DUST Search - Hotfix Charlie

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Hotfix Charlie - Update

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 43 post(s)
Aeon Amadi Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 6195	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:25:00 - [121] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Malkai Inos wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: snip The Nanite Injector WP scaling is great news. Is there any possibility of squeezing in tier based scaling for repair tools aswell? While to a lesser extent, they have the exact same problem of higher tiers being a clear downgrade in purely economic terms. Also, regarding OMS. Could you elaborate on why you believe further reducing the number of game modes, Pilots and AV infantry can participate in with their preferred playstyle, is necessary? Let me use a loaded question to articulate my concern: Would you say that non-AV capable infantry players require/deserve a vehicle free game mode for the sake of it, or is this decision purely driven by current balance issues and thus a (theoretically) temporary concession? Every single FPS game that I have played has a vehicle free TDM. I see no reason why DUST 514 should not have it. I am fine with vehicles moving to Dom and Skirm because they are objective based. Sure, but most FPS games don't have a long-term skill investment into those vehicles. Trust me when I say that I don't like where vehicles are at without them having a clear cut significant role to play on the battlefield beyond just slaying (which most infantry already do), but I was against taking them out of Ambush and now that we're taking them out of Ambush OMS... I'm starting to wonder where this is going to end. Don't remove them from the game-mode JUST BECAUSE every other game has a vehicle-free game mode, in fact, I'd argue that that's the -LAST- reason you should have to remove them from a game mode. It's important to understand that, even if it's over-powered as hell, it's still in the game and people are still choosing this as their play-style. By removing that play-style from certain game modes, you're effectively punishing the player for making that choice and limiting their options. My primary question is -WHY- are we removing them from the game modes? Because they're powerful? Of course they are, that's how they were designed. They were designed without any role to play -OTHER- than slaying and moving people around. Let me don the tin foil for a second and be clear of what I'm trying to illustrate, in order of the timeline of events: Black Ops HAVs were removed because they were in a weird place. Marauder HAVs were removed because they were too powerful. Scout LAVs, Logistics LAVs, Logistics Dropships, and Enforcer HAVs were removed because they were in a weird place. Removed all of the variants of turrets (stabilized, etc) and completely overhauled the modules. Removed vehicles from Ambush. Now we're removing vehicles from Ambush OMS. I get that they're unbalanced, I get that they're a pressure point, but if you ask me, I think these changes are being made because vehicles were designed poorly from the get go. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm fully willing to accept that possibility, but it's starting to look like that poor design isn't being evaluated correctly and the slippery slope of trying to deal with them is taking effect. What functional role can vehicles perform that infantry can't? Why should they perform that role? What are the ways that they can be designed to perform that role? What are the ways we can consider that doesn't make that role over-powered? That's all I got to say on that. Will post my other thoughts on the hotfix in a separate post. Useful Links Aeon Amadi for CPM1
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 15832	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:27:00 - [122] - Quote P14GU3 wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Vitharr Foebane wrote: side arm shouldn't change either well we could go the stupid way and make logis sidearms only if you like them that much... :P Aww, IWS, why did you have to ruin in so quickly... I was jesting; also edited the post with more. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Minmatar Sentinel =// Unlocked

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 3730	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:31:00 - [123] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Malkai Inos wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: snip The Nanite Injector WP scaling is great news. Is there any possibility of squeezing in tier based scaling for repair tools aswell? While to a lesser extent, they have the exact same problem of higher tiers being a clear downgrade in purely economic terms. Also, regarding OMS. Could you elaborate on why you believe further reducing the number of game modes, Pilots and AV infantry can participate in with their preferred playstyle, is necessary? Let me use a loaded question to articulate my concern: Would you say that non-AV capable infantry players require/deserve a vehicle free game mode for the sake of it, or is this decision purely driven by current balance issues and thus a (theoretically) temporary concession? Every single FPS game that I have played has a vehicle free TDM. I see no reason why DUST 514 should not have it. I am fine with vehicles moving to Dom and Skirm because they are objective based. Sure, but most FPS games don't have a long-term skill investment into those vehicles. Trust me when I say that I don't like where vehicles are at without them having a clear cut significant role to play on the battlefield beyond just slaying (which most infantry already do), but I was against taking them out of Ambush and now that we're taking them out of Ambush OMS... I'm starting to wonder where this is going to end. Don't remove them from the game-mode JUST BECAUSE every other game has a vehicle-free game mode, in fact, I'd argue that that's the -LAST- reason you should have to remove them from a game mode. It's important to understand that, even if it's over-powered as hell, it's still in the game and people are still choosing this as their play-style. By removing that play-style from certain game modes, you're effectively punishing the player for making that choice and limiting their options. My primary question is -WHY- are we removing them from the game modes? Because they're powerful? Of course they are, that's how they were designed. They were designed without any role to play -OTHER- than slaying and moving people around. Let me don the tin foil for a second and be clear of what I'm trying to illustrate, in order of the timeline of events: Black Ops HAVs were removed because they were in a weird place. Marauder HAVs were removed because they were too powerful. Scout LAVs, Logistics LAVs, Logistics Dropships, and Enforcer HAVs were removed because they were in a weird place. Removed all of the variants of turrets (stabilized, etc) and completely overhauled the modules. Removed vehicles from Ambush. Now we're removing vehicles from Ambush OMS. I get that they're unbalanced, I get that they're a pressure point, but if you ask me, I think these changes are being made because vehicles were designed poorly from the get go. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm fully willing to accept that possibility, but it's starting to look like that poor design isn't being evaluated correctly and the slippery slope of trying to deal with them is taking effect. What functional role can vehicles perform that infantry can't? Why should they perform that role? What are the ways that they can be designed to perform that role? What are the ways we can consider that doesn't make that role over-powered? That's all I got to say on that. Will post my other thoughts on the hotfix in a separate post. In my opinion vehicles should never have been in Ambush. Simple. It's not because they are unbalanced or other reasons. I would be happy to have a vehicle only mode but that's never going to happen, due to how vehicles are brought into the game, and optimization problems. I just don't think vehicles are entitled to be in every mode. We would only be punishing vehicles if they were banned from all game modes. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Jadd Hatchen Kinda New here 589	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:36:00 - [124] - Quote Malleus Malificorum wrote: That sounds fair and fine, so long as the amarr logi doesn't lose its sidearm. It's entire bonus is predicated on staying alive, sometimes it needs to stray far from its squad to get down those all important uplinks. It immediately becomes a much worse suit if it doesn't have the option of a sidearm to keep itself alive. I never understood why it was the Amarr Logi Dropsuit that got the extra weapon (sidearm). The whole mentality of spaceship manufacturers in the EVE universe for the Minmatar race is more guns more guns MOAR GUNS!!!! And yet they are the side with less guns than the Amarr?!? This never made sense to me from a storyline standpoint.
RKKR The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 938	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:38:00 - [125] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Overall we need to start stepping back and start looking at the larger picture of things of teaching players proper roles for every class and the range of roles a class can fulfill; having an assault like attribute on a logistics suit is as I said before muddling. and what does this larger picture say about scouts then? The problem with CCP is that they have no bigger picture, long term plans as they like to claim. I think they are better of starting from scratch with all these roles + races + modules + high/low slots stuff. As I said a couple of patches before...building further on crap-mechanics is still going to give you crap.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 11296	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:40:00 - [126] - Quote I would suggest getting rid of regular Ambush and keeping OMS with no vehicles, regular Ambush is way too short; often just 5 minutes. Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+
P14GU3 The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 790	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:41:00 - [127] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: P14GU3 wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Vitharr Foebane wrote: side arm shouldn't change either well we could go the stupid way and make logis sidearms only if you like them that much... :P Aww, IWS, why did you have to ruin in so quickly... I was jesting; also edited the post with more. I know, I had to give you crap or it wouldnt feel like a conversation with you involved.. As far as the rest of your (edited) post, I really dont think a sidearm justifies it feeling like a seperate class. The only thing it really does for it, is allow it a little more survivability and allows it to fit AV. I really dont see why no logis should be able to fit AV. It is the only reason I specced out of gallente and into amarr, and now it seems like I will have to spec out of amarr (if given the option) and back into gallente, while also speccing a heavy forger for an AV option now. Why should the logi class be the only one not allowed to carry AV? Edit: fixed grammer I only play dust514ums now. It was always more fun than the actual game anyways.
Aeon Amadi Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 6196	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:41:00 - [128] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: All, After crowdsourcing, data crunching, reviewing internally and discussing with the CPM, we are ready with a non-finite list for Hotfix Charlie. As always, this is the narrative and any, all or none of the ideas may end up being implemented. Hotfix Charlie -SNIP SNIP SNIP- Any consideration to changing some of the more redundant bonuses..? I still can't make much use out of a dispersion reduction on blaster weaponry when it only applies to Shotguns (which are better on scouts) and Assault Rifles. Commando still remains the more preferred alternative. Love the WP changes on the injectors. Any consideration on improving Repair Tool use toward Installations/Vehicles next? Need numbers on LP Payout information before I can comment further. Love that you guys are starting to look at unfair fall damage, been one of my pressure points since closed beta, what without the ability to hit the inertia dampeners on falls that would harm you... Other than that, I like everything else that I saw or it just wasn't enough of a change to comment on. CCP Rattati wrote: I'm sorry but our data shows that logis outnumber assaults by a huge margin. Nothing about this change will make logis worse at being logis. Other than slowing them down. My Minmatar Logi already has problems keeping up with other suits to repair them and I have to rely on a Flux Repair Tool due to the additional range to compensate. I can understand the plausibility of parring off the slots, I can understand the reasoning of consistency for removing the Amarr Logi's sidearm (although I'm on the fence about it), but I can't understand the reasoning for slowing them down even further. IMO, implement the Assault changes in Hotfix Charlie... Implement the Logistics changes in Hotfix Delta as necessary. Buffing one and nerfing the other is, and always has been, a poor way to achieve balance in an attempt to save time. We've already established that we're going to do as many hotfixes as it takes to restore morale, so what harm is there in holding off for a bit to see the effects from one set of changes? Dragonmeballs wrote: Logis out number assaults....no wonder! Ratamaq is absolutely correct! I suspect that the suit counts rank like this: Scout>Heavy>Logi>Assault. Logi suits outnumber Assault suits because the Assault suit lost its luster not because the Logi suit is superior. Market data on Dust.Thang.Dk has shown that the Logistics suit has -always- been preferable to the Assault suit. It's not something new and it's generally been the case that the Logistics -was- more versatile than the Assault suit because of fitting capability, despite the Assault being designed to be the 'versatile' dropsuit in 1.7/1.8 Useful Links Aeon Amadi for CPM1
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 15832	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:41:00 - [129] - Quote RKKR wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Overall we need to start stepping back and start looking at the larger picture of things of teaching players proper roles for every class and the range of roles a class can fulfill; having an assault like attribute on a logistics suit is as I said before muddling. and what does this larger picture say about scouts then? The problem with CCP is that they have no bigger picture, long term plans as they like to claim. I think they are better of starting from scratch with all these roles + races + modules + high/low slots stuff. As I said a couple of patches before...building further on crap-mechanics is still going to give you crap. Scouts were in a bad place for a very long time; they can do a short while longer without a refresh though. As for starting from scrap comes the calls for respecs again and that will be a total mess once more and it would likely involve a lot of code to pull off. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Minmatar Sentinel =// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 15832	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:43:00 - [130] - Quote P14GU3 wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: P14GU3 wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Vitharr Foebane wrote: side arm shouldn't change either well we could go the stupid way and make logis sidearms only if you like them that much... :P Aww, IWS, why did you have to ruin in so quickly... I was jesting; also edited the post with more. I know, I had to give you crap or it wouldnt feel like a conversation with you involved.. As far as the rest of your (edited) post, I really dont think a sidearm justifies it feeling like a seperate class. The only thing it really does for it, is allow it a little more survivability and allows it to fit AV. I really dont see why no logis should be able to fit AV. It is the only reason I specced out of gallente and into amarr, and now it seems like I will have to spec out of amarr (if given the option) and back into gallente, while also speccing a heavy forger for an AV option now. Why should the logi class be the only one not allowed to carry AV? Edit: fixed grammer Call me stupid but all of my logis carry the race's support weapon now so LR, PLC, MD, and SL. The gallente one is surprisingly very deadly with the plc still. Min logi still working with it the breach is okay for lite av but the idea behind him was EOD. Amarr currently use for long range EOD and fire line support. Caldari is okay ish but out of the 4 he's the one twiddling his thumbs the most. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Minmatar Sentinel =// Unlocked

Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Cornballs Get Stonewalled 864	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:44:00 - [131] - Quote Appia Vibbia wrote: I would very much like it if we changed the Assault bonuses from only affecting racial weapons to affecting all weapons. Unless Nanite Injectors also come with a minimum percentage of Shields, I really hope you do not implement a change rewarding people for players being assholes without first making sure they can't revive people that don't want to be picked up. The first statement is the real reason that I didn't speck into Caldari assault so that is so true and in more cases than not . The second statement is also true because it is a problem . I can't for the life of me understand why you are increasing the range on small rails ( to the range of sniper rifles , I can snipe from over 500 m .. that would just be too much range ) when hit detection from those are the problem and small blaster are horrible , so they need more attention than any of the small turrets . You would think that CCP would have given the infantry refund that should have been in 1.8.
Jadd Hatchen Kinda New here 590	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:44:00 - [132] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Malkai Inos wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: snip The Nanite Injector WP scaling is great news. Is there any possibility of squeezing in tier based scaling for repair tools aswell? While to a lesser extent, they have the exact same problem of higher tiers being a clear downgrade in purely economic terms. Also, regarding OMS. Could you elaborate on why you believe further reducing the number of game modes, Pilots and AV infantry can participate in with their preferred playstyle, is necessary? Let me use a loaded question to articulate my concern: Would you say that non-AV capable infantry players require/deserve a vehicle free game mode for the sake of it, or is this decision purely driven by current balance issues and thus a (theoretically) temporary concession? Every single FPS game that I have played has a vehicle free TDM. I see no reason why DUST 514 should not have it. I am fine with vehicles moving to Dom and Skirm because they are objective based. Sure, but most FPS games don't have a long-term skill investment into those vehicles. Trust me when I say that I don't like where vehicles are at without them having a clear cut significant role to play on the battlefield beyond just slaying (which most infantry already do), but I was against taking them out of Ambush and now that we're taking them out of Ambush OMS... I'm starting to wonder where this is going to end. Don't remove them from the game-mode JUST BECAUSE every other game has a vehicle-free game mode, in fact, I'd argue that that's the -LAST- reason you should have to remove them from a game mode. It's important to understand that, even if it's over-powered as hell, it's still in the game and people are still choosing this as their play-style. By removing that play-style from certain game modes, you're effectively punishing the player for making that choice and limiting their options. My primary question is -WHY- are we removing them from the game modes? Because they're powerful? Of course they are, that's how they were designed. They were designed without any role to play -OTHER- than slaying and moving people around. Let me don the tin foil for a second and be clear of what I'm trying to illustrate, in order of the timeline of events: Black Ops HAVs were removed because they were in a weird place. Marauder HAVs were removed because they were too powerful. Scout LAVs, Logistics LAVs, Logistics Dropships, and Enforcer HAVs were removed because they were in a weird place. Removed all of the variants of turrets (stabilized, etc) and completely overhauled the modules. Removed vehicles from Ambush. Now we're removing vehicles from Ambush OMS. I get that they're unbalanced, I get that they're a pressure point, but if you ask me, I think these changes are being made because vehicles were designed poorly from the get go. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm fully willing to accept that possibility, but it's starting to look like that poor design isn't being evaluated correctly and the slippery slope of trying to deal with them is taking effect. What functional role can vehicles perform that infantry can't? Why should they perform that role? What are the ways that they can be designed to perform that role? What are the ways we can consider that doesn't make that role over-powered? That's all I got to say on that. Will post my other thoughts on the hotfix in a separate post. In my opinion vehicles should never have been in Ambush. Simple. It's not because they are unbalanced or other reasons. I would be happy to have a vehicle only mode but that's never going to happen, due to how vehicles are brought into the game, and optimization problems. I just don't think vehicles are entitled to be in every mode. We would only be punishing vehicles if they were banned from all game modes. That said, you still haven't addressed the initial concern that the poster was pointing out. That issue being that if I put all my skillpoints into using vehicles only because that's the type of toon I want to play, then I can no longer be a viable player in one of the matchtypes (i.e. Ambush). So the obvious answer is that not all matchtypes are meant for everyone and thus it is supposed to work that way. Vehicles, and thus the players that specialize into them only, exclude themselves from playing in those matches. Similarly, players that choose to only fight for one or two factions only have excluded themselves from fighting in the opposing faction matches. This is just the nature of the game.
Aeon Amadi Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 6196	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:45:00 - [133] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: In my opinion vehicles should never have been in Ambush. Simple. It's not because they are unbalanced or other reasons. I would be happy to have a vehicle only mode but that's never going to happen, due to how vehicles are brought into the game, and optimization problems. I just don't think vehicles are entitled to be in every mode. We would only be punishing vehicles if they were banned from all game modes.[/quote] Just the game-mode that they perform their slayer role best at, right? Sarcasm aside, just be careful. I understand the need for a vehicle-free game mode - hell, I enjoy it, myself - but it's starting to look very very bad for vehicle users and has been for some time. I think that's going to progress until we sit down and think about how vehicles impact the battlefield as a whole. Useful Links Aeon Amadi for CPM1
Jadd Hatchen Kinda New here 590	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:46:00 - [134] - Quote RKKR wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Overall we need to start stepping back and start looking at the larger picture of things of teaching players proper roles for every class and the range of roles a class can fulfill; having an assault like attribute on a logistics suit is as I said before muddling. and what does this larger picture say about scouts then? The problem with CCP is that they have no bigger picture, long term plans as they like to claim. I think they are better of starting from scratch with all these roles + races + modules + high/low slots stuff. As I said a couple of patches before...building further on crap-mechanics is still going to give you crap. Scouts need to loose the sidearm slot.
RKKR The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 940	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:48:00 - [135] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: RKKR wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Overall we need to start stepping back and start looking at the larger picture of things of teaching players proper roles for every class and the range of roles a class can fulfill; having an assault like attribute on a logistics suit is as I said before muddling. and what does this larger picture say about scouts then? The problem with CCP is that they have no bigger picture, long term plans as they like to claim. I think they are better of starting from scratch with all these roles + races + modules + high/low slots stuff. As I said a couple of patches before...building further on crap-mechanics is still going to give you crap. Scouts were in a bad place for a very long time; they can do a short while longer without a refresh though. As for starting from scrap comes the calls for respecs again and that will be a total mess once more and it would likely involve a lot of code to pull off. Some scouts more than others? They even outshine the scout-role, but I guess that the data will show that, but it seems we are basing things on CCP Rattati wrote: opinions now , so I don't have a clue anymore. Well, we have a total mess right now too, better to test things out now and saving Legion from another disaster I guess. Based on this hotfix...the calls for respecs will come again anyway...don't be afraid of that
Jadd Hatchen Kinda New here 590	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:50:00 - [136] - Quote Appia Vibbia wrote: I would very much like it if we changed the Assault bonuses from only affecting racial weapons to affecting all weapons. I believe that they were looking at a fitting bonus for ALL light weapons on the Assault suits. If this is the case, then that would address this concern of yours.
P14GU3 The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 790	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:51:00 - [137] - Quote Thats all well and good IWS, but coming from someone who was a gallente logi from beta-the most recent respec, carrying a swarm with no sidearm is a death wish. The PLC is not very good at AV or anti-infantry, and the MD (although one of my favorite weapons) and laser are no where near the "AV" mark. If the PLC was in a better place you could get away with calling it the "logi's AV," but its not worth it. Swarms with a sidearm or nothing at all. So now I'm reduced to a repping forgers while the enemy team has AV. I only play dust514ums now. It was always more fun than the actual game anyways.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 15832	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:51:00 - [138] - Quote RKKR wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: RKKR wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Overall we need to start stepping back and start looking at the larger picture of things of teaching players proper roles for every class and the range of roles a class can fulfill; having an assault like attribute on a logistics suit is as I said before muddling. and what does this larger picture say about scouts then? The problem with CCP is that they have no bigger picture, long term plans as they like to claim. I think they are better of starting from scratch with all these roles + races + modules + high/low slots stuff. As I said a couple of patches before...building further on crap-mechanics is still going to give you crap. Scouts were in a bad place for a very long time; they can do a short while longer without a refresh though. As for starting from scrap comes the calls for respecs again and that will be a total mess once more and it would likely involve a lot of code to pull off. Some scouts more than others? But I guess that the data will show that, but it seems we are basing things on CCP Rattati wrote: opinions now , so I don't have a clue anymore. Well, we have a total mess right now too, better to test things out now and saving Legion from another disaster I guess. Based on this hotfix...the calls for respecs will come again anyway...don't be afraid of that Right the measurements of such changes need to be taken into account of their effects hence the cal scout nerf and amarr buff. Min scout needs love too and there are some still arguing a tone down on the gal scout. As for a delay on most logi related things to delta I can see this being feasible however slot parity needs to go ahead and go through as soon as possible to help with the conversation when it comes time to discuss it in hopes that suits will be much closer to intention by then. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Minmatar Sentinel =// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 15832	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:52:00 - [139] - Quote P14GU3 wrote: Thats all well and good IWS, but coming from someone who was a gallente logi from beta-the most recent respec, carrying a swarm with no sidearm is a death wish. The PLC is not very good at AV or anti-infantry, and the MD (although one of my favorite weapons) and laser are no where near the "AV" mark. If the PLC was in a better place you could get away with calling it the "logi's AV," but its not worth it. Swarms with a sidearm or nothing at all. So now I'm reduced to a repping forgers while the enemy team has AV. You take that back about the PLC it is an amazing AV weapon! Generally because most vehicle people don't realize how amazing of an AV weapon it is until its too late. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Minmatar Sentinel =// Unlocked
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 661	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:53:00 - [140] - Quote I don't think that Logis are in a bad spot right now. The popularity of Logi-suits compared to Assault suit stems from the fact that Scouts are better Assault suits than Assaults and the other half of the Assaults became heavies. With no Assaults on the ground of course Logis are relatively more popular. Restructuring Logis sounds like the completely wrong way to fix the problem. Also back on the Caldari/Amarr role-switch: Wasn't the original design for slots that people should share their main slot type between tank and other modules? A Caldari Scout should share precision and shields so we don't have super-eWar-super-shield-Scouts and a Gallente Scout should share dampeners and armor so you can't be tanked and dampened. That's why the range bonus fits so well with the Amarr scout. It can't have super range while also being super tanky. But I guess we can throw that sort of decision making out of the window now. Stacking ehp, it is.


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 3752	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:53:00 - [141] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: P14GU3 wrote: Thats all well and good IWS, but coming from someone who was a gallente logi from beta-the most recent respec, carrying a swarm with no sidearm is a death wish. The PLC is not very good at AV or anti-infantry, and the MD (although one of my favorite weapons) and laser are no where near the "AV" mark. If the PLC was in a better place you could get away with calling it the "logi's AV," but its not worth it. Swarms with a sidearm or nothing at all. So now I'm reduced to a repping forgers while the enemy team has AV. You take that back about the PLC it is an amazing AV weapon! Generally because most vehicle people don't realize how amazing of an AV weapon it is until its too late. pro hives, pro av nades and plc is a pretty decent logi av fit. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Dremel wp Shadow Company HQ Lokun Listamenn 32	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:58:00 - [142] - Quote snip Ok, I can see the confusion brewing, logi slots PER tier will be the same, 3, for ADV, 4 for PRO etc. Amarr sidearm is changed to Equipment slot and another slot added to bring them to the same total number of slots as other races at all tiers.[/quote] Proto Amarr and Caldari with 4 equipments are going to be a hell of a logi bomb.
Malkai Inos Any Given Day 1480	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:58:00 - [143] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Malkai Inos wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: snip The Nanite Injector WP scaling is great news. Is there any possibility of squeezing in tier based scaling for repair tools aswell? While to a lesser extent, they have the exact same problem of higher tiers being a clear downgrade in purely economic terms. Also, regarding OMS. Could you elaborate on why you believe further reducing the number of game modes, Pilots and AV infantry can participate in with their preferred playstyle, is necessary? Let me use a loaded question to articulate my concern: Would you say that non-AV capable infantry players require/deserve a vehicle free game mode for the sake of it, or is this decision purely driven by current balance issues and thus a (theoretically) temporary concession? Every single FPS game that I have played has a vehicle free TDM. I see no reason why DUST 514 should not have it. I am fine with vehicles moving to Dom and Skirm because they are objective based. The vehicle situation in Dust is different from any other game of the genre in that vehicles are almost always mere "pick-ups", ready to be taken for everyone who'd like to do so. Choosing to drive a tank in the BF series, for example, requires no prior investment, no long-term decision making or commitment to the playstyle/role this type of vehicle represents. You take it, you kill some, you blow up and then you move along. In most games, everyone is an infantry unit first and vehicles are just there to spice the game up with short bursts of asymmetrical gameplay. No one depends on vehicles being present to do his "job". Around here though, "piloting" is as much a set of roles as "infantry". One has to make long term investments beyond player skill to become a proficient pilot. These investments mean that one's infantry capabilities necessarily become under developed and thus uncompetitive compared to a pure infantry player of the same "level". Pilots are also expected to represent and serve a distinct role from infantry players, not just be another set of infantry players that happen to also have the ability to call in a vehicle. In Dust, tanking et al, is not a tacked-on feature. It's an equally valid way to play the game. The removal of vehicles from ambush has excluded not just pilots but also (to a lesser extent) AV infantry from participating in these modes with their chosen playstyle and possibly forces them to contribute below their capabilities in these modes should they want/need to. This, in my opinion, is a per say bad thing and should never be done unless the specific circumstances demand for it. Now, I might reluctantly concede that Infantry v. Pilot gameplay in these modes currently fails to provide consistently fair and fun engagements for a number of reasons. It's also possible Dust 514 might never achieve this due to current development constrains so that this step is necessary. It is, however, my expectation (and hope) that you will be working on Legion aswell at some point in the future so I have to take issue with the notion that vehicle gameplay is a priori expendable content that can, let alone should, be limited just because that's how distinctively different games handle it. You can take a benign object, -you can take a cheeseburger and deconstruct it to its source...
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 11725	Posted - 2014.07.09 21:58:00 - [144] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: P14GU3 wrote: Thats all well and good IWS, but coming from someone who was a gallente logi from beta-the most recent respec, carrying a swarm with no sidearm is a death wish. The PLC is not very good at AV or anti-infantry, and the MD (although one of my favorite weapons) and laser are no where near the "AV" mark. If the PLC was in a better place you could get away with calling it the "logi's AV," but its not worth it. Swarms with a sidearm or nothing at all. So now I'm reduced to a repping forgers while the enemy team has AV. You take that back about the PLC it is an amazing AV weapon! Generally because most vehicle people don't realize how amazing of an AV weapon it is until its too late. pro hives, pro av nades and plc is a pretty decent logi av fit. Pro AV Grenades are just plain good now. I run every time I see a hull impact from one. "So you came back......My son, my Udorian son.....bearing the filthy blood of his heathen mother." - Eaderan Ouryon
RKKR The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 942	Posted - 2014.07.09 22:01:00 - [145] - Quote @Plague, you should see me and Jodo clean up HAVs with the PLC since the latest hotfix . Iron Wolf Saber wrote: there are some still arguing a tone down on the gal scout. As for a delay on most logi related things to delta I can see this being feasible however slot parity needs to go ahead and go through as soon as possible to help with the conversation when it comes time to discuss it in hopes that suits will be much closer to intention by then. Please do continue on the arguing on the gal scout, it's ridiculous that they are unscannable with that amount of HP, that last part is certainly not the goal of a scout role especially if CCP wants to make assault suits more attractive. What is really the intention of the logi? Can it fullfill that intention with crap stamina/speed? ... Anyway I'm just going to wait on a reply from one of the DEVs on one of my previous comments .
P14GU3 The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 790	Posted - 2014.07.09 22:02:00 - [146] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: P14GU3 wrote: Thats all well and good IWS, but coming from someone who was a gallente logi from beta-the most recent respec, carrying a swarm with no sidearm is a death wish. The PLC is not very good at AV or anti-infantry, and the MD (although one of my favorite weapons) and laser are no where near the "AV" mark. If the PLC was in a better place you could get away with calling it the "logi's AV," but its not worth it. Swarms with a sidearm or nothing at all. So now I'm reduced to a repping forgers while the enemy team has AV. You take that back about the PLC it is an amazing AV weapon! Generally because most vehicle people don't realize how amazing of an AV weapon it is until its too late. TBH, I havent used it since the recent vehicle changes. I havent played much at all since the Rouge Wedding. Maybe its in a better place now, I don't know, and I'm not afraid to admit it. I only play dust514ums now. It was always more fun than the actual game anyways.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 15834	Posted - 2014.07.09 22:03:00 - [147] - Quote RKKR wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: there are some still arguing a tone down on the gal scout. As for a delay on most logi related things to delta I can see this being feasible however slot parity needs to go ahead and go through as soon as possible to help with the conversation when it comes time to discuss it in hopes that suits will be much closer to intention by then. Please do continue on the arguing on the gal scout, it's ridiculous that they are unscannable with that amount of HP, that last part is certainly not the goal of a scout role especially if CCP wants to make assault suits more attractive. What is really the intention of the logi? Can it fullfill that intention with crap stamina/speed? ... Anyway I'm just going to wait on a reply from one of the DEVs on one of my previous comments . Logistics are supposed to be facilitators of combat as time I checked. There is of course chance of change in definition over time but so far they've have been remaining to that goal still. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Minmatar Sentinel =// Unlocked
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 6412	Posted - 2014.07.09 22:03:00 - [148] - Quote Loving the Codebreakers moved to highslot idea. That really helps Gallente Role Players like me. On another note could you talk about what variable you want to increase FW LP by? Also do you think it possible to reward those that have already played FW with a special gift for each level or level amount to reward our loyalty in such trying times? see you space cowboy...

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 3752	Posted - 2014.07.09 22:06:00 - [149] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: Loving the Codebreakers moved to highslot idea. That really helps Gallente Role Players like me. On another note could you talk about what variable you want to increase FW LP by? Also do you think it possible to reward those that have already played FW with a special gift for each level or level amount to reward our loyalty in such trying times? I think Kagehoshi made a strong case for 2-3 fold, to be able to sustain a LP fitting lifestyle. You and fellow roleplayers can help on an idea I have on LP standings. Keep an eye out for a new topic. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Aisha Ctarl Praetoriani Classiarii Templares 4985	Posted - 2014.07.09 22:07:00 - [150] - Quote That Amarr scout bonus! Now I'm sad I retired. Scrambling brains since 5/14/13



Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 :: 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.