module speeding cooldown times for overheated hmgs/lazors/scramblers - a module boosting the n-¦ of nanohives nanite clusters - a module increasing rep tools range - a module that lets a squad leader give orders to the entire Team in addition to his/her squad - a module that change your suit's color to hello-kitty-like pink - a module that lets you hack nanohives, mines and remote explosives - a module that plays a fart sound every time you die SOMEONE HELP ME! THROW MORE IDEAS IN CCP LOGIBRO'S DIRECTION!
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 1889	Posted - 2014.06.15 20:59:00 - [13] - 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. Scouts would support moving Codebreakers or PG Extenders from Low to High, as it'd help out our rather glum Minmatar brothers. I've no idea whether or not this would adversely impact other Frames ... (?) Shoot scout with yes... - Ripley Riley
Lynn Beck NoGameNoLife 1827	Posted - 2014.06.15 21:37:00 - [14] - Quote Armor repair efficiency modules- high slot, grants a % bonus to the efficacy to Armor Repair modules- 20% basic, 30% enhanced, 40% prototype. Ammo modules, effective range mods, reload speed(?) and Clipsize(?) Nanofibers for low slots please :) Could we get Hep Metabolics for highslots please? Also nice, would be a 'reactor expansion unit' a highslot that gives 25-35-40% PG, along with increasing shield regen delays by 10-15%. Please, rather than moving things around, give us new items! General John Ripper Like ALL the things!!!
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 14532	Posted - 2014.06.15 21:40:00 - [15] - Quote The only situation in which a damage mod is better than a shield extender is on a well-tanked heavy. On any lower tier suit, it is better to fit a shield extender in any 1v1 situation. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Defy Gravity 429	Posted - 2014.06.15 22:06:00 - [16] - Quote How about adding reload speed, RoF,effective range amplifire modules for high slots instead? for example STD/ADV/PRO dmg mods would be 2%, 4%, 6% reload speed would be 5%, 8%, 10% RoF would be 2% 4% 6% effective range would be 5% 10% 15% If I kill you in game, look for a confirmation that says "I Just Killed You"
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2360	Posted - 2014.06.15 22:57:00 - [17] - 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. There's been some buzz lately that codebreakers would make a good candidate for that move. Get a feedback thread going on it and I'll be sure to push the discussion towards (make sure sharper minds than mine are giving their input ) Cheers, Cross Cross Atu for CPM1- An emergent candidate
Winst0n W0lf Her Majesty's S3cret S3rvice 32	Posted - 2014.06.15 23:36:00 - [18] - Quote I suggested 3-5-7 in the original feedback thread about this too. If you ask me, though, I always thought that the better change would simply have been to buff enhanced mods (just like with shields) and increase the stacking penalties. Damage mods were really just a scapegoat and were only marginally better than shields before with non-alpha weapons. Obviously the charged ScR shot (or old TAR) and 3 damage mod combo was a bit OP but that was about it. Not to mention it was a nerf to AV and snipers. EDIT: +1 to moving codebreakers to highs. Would be nice to have some kind of armor based mod too, like if we ever had some sort of infantry hardener or the like. I solve problems. I'm also John Demonsbane.
lithkul devant Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 242	Posted - 2014.06.16 00:32:00 - [19] - 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. 3-5-7 sounds good, but I feel that a slightly steeper stacking penalty would need to apply so that we do not drastically throw off the TTK. We just got TTK to a relatively reasonable place after a long time of working on it and people lets admit it right out front would use the extra damage mod power on CR or RR to get the ranged kills so that no other rifle even has a decent chance on the battlefield. Either that or to make that HMG into a complete death machine that no one can stand up against.
lithkul devant Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 242	Posted - 2014.06.16 00:39:00 - [20] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: The only situation in which a damage mod is better than a shield extender is on a well-tanked heavy. On any lower tier suit, it is better to fit a shield extender in any 1v1 situation. I can think of several situations where this is not true, such as the scout with the shotgun, sniper rifles in general, CR and RR both love damage mods and makes them way more deadly, ScR will eat shields like they are nothing and love damage mods as well. Most of the Commando suits favor damage mods as well, especially with how they stack damage already before that.

JP Acuna Pendejitos Zero-Day 185	Posted - 2014.06.16 02:29:00 - [21] - Quote Remember that this change was meant to make a better TTK, let's not go back . suggestion: change fitting costs first. Then create a new damage mod type: AV damage modifier: for damage increase against vehicles (with better numbers), with effects on SL, PLC, FG, and maybe AV grenades. Just to start with something: AV dmg mods: STD: 8% ADV: 10% PRO: 15%
Lynn Beck NoGameNoLife 1829	Posted - 2014.06.16 03:32:00 - [22] - Quote What if we nerfed weapons universally by 1-2%(av excluded) to accomodate for the potential decrease in TTK? General John Ripper Like ALL the things!!!
XxGhazbaranxX Eternal Beings Proficiency V. 1475	Posted - 2014.06.16 04:51:00 - [23] - 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. hacking mod on the highs maybe?? And ammo expansions Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone Psychotic Alliance 1325	Posted - 2014.06.16 04:55:00 - [24] - 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. Here's the thing. Eve side, shields have low hp that regenerates on its own (not anywhere fast enough to be useful in combat) and can fit damage/tracking mods in their lows without sacrificing tank. Armor has high hp with no natural regen, and can fit EWAR without sacrificing tank. If shields want EWAR, they sacrifice tank, and if armor wants damage, they sacrifice tank. So move damage mods to lows. Lower hp shield suits should do more damage than high hp suits. At the same time, move hacking mods, some biotics, dampeners, etc, to the highs. Alternatively, move damage mods to the lows and give a tracking computer like module to the highs that increases optimal or effective range. Shields deal higher damage, armor hits from further away. In any case, armor should not have the highest hp AND the highest damage. By moving damage mods to lows, theoretically a shield tanker with damage mods and a armor tanker should kill each other at relatively the same speed. This is balanced against shield tanks having fewer low slots, and thus being unable to stack a large amount of damage mods and a large amount of tank. Calmanndo user with nova knives: Because someone has to do it.
Martin0 Brancaleone Maphia Clan Corporation 563	Posted - 2014.06.16 06:32:00 - [25] - Quote Alena Ventrallis 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. Here's the thing. Eve side, shields have low hp that regenerates on its own (not anywhere fast enough to be useful in combat) and can fit damage/tracking mods in their lows without sacrificing tank. Armor has high hp with no natural regen, and can fit EWAR without sacrificing tank. If shields want EWAR, they sacrifice tank, and if armor wants damage, they sacrifice tank. So move damage mods to lows. Lower hp shield suits should do more damage than high hp suits. At the same time, move hacking mods, some biotics, dampeners, etc, to the highs. Alternatively, move damage mods to the lows and give a tracking computer like module to the highs that increases optimal or effective range. Shields deal higher damage, armor hits from further away. In any case, armor should not have the highest hp AND the highest damage. By moving damage mods to lows, theoretically a shield tanker with damage mods and a armor tanker should kill each other at relatively the same speed. This is balanced against shield tanks having fewer low slots, and thus being unable to stack a large amount of damage mods and a large amount of tank. Funny fact is: In eve armor tankers gets free mid slots for e-war, utility and weapon damage application mods 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 Armor tankers HAVE to use damage mods in their high slots if they don't want to dual tank because THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. Also my 1200+ dps, 120k+ hp proteus would like to have a word with you about "damage or tank", but we all know that T3s need a rebalance.
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone Psychotic Alliance 1325	Posted - 2014.06.16 07:20:00 - [26] - Quote Martin0 Brancaleone wrote: Alena Ventrallis 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. Here's the thing. Eve side, shields have low hp that regenerates on its own (not anywhere fast enough to be useful in combat) and can fit damage/tracking mods in their lows without sacrificing tank. Armor has high hp with no natural regen, and can fit EWAR without sacrificing tank. If shields want EWAR, they sacrifice tank, and if armor wants damage, they sacrifice tank. So move damage mods to lows. Lower hp shield suits should do more damage than high hp suits. At the same time, move hacking mods, some biotics, dampeners, etc, to the highs. Alternatively, move damage mods to the lows and give a tracking computer like module to the highs that increases optimal or effective range. Shields deal higher damage, armor hits from further away. In any case, armor should not have the highest hp AND the highest damage. By moving damage mods to lows, theoretically a shield tanker with damage mods and a armor tanker should kill each other at relatively the same speed. This is balanced against shield tanks having fewer low slots, and thus being unable to stack a large amount of damage mods and a large amount of tank. Funny fact is: In eve armor tankers gets free mid slots for e-war, utility and weapon damage application mods 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 Armor tankers HAVE to use damage mods in their high slots if they don't want to dual tank because THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. Also my 1200+ dps, 120k+ hp proteus would like to have a word with you about "damage or tank", but we all know that T3s need a rebalance. Which is why I'm saying we need to move things to the highs and damage mods to the lows. Calmanndo user with nova knives: Because someone has to do it.
Pvt Numnutz Watchdoge Explosives 1496	Posted - 2014.06.16 11:59:00 - [27] - Quote I would be concerned about forge guns using this to decimate my dropship but I'd have to run the numbers
Banjo Robertson Bullet Cluster Lokun Listamenn 252	Posted - 2014.06.16 12:16:00 - [28] - Quote Why not just make all damage mods 4% damage boost, but reduce cpu/pg for enhanced by 10% from the basic, and then reduce cpu/pg of complex by 10% from the enhanced. They all have the same damage effect so it doesnt 'break' the game, but they require less resources so the higher tier become more attractive for people who want to use more slots.
Baal Omniscient Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic 1718	Posted - 2014.06.16 12:48:00 - [29] - Quote Weapons with high damage output, high alpha or excessively long range compared to their counterparts (AV excluded) would need to be fixed a bit. Things like shotty's, HMG's, RR's, ....I hesitate to say ScR's but due to that charged shot... yep, them too. We all know the HMG has been skirting the OP line in CQC for a long time. A prof. 5 Boundless HMG drops everything when crouched, even other heavies being dual-repped, in under a second when within 40m. That's a little extreme. Take a look at 40m in game and tell me that kind of damage isn't extreme from that distance. It's a lot further away than you may realize, especially when you factor in the map designs. Now imagine that kind of damage bumped up. I'm not going to suggest exactly WHAT changes would need to be made, as that would garner hate and I'm in no mood to deal with that right now, but changes WOULD need to happen. PSN ID: AlbelNox2569 Cross Atu for CPM1
iKILLu osborne Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 5	Posted - 2014.06.16 13:59:00 - [30] - 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. dampeners would be nice because on my cal scout i'm forced to surrender both armor and speed for stealth (unlike gallente scouts 4 low slots seriously!!?) which if you are a shotty like me stealth is a necessitate. and before anybody says yes cal gets 4 high slots at proto but take into consideration only thing worth putting there is complex shield extenders and/or precision enhancors hey you liar! i didn't sneak up on you, i was following you for 5 minutes , waiting for you to hack that cru for a camp

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]

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.