DUST Search - Sticky:Hotfix Delta

Gabriella Grey wrote:

Nirwanda Vaughns wrote:

shields are still far too resilient to swarms/forges. poor armour tankers crumble whereas shields are far too powerful and our proficiencies are pretty much wasted. a small tweak to the damage profiles would help the final balance. instead +/- 20% bring it to 10% and it'll help increase armor vehicle survivability more and make it a touch easier to take down shield based vehicles.

between chat mates we'll take down 10 armor vehicles over 1 or none shield. only time a shield vehicle seems to go down is via pilot error (flying into a building, reversing into a structure and gettign stuck ect

This is very incorrect. Having a hefty amount of skill points in both the Incubus and Python this thought is misplaced. I think it is more so on the lines that the Incubus takes too much damage from the weapons like swarms and forge guns. I have yet to see anyone successfully shoot at me with a plasma cannon so I will hold out on saying that perhaps it is just as strong. A/V and HAV's need to be balanced with all the other vehicles. Once that happens we will have a much clearer picture of whats going on with damage profiles for the Incubus and Python.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 8 post(s)
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3279	Posted - 2014.09.29 15:55:00 - [1] - Quote Hey Rattati, I dunno how useful this is to your purposes, but I have a buncha practical application testing i did based around the dropship nerfs. If you haven't taken a look, here's the post-nerf stuff. I'm interested to hear if any of this is useful @CCP Rattati and ADS drivers. Test nerds needed. ADS TTK test Day 1. Ideal conditions to kill Sentinels. ADS TTK Day 2: Python with small missiles [COMPLETE] ADS TTK Day 3 Thunderdome Test: No, none of it is pro-whining, just sharing my findings with the group, as well as my thoughts. Overall I don't think that the small blaster's poor performance as a pilot weapon on an ADS is the fault of the gun, but the limitations of the platform. But I did notice that in addition for it being insanely hard for dropship pilots to keep on target it overheats INSANELY fast. Most of the tests me and Resistance did with it had the gun overheating in almost every test run.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3293	Posted - 2014.09.30 06:13:00 - [2] - Quote Small rails need to hit harder, not faster. But I think that none of the vehicle woes come from the weapons, not their HP. all of the vehicle weapons have been nerfed to crap because people don't want them farming infantry kills. Unfortunately the very designs pretty much are custom tailored for doing so. Blaster turrets: even the large turrets fire like machineguns. Machineguns are the ideal platform for farming infantry. Rail turrets: under-damaged and feel more like sniper rifles than anything. Hell the large rails are basically big bolt pistols. Seriously, the firing mecjanics are identical. In fact the only weapon platform that feels like a vehicle weapon full stop are missiles. Small blasters are ok. But all of the vehicle weapons feel like scaled up infantry weapons. The large turrets do not behave like cannons. You want to make tanks and dropships less kill farmy? Make the cannons act like CANNONS.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3312	Posted - 2014.09.30 13:50:00 - [3] - Quote Orbiting in a dropship around me is like wearing a meat suit to go and hug a starving tiger. Nothing like advertising easy kills.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3398	Posted - 2014.10.05 16:19:00 - [4] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I'm still listening was the info I linked earlier at all helpful? If so I'll continue poking at stuff like that where and when I can. if that format isn't helpful I'd like to know so I'm not wasting my time.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3495	Posted - 2014.10.09 10:05:00 - [5] - Quote From an AV point of view, I do have to honestly add that I do not feel threatened by vehicles right now. Yes I am the paper to their rock, but when I am running AV fits, even my crappy swarm and (rarely) PLC fits it feels more like a mugging than a fight. The ADS is about on par with the minmatar commando so long as the pilot can spot snd focus his full attention upon the swarm/PLC/Forge gunner. This is not always the case. As it stands my basic swarm minmatar commando was about and even fight with the test ADS. Had I been running wiyrkomi swarms it would have been utterly one-sided no matter what he could do. He could not fire missiles fast enough to reasonably stop me from throwing volley after volley at him. Add to this I can time shots to bounce dropships off buildings and things get rather ugly even with basic swarms or PLC. While yes, I agree that ADS should be both threatened by all AV in earnest, there is no real balance without the ability to fight back with a modicum of effectiveness. In my opinion right now the rate of fire bonus on the ADS is too low and because of this the overheat on rails and blasters is too fast. Was +50% entirely too much? Yes, absolutely, but between the swarm speed buff and the afterburner nerf ADS seem far less difficult to destroy. But in my opinion bringing the ADS fire rate up to 5% per level will allow aggressive and proactive pilots to effectively focus on and fight back against AV gunners they can spot. They do so at the risk of encountering a career vehicle killer, or multiple AV gunners, but I would like to see the event more of a battle and less binary. I would also request a look at the overheat meckanics on vehicle weapons. They seem to be inordinately hot since ammo has been added to vehicles. Originally the heat was implemented to compensate for unlimited ammo. Now the vehicles have proper magazines. I have said before and will say again: AV vs. V is in a great spot. V vs. AV is not, however. The weapon systems are not living up to the expectations that should be attached to them. Most notably the small blaster is crap on the ADS nose port and the overheat on the railgun keeps an ADS from keeping ahead of a single rep vehicle's armor recovery. Slowing down the overheat and bringing up the rate of fire to 5% per level should allow small turrets significant firepower without jumping into "too effective."
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3495	Posted - 2014.10.09 10:15:00 - [6] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Sounds very interesting, indeed. Huge DPS, very small clips, long reload times for tank hunting. Are you suggesting AV missile variants with no splash. I like it, but there won't be a rail anti infantry version, though, I don't see how that would fit. This is getting the creative juices flowing. The tanks also suffer from their guns not behaving like cannons. But the described missile mechanics fit modern antitank design philosophy. Most collateral damage done by antitank weapons is caused by what is called a "catastrophic kill." When the magazine cooks off and blows the turret 100 feet into the air and sends pieces of tank slinging like shrapnel. Most antitank weapons blow a hole the width of a jumbo hot dog, liquefy the crew with heat and overpressure and cause what's left of them to shoot out the hole. The expected collateral damage is minimal unless the turret jumps off the hull. But back to my original point. Can vehicle weapons be made more like cannons? Exception being the small blaster. But until the large blaster stops being a rapid heavy machinegun and the railguns stop behaving like a bolt pistol we will not get the vehicles to become heavy support rather than infantry kill farming engines. Thanks for reading.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3509	Posted - 2014.10.09 14:40:00 - [7] - Quote Bluntly I think vehicles should hit significantly harder and splash more but fire slower. The reasoning being that the closer a weapon behaves to an HMG or auto rifle or sniper weapons the more useful they are for infantry farming rather than suppression. The firing profile of the railgun almost perfectly matches the bolt pistol. The large blaster acts like a modern .50 cal machinegun. I think weapons for vehicles need to behave significantly differently from infantry weapons or else a farming mindset will always result.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3540	Posted - 2014.10.10 11:46:00 - [8] - Quote Every weapon should be a killer under the correct circumstances. I may be on the side of bringing up vehicular firepower, but my sympathy only goes so far. Just like proto gear retains no guarantee of immunity to militia gear, there should be no guarantee of immunity to militia AV for vehicles, even specialist vehicles like the ADS.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3547	Posted - 2014.10.10 16:07:00 - [9] - Quote Derrith Erador wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Every weapon should be a killer under the correct circumstances. I may be on the side of bringing up vehicular firepower, but my sympathy only goes so far. Just like proto gear retains no guarantee of immunity to militia gear, there should be no guarantee of immunity to militia AV for vehicles, even specialist vehicles like the ADS. Normally I'd agree with that. But the problem I have with that is that most militia forges and swarms have 0 SP sunk into them, I'd be all for militia packing a greater punch, if the people using the militia gear actually sunk a good chunk of SP into the swarms, forge, or PLC. ADS have a vast SP pool to fill as of now to make themselves deadly, I see no reason that AV shouldn't have to do the same. Killing someone with MLT or STD swarms or STD/MLT Forge Guns is dumb luck. I can only pull it off if a dropship is already wounded severely or is right next to a building i can bounce them off of. In my testing my STD swarm failed to break through the python and kill it except when I thumped him off of a tower. The only way an ADS pilot is going to die to a solo MLT swarm is if he's a dumbass. I am not a dumbass, and I spiked my STD swarm to doing 990 shield damage, but i still could not kill the ADS. Same with MLT forge guns. If I take out an ADS with an MLT forge then it's because the pilot was literally a shot away from dead, or I bounced him off the walls. And I'm more or less maxed on forge gun efficacy. My prototype forge guns? I'll make a dropship pilot **** his pants from shot 1. If I'm using a breach I can properly induce a full on panic attack if I can line up the weakspot. But dropship pilots dying to STD and MLT swarms are idiots. It means they're sitting still or trying to get creative with a small pack of AV guns. Plus inevitably, the killfeed does not show what ELSE may have hit you. I've seen a ADS go down to a swarm immediately after I hit it with a breach forge. It was rather impressive.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3597	Posted - 2014.10.11 21:20:00 - [10] - Quote Gabriella Grey wrote: Nirwanda Vaughns wrote: shields are still far too resilient to swarms/forges. poor armour tankers crumble whereas shields are far too powerful and our proficiencies are pretty much wasted. a small tweak to the damage profiles would help the final balance. instead +/- 20% bring it to 10% and it'll help increase armor vehicle survivability more and make it a touch easier to take down shield based vehicles. between chat mates we'll take down 10 armor vehicles over 1 or none shield. only time a shield vehicle seems to go down is via pilot error (flying into a building, reversing into a structure and gettign stuck ect This is very incorrect. Having a hefty amount of skill points in both the Incubus and Python this thought is misplaced. I think it is more so on the lines that the Incubus takes too much damage from the weapons like swarms and forge guns. I have yet to see anyone successfully shoot at me with a plasma cannon so I will hold out on saying that perhaps it is just as strong. A/V and HAV's need to be balanced with all the other vehicles. Once that happens we will have a much clearer picture of whats going on with damage profiles for the Incubus and Python. What do you mean AV/HAVs need to be balances with other vehicles? Dropships should not have the EHP of a tank. LAVs are too tanky, they should be suicide vs. AV unless properly tanked (which I think three people who still play do)

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3617	Posted - 2014.10.13 11:47:00 - [11] - Quote Quote: 3) Forges are sniping even over 400m, I wrote that this is to cool for AV operators and suggested to intruduce some deviation in forge projectiles. This is a falsehood. Forge gun abolute max range is 320 meters.. 80 meters shorter than swarm flight range. Forge projectiles deviate. The reticle shake on the assault forge, which I must add is the only functional forge gun for AV in general causes shot deviation. The gun never stabilizes and I have missed stationary turrets behind partial cover because the exposed ares isn't big enough to cover the full deviation range. Thw guns that go laser stable do so at the end of the charge cycles and do not charge fast enough to hit an evading dropship three times unlesa he hovers steady through BOTH of the initial hits and does not start reacting until the third shot is charging. Finally forge guns fire an actual projectile and are not hitscan. Forge gunners must lead moving ADS precisely. Please hover more.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3652	Posted - 2014.10.16 09:45:00 - [12] - Quote Getting out of lock range should be the priority, not outrunning the second volley. Outrunning swarms isn't something that should be a thing. However, the counterpoint to that statement is that I had been hoping CCP would drop the swarm turn rate from 90 to 60, maybe 65/70. Maneuvering should be en route not at the target point. They should also chase the dropship itself not the last place they had direct line of sight then correct. That way swarms become a skillshot weapon. IE the dropship pilots, tank and LAV drivers can deny you your shot by being skilled. This makes swarms more useful at the longer lock ranges but problematic to pump rounds into a fast-maneuvering ADS on top of you. In short, a fight ensues rather than a mugging.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3770	Posted - 2014.10.20 22:32:00 - [13] - Quote Turret rotation is the same on a madrugar. If you run a blaster it rotates the fastest. Rails rotate slowest if I recall. Turret type dictates tracking speed, not hull type. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3790	Posted - 2014.10.21 14:00:00 - [14] - Quote Tread Loudly 2 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Turret rotation is the same on a madrugar. If you run a blaster it rotates the fastest. Rails rotate slowest if I recall. Turret type dictates tracking speed, not hull type. Well not to be rude but you didn't read my entire post I said that it is not this type of rotation but it is how far up/down it is able to move it's cannon Use elevation/depression to describe that and avoid confusion please. When the words "turret" and "rotation" are used together I automatically infer lateral movement, not vertical. Plus I was exhausted when I read your post. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.