DUST Search - Sticky:Hotfix Delta

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:Hotfix Delta - Dropships

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 8 post(s)
XxGhazbaranxX Eternal Beings Dark Taboo 1734	Posted - 2014.10.01 19:46:00 - [1] - Quote Hey rattati here are some things that I think might work to change the inefficiencies of the small turrets in their specific roles. They are not big changes but will probably help to restore the balance of the ships and small turrets without having much impact on the game farther than to make the small turrets and the ADS to feel more reliable yet not overpowered. Below is an idea for each one of the statements done for turrets to make them feel more reliable. CCP Rattati wrote: I think we should also establish a few rules of thumb Small Turrets Blaster: Anti-Infantry Railgun: Anti-Vehicle Missiles: Dual Purpose Current Best to Worst by Type Anti Infantry Pilot: Missiles, Blaster, Rails Sidegunner - Dropship: Blaster, Missile, Rails Sidegunner - ADS:Blaster, Missile, Rails Till TTK on the small blaster turret is better vs the missiles, small blasters will never be better at antinfantry than missiles unless they can actually kill infantry faster at the blasters intended range taking into consideration movement and spread of the blaster turret. A reduction to splash damage of missiles and an increase to damage of blaster will do much to make blasters feel better against anti infantry than missiles. IN our testing, TTK felt better than missiles with a 15% damage increase to the small turret (enhanced damage mod) but just slightly better. The risk vs reward of the small blasters is much too unequal. They need more rewards for putting the assets at risk vs missiles which can shoot from about 200 meters and be relatively safe. CCP Rattati wrote: Anti Air Pilot: Missiles, Rails, Blaster Sidegunner - Dropship: Rails, Missile, Blaster Sidegunner - ADS: Rails, Missile, Blaster Anti Vehicle Pilot: Missiles, Rails, Blaster Sidegunner - Dropship: Rails, Missile, Blaster Sidegunner - ADS: Rails, Missile, Blaster Or something along those lines, to see if there are holes/unintended inefficiencies. Feel free to edit this, or expand, this is just to get the discussion going, please don't go off the rails because of my selections. Again here is the problem, missiles feel and function better at the anti vehicle role. Of course a lot of this has to do with the efficiency the rail has against vehicles but it also has to do with the direct damage that the rail turret does. You see the rail turret does less direct damage than the missile turret. XT = 455, Particle cannon = 435. By switching these, give the proto missile the proto rail damage and the proto rail the proto missile damage we will be the proto rail damage. The final product will look like this pro rail = 455 and pro missile will be 435. This of course is a minor change and given the fact that the rail turret has about the same RoF than the missile, if fired to avoid overheat and only 5 shots or so till overheat, the change will make the turret feel as effective as the missiles are now and tone down the missiles to make them less effective against vehicles. Both turrets should have full efficiency against vehicles. A WORD ON ASSAULT DROPSHIPS I have been thinking a lot about these changes and now that they have had time percolate in my mind I think I have a solution that might make everyone happy. The change to rate of fire is horrible because of one simple fact, it barely does anything to the efficiency of the turret. The answer then could be to simply change the bonus to damage instead of RoF. This change would greatly increase the efficiency of the turrets without completely making them overpowered. For example at level 5, the bonus damage would be 15%. This would be akin to having an enhanced damage mod on the vehicle. Given the fact that you already have a 10% increass in damage because of the ADS skill this would equate to have 5% extra damage over having a proto damage mod at level 5 ads and gallente ads. This would in no way unbalance the game since these stats are already obtainable by using a damage mod. If people are worried of the incubus pilots using a damage mod on top of the damage increases proposed then they have never used an ads. With the current AV and vehicle balance, fitting a damage mod instead of an AB on an ADS would be considered suicide at the least. FINAL THOUGHTS Small turret balance is wrong simply because the missile turret is too good at anti infantry and anti vehicle work and at the same time the rail and blaster or sub-par in their role. Buffing the blaster and switching direct damages of the missile and rail would go a long way. ADS buff should change from RoF to damage and there would be no need to do anymore changes for them to return to being useful while being considerably less powerful than pre-delta Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
XxGhazbaranxX Eternal Beings Dark Taboo 1735	Posted - 2014.10.02 01:45:00 - [2] - Quote manboar thunder fist wrote: idk if the missile is too good... i don't really think so even though i mainly use rail for anti-infantry and anti-vehicle on my incubus. The missile has hard time against shield vehicles, and at the end of the day an anti infantry splash turret is required. A proto swarmer can down an ads in roughly the same time as the ADS spotting him, aiming and firing 3 shots. I agree with some parts but we also have to take into consideration the vision CCP wants for turrets. Currently, missiles have a hatd time against shields but so do rails which got their damage profile fixed to reflect armor based damage. Missiles do more direct damage and contain no overheat, which means they can sustain more reliable damage without micromanagement. What i mostly want to point out is that if CCP wants their vision to be clear then there should be a noticeble increase in power for rails vs vehicles and blasters vs infantry so that if a gunner/pilot or tanker/gunner combo has to choose they have clear cut options to choose from based on what they wabt to do. I know im bein a bit redundant but if CCP wants rail to be anti vehicle king and blasters to be anti infantry king then their power has to increase to reflect it. It just cant simply be, ill use missiles because I have the best of both worlds with little drawbacks. Currently rails have horrible oveeheat and git detection issues and blasters have horrible range and hit detection issues. Missiles are all well and good but they either match ( in case of rails) or outperform ( in the case of blasters) the intended roles for said turrets. I am not saying nerf missiles since this would put the lastnail in the coffinfor the current dropship meta but there has to be a clear cut line between the turret power in their specifuc roles. Blaster A/I king should not be ouperformed by any turret at this, by a large margin and rails should be significantly more usefull vs vehicles. Before the ads nerf if someone said AV ads you instantly knew they were probably going to use a rail incubus, now not so much. And when someobe sais anti-infantry all most people thing about ia missiles. Blasters still have a long way to go and i am using them with my gunner almost wvery chance we get but are convinced more and more that misssiles outperfom it by a large margin. Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
XxGhazbaranxX Eternal Beings Dark Taboo 1736	Posted - 2014.10.04 03:49:00 - [3] - Quote I hope rattati is reading this. When I read there was no feedback on ADS before the change I was really disappointed because the back and forth in the forums between people wanting a nerf and people saying it wasn't needed was pretty long and heated. Many threads existed on the topic and many good ideas were expressed for and against the nerf as soon as and even before CCP said that pilot stacking was a bug. That being said I know the devs aren't all knowing and won't be on the forums 24/7 like many of the forums warriors; some who play the forums more than the actual game but, I do hope CCP Rattati is looking at this thread. Not many pilots will be here since most are dedicated players, not forum warriors and on top of that many are very unhappy with the changes. A post every other day or so, covering at least the most important, eloquent or even thought out posts would be welcome to give pilots and their gunner some reassurance that the topic, even though considered settled by CCP is still being evaluated. That being said, usage on the dropships and ADS may not even go down that much simply because you cannot keep birds out of the sky. The ADS and dropship community love to fly and since that is what most of them are skilled into they will continue to do so because the flying mechanic of this game are actually very good and entertaining. There have been matches, back before I was very serious about dropshipping that I would just fly through the map and do tricks; the flying system is that well made. So pat yourselves on the back for that one but remember that these people need to be rewarded for their patience as they have kept flying even at the worst of states in vehicle balance. Like I said; A peak here and there just to let us know that this thread, even though it's not that active, is being followed because the content of it represents a, as good as it gets, in terms of feedback after the pilot community got the stick and were told they said nothing when they actually did say things, many times, on the forums. Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
XxGhazbaranxX Eternal Beings Dark Taboo 1736	Posted - 2014.10.04 04:26:00 - [4] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Pilots and anti-Pilots The Myron is just not very good at all, and nothing changed with the increased EHP/PG/CAP and Turret changes... ...(A similar question but off topic, the Gunnlogi is quite less efficient than the Madrugar, bonus points to explain why) Appreciate the feedback Hello, I haven't posted about this specific thing because I wanted to ask myself what makes it so difficult to use these shield focused vehicles and I think that I might have a good Idea as to why. This might not be the whole issue but I can really say that it's what makes it problematic and here I go: The problem with shield vehicles in general is that the modules equipped to them cost too much powergrid. I can fit a ship/tank with everything I need without hitting the cpu cap, mind you I do not have skills for shields but can't do a thing with it without having to equip some complex powergrid expansions. MYRON The fitting costs of shields on the powergrid side are too high to be able to make a meaningfull dropship fitting. SHIELD REGEN The current passive regen of shields can be matched by armor reps which are currently not interrupted by damage. The reduction to powergrid cost of shield modules and the increase in passive regen to outperform that of the armor modules by a significant amount and make shield vehicles true skirmishers might be the thing that is needed to put them up to scratch. IMPLEMENTATION Switch the skill that reduces CPU cost to powergrid, augment CPU on shield vehicles if necessary to compensate. include a third shield skill that increases regen of shield by 10% just as the third armor skill was included at a 10% value REASONING Powergrid is a big limiting factor to shield vehicles because of the high powergrid requirements for shield modules. This would help make fitting more confortable but would also make players have to skill to achieve this. By making a 10% per level skill for shield regen, we increase shield regen by 50% at maximum levels. Taking into consideration that shields regen at about 200 we can safley asume that it would max out at about 300 shield regen per second at ballpark values of maybe 400. This number might seem high but we have to take into consideration that these tanks are supposed to be skirmishers. BALANCE This being said, the introduction of more regen and easier fitting options migh lead to a change in paradigm when using shield based vehicles and might make them a bit overwhelming if done wrong. Augmenting regent rate and making fitting easier might permit some tanks to flourish just stacking shield extenders. To fix this I would also like to suggest a penalty to shield extender of 1, 2 and 3% shield regen delay for basic, adv and proto respectively. Numbers could be increased if fittings become too powerful but the idea is to make shields viable. OTHER IDEAS Half shield booster cooldown, slash shield reps by 1 third increase shield vehicle speed? Add shield rechargers back to the game to make shield fitting viable\ Add vehicle shield regulators (could create a nice dynamic) Make shield hardeners able to stop damage from stopping shield passive shield regen while active I'm a real fan of this one Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
XxGhazbaranxX Eternal Beings Dark Taboo 1739	Posted - 2014.10.08 19:11:00 - [5] - Quote I think we need to consider the gallente ads skill to grant damage instead of RoF because ifantry sniping. It was amazingly fun but not for the guy getting torched. 3% damage should be changed to 5 but with is different skill system. OUT OF THE BOX THINKING FOR SPECIALIZED ROLES IDEA I suggest CCP take the % total bonus and devide it by the amount of sp requiered for for each level. Lets say 2,400,000 is what it roughly takes to reach level 5. So for the sake of math if it takes 600,000 to get from level 3 to level 4, which is around 25% of the total maximum bonus the level 4 should give you a 5% damage increase, while getting it from level 4 to 5 should yeald a better percentage increase. ADDED NOTE This might be a good incentive for specialization because it sp based. Getting things to level 5 grants a huge bonus to efficiency and would reward specialization for really specialized roles. Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
XxGhazbaranxX Eternal Beings Dark Taboo 1751	Posted - 2014.10.16 19:37:00 - [6] - Quote Taurion Bruni wrote: The reason we cannot define the problem with numbers is because, on paper, everything looks balanced. Our problem with flying, although sometimes over-dramatized, come from the real game experience. For example, a one on one fight between an ADS and AV may look balanced on TTK and the ability to escape, but due to a multitude of issues such as hit detection with vehicles and Rendering problems, its difficult to accurately determine the situation. nothing about your statistics also claim for the Jet Ramming that has become an issue for pilots. even though you have superior movement and speed, they can easily sneak up on you from above, as you cannot hear or see them until it is too late to react. Numbers are only half the battle, to understand the game fully, you need to listen to the pilots personal experiences. This is very true. Even though numbers seem balanced, as was the case with the bolt pistol in the delta patch, in the wild it behaves differently than expected Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor

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.