DUST Search - No railgun, no vehicle balance

All Channels

General Discussions

No railgun, no vehicle balance

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 10996	Posted - 2014.06.22 19:52:00 - [1] - Quote Slim Winning wrote: You realize the only balance to vehicles was the railgun, right? You keep nerfing the ONLY ADS and HAV counter in this game, and you're right back at square one. No vehicle in this game should be able to eat 4 blasts from an RG. I find the new railgun nerfs to be very balanced against HAV, they now have a balanced DPS, especially at short range and tanks cant be insta destroyed. " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 11003	Posted - 2014.06.22 21:54:00 - [2] - Quote Everything Dies wrote: True Adamance wrote: Slim Winning wrote: You realize the only balance to vehicles was the railgun, right? You keep nerfing the ONLY ADS and HAV counter in this game, and you're right back at square one. No vehicle in this game should be able to eat 4 blasts from an RG. I find the new railgun nerfs to be very balanced against HAV, they now have a balanced DPS, especially at short range and tanks cant be insta destroyed. In my opinion, the only thing that's really holding back rail guns at this point is the overheating after 4 shots; given the increased firing delay, I think rails should be given one or two more shots before overheating to give them a chance in a tank v tank fight. Do we have a calculation for sustained DPS? " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 11024	Posted - 2014.06.23 02:26:00 - [3] - Quote Thumb Green wrote: Takahashi Kashuken wrote: You realize infantry pushed and pushed and pushed for all these changes to vehicles It always amazes me how asinine the things you say can be Taka; seriously what deranged world are you living in? it really was a combination of HAV operators wanting to not be as squishy against pre 1.6 AV (and undeniably they sure as **** were) and AV adamant arguments that their Armour clad counter parts needed drastic alterations of increased durability was given. The result mixed with CCP's changes, made with good intentions, saw the power gap wider in favour of HAV....and the horrific age of Armour we have just experienced. " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 11055	Posted - 2014.06.23 21:36:00 - [4] - Quote I think what you have to realise Atiim is yes vehicle pilots called for buffs....... this iteration of HAV is not what we were expecting and, in hindsight, not what we wanted. We just wanted tanks to be more durable...... perhaps that could have be achieved by keeping takes as they were and reintroducing marauders. It is correct to identify those who called for the buffs, yet not fair to blame them for what they could not percieve....I mean no one could have predicted Wolfman's changes, nor the huge imbalances in their wake. " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 11057	Posted - 2014.06.23 23:26:00 - [5] - Quote You know I'm more inclinded to suggest a lot of this bulls **** is because neither side has been willing to sit down on skype and discuss it in a less biased manner. And before the AVers start yelling "I'm unbiased and the preacher of balance".....lets be honest....nope...you aren't and neither am I. I'm more inclined now to take tanks back to those UP days than keep them as they are.....tanks are boring now, way too easy, and not challenging or satisfying enough to skill into. " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 11058	Posted - 2014.06.23 23:47:00 - [6] - Quote Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: You know I'm more inclinded to suggest a lot of this bulls **** is because neither side has been willing to sit down on skype and discuss it in a less biased manner. And before the AVers start yelling "I'm unbiased and the preacher of balance".....lets be honest....nope...you aren't and neither am I. I'm more inclined now to take tanks back to those UP days than keep them as they are.....tanks are boring now, way too easy, and not challenging or satisfying enough to skill into. Charlotte O'Dell proposed an idea that we all go on Skype, and a lot of people agreed with the idea. Unfortunately, it never happened. Not sure why though. I know I was so looking forwards to that. For everyone's information I'm not against AV being effective against HAV. I'm all for it, but its a fine line between effective and..... loltankdead....... I also want tanks to have a specific role on the map, my ideal one being the highest tier AV vehicle available to players, and require skill, ISK, and SP investment to operate efficiently. " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 11061	Posted - 2014.06.24 00:04:00 - [7] - Quote Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: I know I was so looking forwards to that. For everyone's information I'm not against AV being effective against HAV. I'm all for it, but its a fine line between effective and..... loltankdead....... I also want tanks to have a specific role on the map, my ideal one being the highest tier AV vehicle available to players, and require skill, ISK, and SP investment to operate efficiently. I was looking towards it too. It may have finally put the V/AV argument to rest too. Well besides the Skill-Staking ADSs, HAVs already are the highest tier AV vehicle available. Now all they need is the whole skill, ISK, and SP investment. But how does one go about making that a reality while keeping things balanced at both the low and high-end tiers. Or to have their current efficiecy broken down and allocated amongst the current skills rather than have emphasis on the hulls. I certainly hope STD tanks are not all I have to look forwards to in Legion. " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III

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.