DUST Search - [PROPOSAL]Sentinel battle role

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[PROPOSAL]Sentinel battle role

» 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)
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3854	Posted - 2014.10.23 08:03:00 - [1] - Quote I have been thinking about some of the issues people have with sentinels and the problems Sentinel Suits present to balance. Quite frankly in my opinion Sentinels aren't being utilized in the best manner that plays to their strengths. This is not a complaint on current balance. Period. Rattati has done phenomenally well with the cards he has been handed. This is a proposal to alter the role a Sentinel plays on the battlefield. The objective of this proposal is twofold: 1: Bring Sentinels into line with a role that fits their size, durability and lack of mobility. This includes a re-introduction of turn speed penalties to sentinels but not to the suits directly. 2: Remove Sentinels as the go-to suit in PC for CQC operations in favor of the assault. This objective does not include completely removing Sentinel capacity in CQC. Proposed primary role: long range point defense and support suppression and vehicle deterrent/destruction. Primary weapons: All Forge Guns, Standard HMG, Assault HMG. Proposed Secondary Role: Suicide Breach operations. Primary weapon: Burst HMG Tertiary role: Distraction. Primary weapon: Any People will always fixate on the largest percieved target. The suit does not need to be altered. What would need to be altered is the Heavy Machineguns. The reason for this is simple: The suit is not dictating the role of the weapon. The weapon is dictating the role of the suit, and this puts sentinels on the razor's edge for balance continuously and without fail. It is also a source of long-standing irritation among the playerbasse for a long time. Proposed change to the STD Heavy Machinegun: 1: Increase range comparable to rifles. 2: reduce dispersion dramatically, possibly tone down the damage. 3: apply a turn speed penalty to the HMG, not the dropsuit. This should bring the Sentinel into line with the role that makes sense, as open-field fire suppot. Changes to Burst HMG: none. Do not apply turn speed. The weapon is great for attacking and breaking lines. It is not good for sustained, long-term engagement which is needed for viable point defense. The current standard HMGs do better defensively. Assault HMG: Light damage, long range with a higher rate of fire in between the standard and Burst in both range and output. 1: leave damage as is 2: place range between STD and burst and reduce dispersion accordingly 3: slightly increase RoF 4: apply 1/2 the standard HMG turn penalty. These changes are proposed to provide a better differentiation of battle role. Close combat: minimal or no turn penalty. Long Range: turn speed penalty. Forge guns aren't horribly viable vs. Infantry in close. At best you might get a couple lucky kills. So the penalty to turning is pointless. But utilizing this would make lighter suits be able to deal with sentinels in CQC as they should. Given the Bursts tendency to get the operator killed it's likely this could solve a few headaches among the playerbase. 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 3893	Posted - 2014.10.24 08:01:00 - [2] - Quote Im amazed no one seems to care about this topic given that assault and logi utility in PC is being held hostage by the need to keep sentinels as the kings of CQC, a role that makes no sense for the suit design. 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 3893	Posted - 2014.10.24 09:52:00 - [3] - Quote Zatara Rought wrote: Putting turn speed on the weapons and not the suit does nothing to solve the problem aside from allow ADS targets a higher success rate at escaping. You're not looking at the whole post. Its a combination of factors: 1: you cannot have a CQC combatant be effective if he cannot track a target. This was the original reason for turn speed normalization. 2: heavies are huge, easy to hit, slow as hell, heavily armed and armored with limited mobility. These are not traits of good CQC combatants where speed, maneuverability and rapid kill capacity are the norm. They are traits of open ground fire support platforms. 3: making heavies long range fire support platforms incapable of CQC defensive dominance opens critical portions of the map to assaults as the primary attack force potentially with burst HMG door kickers to breach a hole. 4: putting turn speed penalties on long range weapons allows sentinels to perform long range hardpoint defense and makes them vulnerable to assault and scouts that successfully maneuver in close. 5: keeping close range sentinel weapons on the burst HMG meta of high damage, short engagement duration with penalties like the near-suicidal seize creates another window of opportunity for assaults to overcome and kill careless heavies. 6: the turn speed penalty for long range anti-infantry weapons should be sufficient that it matches assault strafe speed at 15 meters, allowing fast movers to tear heavy dropsuits apart in CQC the way they SHOULD. 7: Finally, forcing sentinels to play to the design strengths of the dropsuit rather than the artificially created/enforced CQC role exposes them to counter-fire from weapons that can kill them such as charge snipers and laser rifles. 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 3893	Posted - 2014.10.24 09:59:00 - [4] - Quote Shinobi I'm a career sentinel player. Sentinels should never have been shoehorned into a CQC only role. If you give HMGs range and make them vulnnerable in close you will find that they are anything BUT useless, especially on bridge maps, and open area maps like line harvest and manus peak while ensuring when you go into the orbital artillery station you're going to see more assault and commando and less HMG spam. You basically turn HMG sentinels into what modern machinegun teams are. Something you don't want to run toward that is lethally vulnerable to close combat. By leaving the burst unchanged you take away long term sustained CQC spam and gain a hard attack that disrupts enemy defenses. Which is why you put turn speed on long range suppression weapons and keep cqc attack weapons penalty free while keeping them like the burst: more likely to kill an incautious operator than by enemy fire alone. 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 3893	Posted - 2014.10.24 10:03:00 - [5] - Quote Finally... there need to be less heavies on the field. Tgere need to be less scouts. The bulk of any force should consist of line infantry. Assaults and logi support are line infantry. Scouts and sentinels should be the SUPPORT, not the primary bulk of your forces. In order for that to happen sentinels need to get ejected from this CQC idiocy and EWAR needs to be fixed so permascan and permahide are not possible. Assault utility and dominance within their role are being held hostage by bad ewar mechanics and sentinel dominance in CQC. 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 3911	Posted - 2014.10.24 16:16:00 - [6] - Quote You missed the point of the whole post gaden. 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 3916	Posted - 2014.10.24 17:16:00 - [7] - Quote Im basing my premise on standard cqc fights in FW and pubs where it's a race to see who can flood CQC cap points with fatties faster via uplink spam. I see it in practice in pubs and in FW. PC is another idiot ball of wax 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 3924	Posted - 2014.10.24 19:24:00 - [8] - Quote Vitharr Foebane wrote: this wouldn't be an issue if we weren't given just two weapon and told to make it work. The lack of a heavy plasma and laser weapon destroys any balance and role designation we try to make. HMGs should have a range longer than my wang. But the hue and cry was for them to be CQC even though CCP was making strides in making them hella effective at decent ranges. then the nerfs began. specifically nerfs to make them CQC weapons. It made no sense whatsoever. Gallente heavy weapon as CQC? Ok I can see it. MINMATAR???? Last I checked Minmatar weren't knife-fighters. 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 3924	Posted - 2014.10.24 19:38:00 - [9] - Quote never gonna happen. We'll see legion alpha testing invites before we see full vehicle and weapon spreads 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 3936	Posted - 2014.10.24 20:59:00 - [10] - Quote you don't play a heavy to save money. Doing that is an idiot game UNLESS you have a logi-slave. Contrary to what everyone seems to think, Sentinels die a LOT. The problem is, you can't kill SIX of them fast enough to break their camp before they start to respawn and re-engage. And right now in CQC maps the meta is load in the uplinks and flood the area with fat. Increasing the price is a non-balance point. people will simply pay more to do the same thing. 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 4155	Posted - 2014.10.30 07:48:00 - [11] - Quote Let's continue the conversation. I still think putting the sentinel in cqc where it's mobility problems don't matter is a bad idea and think they need to be altered. 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 4338	Posted - 2014.11.01 19:45:00 - [12] - Quote all purpose is not the intent in fact it would be counterproductive 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 4339	Posted - 2014.11.01 20:33:00 - [13] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Such a bad idea, they are already slow and turn speed just makes it easier to kill them and a scout would have a field day 2. HMG has the range of an AR? Why use an assault then? The heavy has more HP and resistances to 2 types of damage and if you want more range use the assault HMG 3. Sentinals are fine as point defence, if they are in open fields they get gunned down by assaults/logi so much easier due to the main weapon having poor range and that they are the size of a small planet and move as slow as syrup 4. Commandos can use ARs and move slightly faster and can engage at longer distances 5. Sentinals seem to be the most balanced, built to be tough and take damage with mulitiple enemies, go toe to toe with vehicles with the FG or engage at distance, can be great at point defence or just jump into the thick of it to make a mess There's nothing balanced about assault balance and utility being held hostage in order to keep heavies in CQC where they were put so they could be farmed for easy kills in beta. 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 4352	Posted - 2014.11.02 08:01:00 - [14] - Quote Well thought out response but I think you vastly underestimate the ability to hit at range mattering in keeping people OUT of cqc range unless they flank. The turn speed shoul match an assault strafe at 20m. The window would be there. The scout thing... Open ground fire support increases the odds of spotting an inbound cloak and getting early fire off. But heavy suits survive scouts better in the open than in builfings in my experience. 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 4361	Posted - 2014.11.03 06:11:00 - [15] - Quote The idea is to make standard and assault longer range and unwieldy but leave the burst completely as-is. That way if you put turn speed on the guns at long range you don't screw the CQC weapons like the burst that have deadly drawbacks. 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 4362	Posted - 2014.11.03 08:55:00 - [16] - Quote Tweaking EHP has always caused more issued than it fixes. Changing the way you can deploy a sentinel will open more of the cqc areas. The burst HMG haa the disadvantage in sustained defense but it is a superb line breaking tool. If you make the other HMG and make them longer range, slower rotation you keep them useful in support but it makes it so that the sentinel's weaknesses, low mobility, large hitbox, sensor-blindness, mean something. you could trash at range but if you don't pay attention you can be killed by assault in cqc. The logical weakness of a slow'moing, easy target should be a fast moving enemy. Can you overcome this by putting two sentinels back to back in a corridor? Yes. But immobility in CQC invariably is a losing prospect. Every time I fight a sentinel who puts his back to a wall and stays there I invariably kill him. But the HP in cqc isn't the problem. It's the ability to do long-term, sustained fire at high DPS that combines with the HP that creates the spam. Instead of nerfing something to crap, why not change the role and how it is deployed? A longer range, slow turning sentinel makes it harder to sustain a defense in the lab or in orbital artillery while making them viable point defenders and zone controllers in maps like manus peak and line harvest. It also exposes them to more weapons that can counter them. You can't evict heavies from firing positions with a sniper while they are in cqc. But you can when they cannot park in a spot that makes a sniper meaningless and still be effective. Make the assault and standard long range and keep the burst fast turning and close-up for doir kicking. Sentinels should define the line a force draws in the sand, not be the be-all, end all of that line. And dropping heavies below 1000 HP basically means we go back to square 1 where they are as useless to a team as the commando and everyone swaps to assault for cqc ANYWAY, which STILL achieves my objective for this proposal. 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 4389	Posted - 2014.11.03 18:36:00 - [17] - Quote Meee One wrote: I can see them now... Sentinels on rooftops camping with HMGs... And charged sniper Rifles instapopping the ones stupid enough to do it. Forge Guns finding easy targets. It wouldn't be any worse than sentinels on a roof with an assault forge. Only difference is the HMG won't be able to kill vehicles while being a rooftop tard. 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 4440	Posted - 2014.11.04 05:20:00 - [18] - Quote Turn speed penalty for a couple reasons. 1: because making an HMG useful at ranges even similar to a BAR or RR (I'd go for longer) would mean dispersion needs to be cut to a quarter or less what it is now. Not adding a turn speed penalty makes it instant death at point blank CQC. 2: because the only thing that changes between a long range HMG heavy and a short range HMG heavy is that a long range heavy can easily exert the current level of dominance at all ranges. This leaves no counter that isn't dependent upon a sentinel screwing up. Any counter that is dependent upon the enemy screwing up is not a counter. 3: because CCP made the HMG remarkably similar to my 240 Golf I hauled around serving in the marines. Trust me when I say you want sentinels to have an exploitable weakness. Currently you have to either dogpile a heavy, deploy your own heavy or hope the heavy is wounded or really screws up when you get to him. This isn't a counter. Right now the only real counter is borderline broken scouts and remote explosives. 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 4440	Posted - 2014.11.04 05:34:00 - [19] - Quote In short, not putting turn speed penalty on a long range heavy means there is no impetus to STOP spamming them in buildings. We get the new FOTM whose only weakness can be subverted by dropping an LAV. Enter the omni-slayer. 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 4444	Posted - 2014.11.04 07:48:00 - [20] - Quote Point defend is not the same as CQC defense. Long range sentinel in sat orbital artiller would have two options for viability: 1:Burst HMG for short work without a turn penalty. 2: post at the entry areas of the CQC areas and deny entry. But my problem with heavies as undisputed kings of CQC against all comers posits the question: Why do gallente assaults exist? Gallente are supposed to be the brawler kings, but one class of suit denies across-the-board utility of all other dropsuits in CQC. None of a heavy's weaknesses matter in CQC because an HMG is more capable of sustained engagements with more DPS than ANY OTHER WEAPON. The change I'm proposing would change heavy meta from "I win CQC" to "If I see you coming you're dead. But if you get up on top of me, I am dead." Only the burst HMG has an exploitable weakness. It's the biggest ammo hog ever and it overheats faster than ANY OTHER WEAPON. It's a good cqc weapon. By the same token the boundless HMG is the best weapon in CQC. It has no drawbacks in close. 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 4510	Posted - 2014.11.05 04:37:00 - [21] - Quote I laid out that I would make the assault HMG the advancing fire support version. In between the burst and standard for range and raw damage with a lesser turn peenalty. Also making the weapon like a heavy rifle is not the intent. The only universe in which the rurn speed penalty is justified is if the unholy DPS is left as-is. Lowering the DPS would beg the question "why bother?" And as to doubling the laser rifle optimal? HELL YES! I always thought that the Laser Rifle should have been the amarr snip 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 4515	Posted - 2014.11.05 05:24:00 - [22] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: I like this, but it will require a shift of thinking on the part of the community. And this is why they don't like it for the most part 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 4521	Posted - 2014.11.05 13:05:00 - [23] - Quote the community of angry neckbeards with a raging hardon to defend their playstyles at all costs regardless of whether it's healthy for the game as a whole? Or the player community who is tired of seeing nothing but heavies whenever two bricks are pressed closer than five feet together and swarms of scouts? 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 4531	Posted - 2014.11.05 23:30:00 - [24] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: After reading the OP and the subsequent responses, I'm a no at this point. I don't see the cqc/point defense "issue" as stemming from the heavy frame or its attachments, I think its a matter of playerstyle. Some players want to point defend right up close to the point, some from farther out. The heavy, from what I've seen of them in both PCs and PUBS, accomodates either of these playstyles just fine with no other accomodation being needed. If the HMG isnt giving you the range you want to be able to not "hump the console" put on your RR and block everyone else in the match so as to not get the hatemail bombardment you'll be due. And you have completely missed the point. It's not "the HMG doesn't have enough range." It's "the HMG heavy makes no logical sense in CQC and because of the asspull leaps that must be made to balance it, any time you have two bricks nearby each other you'll find a sentinel between them." The meta in cities among people that pay attention (not sub-10m SP newbros) is as soon as you enter the building go fat or go home. Why is it that people are complaining that heavies are being spammed? because they are. Why are they not being screamed about being OP? Because Rattatti somehow managed to do what no other Dev could. This right here frightens me. 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 4531	Posted - 2014.11.06 00:10:00 - [25] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: As far as heavies being OP, they are still second to scouts soooooooo one problem at a time? Heavies aren't OP, quit looking at a thread and assuming it's a complaint. Just because you consider your personal crusade against scouts > all doesn't mean you need to come in here, read part of the proposal by skimming and then threadcrapping. This is a role change not a call for a nerf. If you have to make scouts the center of attention go make more scout threads, God knows there are dozens, all equally ignored. But heavies in CQC negate the value of assaults in CQC. Bottom line. Are heavies supporting assaults? Or are Assaults supporting heavies? It looks to me like assaults are supporting heavies in the current meta, and that's bass-ackwards. 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 4531	Posted - 2014.11.06 00:36:00 - [26] - Quote Kensai Dragon wrote: Maybe I missed your point, can you give a better idea or example of how you envision point defence from afar? Manus peak is the perfect example. There are open ground objectives with long open areas between objectives. the idea is that a Sentinel could cover those approach fields and DENY YOU APPROACH and keep your squad discouraged from engaging. But once you get in close it's pretty much all over. That is the purpose of a suppression weapon, to deny an enemy approach to your battle line. If they approach kill them. But I want to leave the burst as-is because a Burst HMG works better as a CQC concept. It's kinda dumb as a long-range asset because of how it works. But it also has two massive drawbacks: 1: it eats ammo like a ten year old at halloween. 2: it overheats stupid fast. these two things combine with it's ungodly damage output to make it an excellent door kicker weapon, but suboptimal for sustained engagement and long-term point-defense. Long range weapons are always better point-defense weapons because you can use them to deny an enemy approach to your point rather than trying to clean up while they swarm you 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 4531	Posted - 2014.11.06 00:38:00 - [27] - Quote Victor Moody Stahl wrote: I don't know about Breakin, but personally I consider "point defense from afar" to be within 50 meters of a point and then keeping other players away from the point. I will use Manus Peak Skirmish as an example; When defending C, the heavy will most likely be within 20-30 meters of the console; I will assume that the socket in this example is the mini-bridge/wall thing that basically keeps the console/null cannon and CRU on the side closest to the ridge, while the side facing the A/B points has the supply depot and turret. With this proposal, I would envision the heavy on top of the bridge, firing at long range to prevent enemies from getting close to the point. The heavy is still "on the point", defending; however, rather than staying behind the wall and gunning down randumbs that try to hack the point, he's actually on the wall preventing said randumbs from getting that close in the first place. Annnd Moody makes my point right as I do. This right here is essentially correct. Difference is, need more than 50m. Laser rifle is a good example of a suppression weapon. a 50m machinegun with a turn speed penalty would only have an effective engagement window of about 25-30m. The range would need to be longer to compensate for close quarter engagement vulnerability. 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 4531	Posted - 2014.11.06 00:55:00 - [28] - Quote Ace Boone wrote: My issue with heavies is their enormous amounts of HP. You have THE HIGHEST DPS weapon in the entire game, I don't see the need for 1340 armor with 500 shields. If heavies had less HP, but kept their damage resistance, it would force them to actually play smart, and use cover. As of now, a heavy can just charge in with a logi and demolish everything except other heavies. Because the traditional Tank/DPS/Healer trinity only works in DND or against opponents scripted to automatically attack the tank. Human opponents are smarter, and thus will not be sucked into the "tanks always have Low DPS" meta BS. Playing heavy means you draw fire. all of it. It also means you're more vulnerable to gangups and your own screwups than any other class because you are slow, and running away is something that works about once a year. I used up my once a year earlier today while getting shot by a BAR. 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 4531	Posted - 2014.11.06 00:57:00 - [29] - Quote Imp Smash wrote: HMG really isn't the highest DPS weapon in the game due to dispersion. It's just pretty high up there. But the heavy HP thing is a result of their GIANT hitbox (heavies TAKE more damage from incoming fire-- especially the head) and their super slow sidestep speed (they take even MORE damage.) The huge issue with slayer scouts is that they can sidestep so fast they can actually lag through a hit and take no damage. Heavies are on the other side of that. Near impossible to miss and can actually take damage from shots that missed them. It's actually pretty easy to focus down a heavy solo provided you aren't trying to go toe to toe. I really don't see the need for a change to the suit. At best I would say change how uplinks work. doesn't solve the problem. Even if uplinks are removed or unavailable (odd it does happen) then smart heavies move to the tightest quarters they can and entrench and force you to come to you. This behavior will not change even if uplinks do, and they have the ability to smash their way in and dig in like ticks because the ideal terrain for them (CQC) is right where most enemies want to hold.\ Heavies never should have been CQC kings. that honor should have gone to the gallente assault. 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 4536	Posted - 2014.11.06 03:37:00 - [30] - Quote Imp Smash wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Imp Smash wrote: HMG really isn't the highest DPS weapon in the game due to dispersion. It's just pretty high up there. But the heavy HP thing is a result of their GIANT hitbox (heavies TAKE more damage from incoming fire-- especially the head) and their super slow sidestep speed (they take even MORE damage.) The huge issue with slayer scouts is that they can sidestep so fast they can actually lag through a hit and take no damage. Heavies are on the other side of that. Near impossible to miss and can actually take damage from shots that missed them. It's actually pretty easy to focus down a heavy solo provided you aren't trying to go toe to toe. I really don't see the need for a change to the suit. At best I would say change how uplinks work. doesn't solve the problem. Even if uplinks are removed or unavailable (odd it does happen) then smart heavies move to the tightest quarters they can and entrench and force you to come to you. This behavior will not change even if uplinks do, and they have the ability to smash their way in and dig in like ticks because the ideal terrain for them (CQC) is right where most enemies want to hold.\ Heavies never should have been CQC kings. that honor should have gone to the gallente assault. Then I'm sorry we are just going tohave to disagree. I think heavies should be Cqc suits. They are too slow and too easy to hit to do anything except entrench. That's kind of their job. But really this is all just a way of thinking. Your last comment made it clear -- when you said entrenched CQC should be Gallente Assault. Gallente are the armor rep class. Amarr stack plates which you need for CqC. So it would be them -- not Gallente. Ah. I see -- you yourself ARE a Gallente. You know -- it appears that you are trying to change the fit the playstyle you want right? EDIT: On second thought -- you did mention that a lot of parts that ppl want to hold (for example objectives) are CQC. It wouldn't be hard to make half the points in any Obj based match have half low cover points and half high cover points. Then all the suits would have a spot. gallente are brawlers with high damage cqc weapons. amarr are damage soakers. amarr are better in cqc defense and gallente are better in cqc attack. and I'm not a gall rp loyalist. I tend to lean to caldari sentinels by preference 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 4542	Posted - 2014.11.06 07:05:00 - [31] - Quote Once rattati hits scouts with the nerf bat then we are going to come right back here. You may disagree with me but heavies were put in cqc so it wouldnGÇÿt take as much effort to kill them. Look how well that turned out. And the killing field everyone complained about was because you cannot exploit the strafe glitch at range because dispersion doesn't care whether you are synced or not. Beta players cried way too much 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 4542	Posted - 2014.11.06 07:29:00 - [32] - Quote Your statement that heavies are supported by assaults all the time, even though it turns into a stab at scouts underlines the problem. Heavies should be the support for the assaults. The fact that assaults are now seen as the support for the heavies is a problem. Understanding how the game works and the core principles is not the problem. Accepting that some of those things are inherently broken and need fixing is the solution. The only reasons to defend the current heavy meta are: 1: Scouts are far more obnoxious, so they distract people from heavies. 2: It is an easily exploited meta that allows one to entrench in a way that means the only counter is another heavy. Once scoutsscouts are brought to heel every eye will turn to sentinel meta and the outcry will begin again. It has been proven time and time again that the only thing which can eject heavies in play is to hit their lines with other heavies. The only reasonable counter to a thing cannot be itself. Right now scouts have the stage. Next month fatties are on the chopping block because instead of " play a scout they're better" it will be "roll heavy, nothing else works in cqc maps." 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 4543	Posted - 2014.11.06 08:34:00 - [33] - Quote But no one can oust six heavies from an objective without more heavies. This is why spam is a problem. Your statement is the ideal, but it doesn't represent the reality. Scouts are achieving critical mass as far as being problematic goes. But it is equally problematic that pubs are beginning to follow PC meta. As much as I love picking on the PC tryhards they are the majority meta in three months. Right now the meta is heavy brick team supported by scouts with maybe an assault or a couple logis. The pubmatch meta is following suit with most teams beginning to spam sentinels or scouts. I am seeing less and less assaults and logis because the sentinels and scouts are dominating the field. People are not joking when they talk about 6-10 sentinels or scouts per team. This is becoming the at-large meta because both classes weaknesses are easily subverted. Scouts are just the most obvious because they can kill EVERYONE with impunity except other scouts. Heavies have to be mobbed or scoutssassinated if there isn't another heavy in play. I believe scouts should be the go-to counter to heavies but when they get nerfed heavy survivability jumps UP sharply. Nothing in this game lives in a vacuum. But follow the PC meta. When there is a variety of suits vehicles and tactics beyond one class dominance then balance will trickle into pubs. But the scout meta was the PC meta three months ago and pubs are catching up. If scouts are nerfed and something isn't done to eject heavies from CQC we will see sentinels where we see scouts now three months after the nerf hits. 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 4590	Posted - 2014.11.06 20:36:00 - [34] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Zatara Rought wrote: mmmm....what if heavies took longer to spawn? What did the commandoooooooo do to deserve this? a simple 'max turn speed' on the heavy machine gun would solve this, as you could still spray down that tunnel, but you'd need someone watching your back, instead of instantly turning around... On the other hand just making the weapon unwieldy from hip fire + having to wait for heat to drop below a certain point before re-firing (On all but the burst, which should just require aim to spin it up before being able to fire.) If you nerf all heavy turn speed, then forge gunners will be worthless in favour of the swarmers... you'll never lose an LAV to a forge gun again. because the turn penalty would be placed on the GUN. Not on the DROPSUIT. 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 4590	Posted - 2014.11.06 20:37:00 - [35] - Quote Argetlam Thorson wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Im amazed no one seems to care about this topic given that assault and logi utility in PC is being held hostage by the need to keep sentinels as the kings of CQC, a role that makes no sense for the suit design. Sentinel - a soldier stationed as a guard to challenge all comers and prevent a surprise attack The whole definition of a sentinel is someone who is guarding a point. Ergo, one would assume it should be the king of CQC as the points are generally in close quarters. The penalty for being the king of CQC (which also pushes the suit into fitting the word's definition) should be being extremely slow. Then you have Sentinel suits playing the role of a sentinel. Basic heavy suits could understandably be faster (relatively, anyway), possibly weaker, not as good at CQC, etc. They should be the suits people should want to use when they're not guarding a point but still want to wield a heavy weapon or have more HP than Medium/Light suits. Point defense is "I pick a spot then MURDER everyone who tries to come close." It does NOT mean CQC. Point defense and Close Quarter Defense are NOT the same thing. 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 4595	Posted - 2014.11.06 21:34:00 - [36] - Quote You seem awfully invested in keeping heavies where they are. Newest round of HMG nerfs already announced. I hope rattati breaks the class entirely. Because the HMG exists on the razor's edge of balance. 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 4599	Posted - 2014.11.06 21:56:00 - [37] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Argetlam Thorson wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Im amazed no one seems to care about this topic given that assault and logi utility in PC is being held hostage by the need to keep sentinels as the kings of CQC, a role that makes no sense for the suit design. Sentinel - a soldier stationed as a guard to challenge all comers and prevent a surprise attack The whole definition of a sentinel is someone who is guarding a point. Ergo, one would assume it should be the king of CQC as the points are generally in close quarters. The penalty for being the king of CQC (which also pushes the suit into fitting the word's definition) should be being extremely slow. Then you have Sentinel suits playing the role of a sentinel. Basic heavy suits could understandably be faster (relatively, anyway), possibly weaker, not as good at CQC, etc. They should be the suits people should want to use when they're not guarding a point but still want to wield a heavy weapon or have more HP than Medium/Light suits. Point defense is "I pick a spot then MURDER everyone who tries to come close." It does NOT mean CQC. Point defense and Close Quarter Defense are NOT the same thing. lol, dude, cmon now. "I pick a spot then MURDER everyone who tries to come CLOSE". " CLOSE" as in nearby, adjoining, abutting. Not "CLOSE" as in 50-70m downrange. CQC= Close Quarters Combat. "CLOSE" Quarters. Not "Over There" Quarters. "CLOSE" Quarters. Have some Doritos and Kickstart, they're actually good together. And don't try to correct me on Military terminology unless you have also served in the military. I guarantee you that your definition does not match reality. 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 4602	Posted - 2014.11.06 22:43:00 - [38] - Quote The heavy spam has reinforced everything I have said. CQC negates all disadvantages sentinels have. They are the meta and the FOTM. And the only way they can be balanced in cqc is by removing them from it. 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 4604	Posted - 2014.11.06 23:24:00 - [39] - Quote Because scouts tossing RE at people is so much better. Bluntly you're not going to convince me that I'm wrong. I'm not going to defend broken and failing mechanics. Sentinel meta is a mixed bag of broken and failing mechanics. The assault is and should be the mainline slayer suit, not that joke newbies who don't know better use. And the only things that really counter sentinels in CQC are OHK niche weapons. Enjoy the nerf. I'm going to giggle and not respec out of heavies. They will have their day again sooner or later. 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 4650	Posted - 2014.11.07 19:05:00 - [40] - Quote Inertia is a whole different bucket of wax. But it's on the list. 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 4800	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:25:00 - [41] - Quote Spankdamonke wrote: I just don't want to be the turtle getting a shotgun to the head constantly again... But when 2/3 of all matches nowadays are dominated by Sentinels, a reiteration and distinction of their battlefield role becomes necessary. Kill the spam by any means deemed fitting to do so. This statement sums up the long, the short, the alpha, the omega and whatever other poetic BS you want to attach to it in the most succinct and simple way possible. For the health of the game, regardless of how this is achieved, Sentinel spam needs to die. 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 5379	Posted - 2014.11.27 10:48:00 - [42] - Quote Sequal Rise wrote: So even more range (35-40m isn't already enough??), same 800 OP DPS at basic lvl, and a poor rotation technique to make them less viable in CQC. If you do this, rifles would have absolutely no point. Everybody prefers fitting a high eHP suit with incredible damages AND range than a medium or light suit. Ho wait, it's already like that. Do you want to make it worse? I don't like these changes. Assault suits were made for close to mid range battles, heavies can't have the same purpose or everybody will run them (even more than today). We talked about it before, my point of view is to REDUCE their range a lot to make them CQC only. Not take them out of CQC with a poor design technique and give them the assault role.. I think you haven't thought your argument through. It is predicatrd on the idea that sents are supposed to be CQC. As it stands sentinels absolutely dominate on close in point fights when they should be encouraging you to stay away from the points entirely. A CQC vulnerability is there specifically to allow assaults and other fast suits a viable means of carving sentinels up insteadof having to expend three assaults to evict one fatty. 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 5379	Posted - 2014.11.27 10:56:00 - [43] - Quote Actualy let me clarify something. This change will make the sentinel something you run behind a squad to force enemies to hunker down or die. The change would reverse the sentinel to be most effextive supporting assaults rather than not needing them. It's kinda like vehicles. Without infantry support they're meat for AV. I want sentinls to have their "meat to infantry" condition that isn't mitigated by simply putting your back to a wall or running into a building. 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 5382	Posted - 2014.11.27 12:48:00 - [44] - Quote Sequal Rise wrote: Hmm I didnt see it like that indeed. The HMG will have to be completely rebalanced and see its damage lowered a lot if you do so, knowing CCP they would easily make this absolutely OP. Your idea seems good on paper but I don't how it would be IG. Dropping the DPS wouldn't be as necessary with a turn speed. If at 20m a sentinel starts having a hsrd time tracking and somewhere between 10-15 it's kill time you have an effective "minimum effective range" Utilizing a turn speed penalty on long range anti infantry weapons creates a differentiation between long range AI and short range. The burst, for example, is hella good at killing but it's really easy to screw up with. It's actually well balanced for CQC. The higher sustain HMGs are what you want clunky in CQC. 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 5403	Posted - 2014.11.27 19:38:00 - [45] - Quote DarthPlagueis TheWise wrote: Oh, you're saying to keep the regular turn speed on the Burst HMG? I'd compromise for that. I just really don't want to see heavies completely not even have a CQC option. I didn't skill into the ScP for CQC. You should really make it a bit clearer in your OP that you want to keep the Burst the same. It's an important point and keeps heavies like me from going into bloodshot eyes rage mode at you. I actually agree that Assault needs a window of opportunity to approach heavies. What I'm afraid of is the goddamn scouts running in circles around me, but I can handle that if we keep the Burst the same as it is now. Perhaps even add a Breach HMG or something, CCP. With horrible RoF and dispersion so it's only good at CQC. that was an important part of the proposal, to keep CQC heavy weapons like the burst with clear drawbacks and apply the turn speed thing to long range weapons that don't have the forge's Unholy charge times. Very specifically put in there. 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 5408	Posted - 2014.11.27 22:51:00 - [46] - Quote Victor Moody Stahl wrote: chaining logis to the eternal hell of the "walking rep tool" stereotype. I want to kill this with fire. 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 5438	Posted - 2014.11.28 00:16:00 - [47] - Quote Grimmiers wrote: Have the spawn time for heavies increased by 50% and have the assault spawn time reduced by 25~30. Instead of slowing down turn speed for the hmg, just slow down their movement speed while shooting. Another change that might work is making resistances go up while crouching and giving heavies a 20% hp nerf. With the hp nerf you could make hmg's do less damage since they high damage feels like it's only needed for another heavy while melting every other suit. Crouching with an HMG is stupid. God no. Don't encourage that idiocy. 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 5464	Posted - 2014.11.28 02:57:00 - [48] - Quote Sentinel is somewhere between devastator and terminator. But unfortunately the sentinel is vulnerable to weapons that can't go into it's preferred combat area. And we seem to lack a "bumrush with fifty hormagaunts" option. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

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.