|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Benjamin Ciscko
The Last of DusT. General Tso's Alliance
2391
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 21:55:00 -
[1] - Quote
Changes I would like to see A passive skill for tighter dispersion and/or nonstupid dispersion decay The rail range buffed and heat build up buffed so that it can fire 5 consecutive shots without overheat
Tanker/Logi
0 The number of 7ucks given
|
Benjamin Ciscko
The Last of DusT. General Tso's Alliance
2393
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 22:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Changes I would like to see A passive skill for tighter dispersion and/or nonstupid dispersion decay The rail range buffed and heat build up buffed so that it can fire 5 consecutive shots without overheat It would make vehicle pilots feel.....like specialists. Like SP investment mattered. Good points all around. I miss meaningful core skills hell I don't even have damage mods to 5 because 3 was high enough for the longest time unless it was a complete glass cannon and I felt points into speed hacking and links was more useful now that their kinda pointless to run on most fits I might bot even get that to 5
Tanker/Logi
0 The number of 7ucks given
|
Benjamin Ciscko
The Last of DusT. General Tso's Alliance
2393
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 17:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Changes I would like to see A passive skill for tighter dispersion and/or nonstupid dispersion decay The rail range buffed and heat build up buffed so that it can fire 5 consecutive shots without overheat It would make vehicle pilots feel.....like specialists. Like SP investment mattered. Good points all around. I miss meaningful core skills hell I don't even have damage mods to 5 because 3 was high enough for the longest time unless it was a complete glass cannon and I felt points into speed hacking and links was more useful now that their kinda pointless to run on most fits I might not even get that to 5. you dream big. CCP wont introduce new meaningfull skills. All i can hope for is a buff to blaster to create the demand for rail, and have rail rof back to where it was. With the games lifespan expected to end after DESTINY, i doubt they would spend much energy in creating skills. Keep your expectations realistic. It wouldn't be to difficult to add 2% efficiency to shield hardeners to an existing skill. I'm not wishing for huge changes but small doable ones like those would be nice.
Tanker/Logi
0 The number of 7ucks given
|
Benjamin Ciscko
The Last of DusT. General Tso's Alliance
2393
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 17:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Proper compromise is required to achieve a sensible solution.
Blaster dispersion tightened or removed, and RoF given back to the rails. OMG no, why don't you get it. Rails are fine and sure dispersion needs a little tweaking but not removed. Sorry that blasters work better at infantry suppression than straight up killing. Are we playing the same game?
Tanker/Logi
0 The number of 7ucks given
|
Benjamin Ciscko
The Last of DusT. General Tso's Alliance
2407
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 18:10:00 -
[5] - Quote
Zatara Rought wrote:Until CCP gives a definitive statement about what the purpose of large blaster turrets are, I feel like I can't assert that LBT's need less dispersion (whether through a skill or some other way). I spoke with a couple other tanks and they agreed with your sentiment that a scout can outstrafe blasters. But like I said, if blasters are supposed to be ineffective against infantry, then thats significant. However I do believe blasters need to be anti infantry effective. I think personally tanks need to have a purpose beyond destroying the the extremely effective anti infantry ADS and killing enemy tanks/lav's.
I for one would not be opposed to tanks getting a major buff to DPS in exchange for them losing out on their ability to traverse the battlefield quickly.
I for one do not know why rails need splash damage, at all. I have been VERY frustrated at times hacking a point only to be hit 4 times by spalsh damage that only required the ral to hit the point lazily. Min/maxing they don't do enough DPS IMO. And the range nerf was 2 strong, I hear tanks seriously concerned about the viability of rail tanking as opposed to forging, mobility being the only advantage. I personally view rails to be snipers of sorts.
I've spoken with tank pilots they would prefer tanks required more skill required of them in order to obtain a greater advantage over easier to use fits. Specifically I spoke with a few that preferred when tankers were required to be responsible for a lot of diverse modules as opposed to hitting all the damage mods or hardeners and then recalling when they ran out.
The biggest problem I see is that they are not effective enough at their roles. Blaster tanks are good for two things killing infantry up close and since infantry are not likely to stand around 5m from your tank it's only really good for point coverage but when you can sit 200m+ away on a hill and do this which is especially potent on both HP's on the bridge map. It's other niche is killing rails CQC if a blaster gets in close your pretty screwed. What their lacking effective area denial, past a certain range which is not that far it's useless for it's intended role and if it can't kill you then it can't suppress you (or at least suppression is what I assume it's role was meant to be)
The rail is only really effective in point coverage which it shouldn't be and perhaps killing missile tanks. It has neither the damage nor the range or elevation to be truly effective at killing ADS because it takes around 2 at max 4 shots to kill one so if fit properly an ADS can just AB away after the first or second shot and if the ADS comes after you and you have no support your screwed. It needs to be a more effective ADS killer, because the forge gun does about the same damage with higher elevation and ability to get places tanks can't being more effective than an entire role..
The missiles niche is ROFL stomping armor tanks which they are good at and makes sense but the killing power it has on ADS doesn't it's arguably and in my opinion better at killing ADS's then rails. Missiles do all there damage in 2 seconds not giving the ADS pilot an opportunity to react and have the bonus of knocking it around a lot so if the 6,000+ burst damage doesn't kill it the collision damage from being knocked into a wall will. I don't even know for this one, though I would like to have more splash radius not less than a flaylock.
If the intention was Rails>Missiles>Blasters>Rails>ADS and the rails are not effective enough at killing ADS and it revolves around the rails and there killing power of ADS and to some regard missiles then the whole premise crumbles.
Tanker/Logi
0 The number of 7ucks given
|
Benjamin Ciscko
The Last of DusT. General Tso's Alliance
2419
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 21:44:00 -
[6] - Quote
manboar thunder fist wrote:I still go 30+ with a neutron blaster madrugar and kill several gunnlogi and other madrugar in the process. These less skilled tankers just want an instakill OP weapon. Well guess what, the time of being a 1 man death machine is over. Learn 2 gunners. With my madrugar with missiles and 2 particle accelerators we get over 10,000 wp between us and kill around 60 ppl per match. You lost me there
Tanker/Logi
0 The number of 7ucks given
|
|
|
|