|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2367
   |
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Just a bunch of questions before I help start breaking everything....
1. Vehicle Command Tree Structure
Should it
a. Mimic the Drop Suits where it is Racial From Top to Bottom?
b. Retain the Same as Current (racial at top end only)
I wouldn't mind this too much, just as long as the operation is only level 1.
2. Vehicle Upgrades Tree Structure
Should it
a. mimic the Drop Suit tree more with bonuses on par with the infantry progression
b. Retain Current form and bonused the unbounded skills (all 6.1 million sp of it)
Yes, it absolutely should be restored to how it was during Chrome.
3. Should there be reskinned place holders for FW vehicles (IE Golden Madrugers w/ amarr logo and Rusted Gunlogis /w repub logo) Even if this means that there is a very low chance of having unique models in the foreseeable future or unique stats even?
Nah, it would still be the Madrugar/Gunnlogi hulls.
4. Should Militia Vehicles and Military Grade Vehicles feature similar slot layouts (as to not eat up slot real-estate) akin to standard dropsuit relationship with militia dropsuits?
No opinion
5. Scout LAV's Role(s) should be?
Useless, especially faster speed, because the LAV physics are still terrible. They have difficulty going up a slight incline. If they'll be reintroduced, they should have much, much better torque, barely slowing down while going up a 30-¦ incline.
6. Logistics LAV's where the start of the killer bee revolution, What tamer Role(s) should it have if brought back?
(Mix and Match or even add)
Bonus to active scanners, definitely range. A little added precision, 125m range instead of 80m. Passive armor and shield gain to vehicles, 30m proximity (because active mods required you to be far too close).
7. Enforcer HAVs previously did not have a strong role, What roles should it have?
8. Murader HAVs previously had a god like role, What roles should it retain if ever brought back in?
Going by the name, the roles should be reversed. Marauder bonus to offense, Enforcer bonus to defense. Marauder could get increased turret damage, better heat buildup for railguns and/or blasters, increased max range, whatever. Enforcer could get higher base HP, or resistances, whatever. I'd shell out for another respec for these.
9. Logistics DS underperformed massively last time, what roles should it have to make it useful?
Same principles as the Logi LAV, adding ammo replenishment, and shield/armor gain for infantry. Shouldn't be old Core Focused 178 HP/s, but should be better than Six Kin Triage. Some innate resistance to AV so it's not squishy. Also built-in mCRU that doesn't use a slot, and doesn't eat CPU/PG. Because it's a game.
10. Assault Dropships are a subject of much Hyperbole, What attribute is the ADS hurting in the most right now?
11. There is thought about bringing turret variants back BUT so many of the old variants were 'useless' in the light of another so in what way or roles would you give these returning turrets to avoid similar fates.
Faster firing, lesser damage turret variants for the ADS. I'd much rather have the higher rate of fire while sacrificing half the damage output. Should work for all 3 turrets, but obviously the bonus wouldn't work while mismatching hulls and turrets. Essentially the same with large turrets - longer range for railgun and missile while doing more than half their current damage. They're larger turrets, shouldn't follow exactly the same as small turrets.
12. Currently we have a selection of active and passive modules. Would you like to see an introduction of Modules that were off behavior of current as additional Options. An example would be an active armor repair that outperforms the passives?
Bring back everything that was taken away. Could sacrifice the passive armor resistance mods to have the passive reps do the same thing. They would essentially be redundant.
13. There are currently no known technical evaluation on the possibility of more support like game play such as Deploying Equipment (ie Proximity Explosive or Nanohive), Siege Modes (your vehicle sacrifices a large amount of one stat to gain a great strength in another; Like 0 mobility for heavy tank and offensive ability) or even a repair turret or Mobile Supply Depot. Despite this are you very interested in seeing these mechanics brought into playing field to be hotfixed around and design something with? Which ones? Any new ideas of your own you think that could be done?
The book 'Ender's Game' is required reading at military officer schools. In it, there's a line, "there is no combat without movement. There cannot be a 100% movement penalty for increased turret damage. If that were the case, nobody would use it at all. Could be a 75% reduction in movement speed, only a 25%-30% reduction in turn speed. Max 10% reduction to turret rotation speed. Too much and it becomes useless.
14. Dropship Immortality was pretty serious issue because of the lack of counters mostly. Would the community support an AA turret variant that cannot lower its turret base underneath a certain point making it difficult to deal with other threats if the Dropships where returned to similar power before 1.8D?
That really doesn't matter, because currently in order to hit something directly below you, you have to nose dive towards whatever it is. The ADS is kinda useless in that fashion.
15. You mean to tell me the bugged side turrets is working as intended? If you don't notice your HP, you'll kill yourself out of it. Should've been fixed a while ago.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2381
|
Posted - 2014.11.17 17:54:00 -
[2] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:DarthPlagueis TheWise wrote:i dont give a **** because im infantry lolololol Hello infantry; let me hear your screams as I run over you head and crush it like a tomato can. Some freindly advice here, you're not one of us, Trying to be is a bit embarassing and dare i say it cringe worthy. "How could i know? that maybe you have alts or something" Because all of your posts prior to this thread and especially including it make it painfully obvious. Its akin to saying "I love footbal, i've usually manage to hit a home run at the 18th hole. Man, Arsenal are having a great time at the Superbowl or what?"Just at least be as straitforward as rattati is, who vociferously admits he doesn't know the slightest thing about vehicles and is not planning to learn, to the point of taking offense at being offered a ride in a dropship. Stop the B.S and try to build some trust. I had written something long but felt it would have been wasted effort and on deaf ears. I am just a simple player I just want to have fun playing. If that means hopping in a tank or running a suicide plasma cannon bomber I want the game to be fun and not frustrated by every little stupid thing that makes this game unenjoyable. Vehicles are currently top of my list of 'least enjoyable things to do in this game.' Also the analogy you're looking for is Fantasy Football vs real football. Playing Baseball in a hockey rink is one of my specialities. I am just saying if you (well not you specifically but various other vehicle pilots that are just going to stand by and be wall flowers in this conversation) don't want to interact with the CPM trying to get things done, that is your prerogative. I will not force you to feed me information. I mean if vehicle pilots feel strongly about me doing this; I am waiting for another CPM member to start having shouting contests with on who's more right on the subject, and sadly and still am currently unopposed. Xel would probably start to speak up soon as I mention anything involving a buff to vehicles though.
We've been trying to talk, but the problem is, we don't want our playstyle to get ruined. Everybody on here was crying about the end of Dust when CCP were going to nerf the Cal logi and TAR rifles. They got nerfed, and everybody went back to their regularly scheduled programing.
Again, we don't want our playstyle nerfed. What is wrong and unacceptable is how infantry have been dictating the direction vehicles go in for such a long time. There is no compromise to be reached, pilots have been shafted for over 2 years, and we're in this current state because of that. Swarms travel to where a vehicle was then continue on at greater speed to hit their target 9 times out of 10. There's still a problem with invisible swarms, because I can be behind a wall, or behind a hill or crate, so they achieve lock behind their cover, aim up or to the side, and launch the swarms, and half the time I can't see the missiles. It's always the same thing. Infantry complains about how hard it is to destroy tanks, yet it's the noobs in MLT vehicles that they're having trouble with. They'd have a stroke trying to destroy me. Yet, when I go against a squad full of people from some country, such as the Japanese or Russians, they have absolutely no problem with 4 guys going AV to destroy me. They do it quite often, and destroy me half the time.
1.9 was great, but there's still that huge problem of pilots having no say in the direction vehicles take. Rattati admitted that he had sole discretion on changing swarms and the ADS, without consulting any pilots whatsoever. There haven't been any word on the stats concerning the ADS since the hotfix. We have no idea as to what's going on with that, because it's being kept private.
Infantry dictating the direction of vehicles needs to stop. There has to be discussion with both sides, not one-sided.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2398
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 18:21:00 -
[3] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Sigh once again more work as brought up; sorry for the delays but this one is a bit more time critical to get done with first but I am excited to see it eventually shared.
Time critical?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2405
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 15:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:For the love of amarr please stop distracting me everything else Soon as I am getting one thing out of the way get hit up for stuff involving suit colors >< http://i.imgur.com/vHzbNgf.jpgThen Thanksgiving (happy holidays everyone) Then Bamms tin foilery causing more questions than answers which is the exact opposite of what facts to but very much what speculation causes. Anyways I haven't forgotten still gathering notes and what not just need to get stuff More good stuff is on the way for you from other sources though just not specifically for vehicle pilots yet. As always CPM Cross Atu is also working on specific vehicle feedback as well on his own project hit him up as well with your ideas and the sorts.
How about get him to make a stickied thread on here so he can have it all in one place to browse at his leisure, instead of having to look at things as they pop up? Me and a bunch of pilots likely have a hell of a lot to say to him. That would make it easier on him.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2405
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 15:31:00 -
[5] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:True Adamance wrote:DUST Fiend wrote:Id like weaker individual modules, but more slots and capacity for fitting things. Though, we'd probably need some new modules to help create diversity, so that probably won't happen. Making armor reps passive was dumb. Keep the passive modules, nerf the amount they heal, and put active ones back in (assuming my above suggestion was used)
Regardless, active reps are way more fun and rewarding. Though they still have to fix the bug, at least on shield boosters, that keeps the booster from working if taking damage.
Oh, and its only been almost 2 years now, but how about fixing side turrets on dropships? Looking towards the front of the ship STILL resets the turrets position, and missiles can STILL kill their gunner. This is nothing short of laziness on CCPs part atthis point I was thinking quite the opposite, modules determining the power of your fitting like the once did. 180mm Polycrystalline Armour plating +2750 Armour Heavy Efficient Armour Repairer 414 armour per pulse, 5 pulses over 15 seconds C-Type Armour Hardener 25-30% armour resistances Riding in a tank with something like this would actually make armour HAV work viable while really retaining the idea of "windows of opportunity" 1. What you just said was Chrome, it did have windows of opportunity and pilots had options and variety to boot 2. Now we have windows of opportunity which feel like they last a week and that is it, no variety, no improvements, nothing for pilots except nerfs and removal of modules, turrets, hulls, skills and skill bonuses 3. CCP has gone backwards
A week, hell, it's literally 20 seconds. Tank battles used to last 2 seconds during Chrome when rail was involved, because a Soma could have 3 passive damage mods, a rep, and a particle cannon and melt anything in its path.
Experience used to mean a lot more than it does now. Now, any two-bit infantryman can get into a Sica and make a real mess of things, especially if something were to happen, oh, like, my rail glitch the shots and fire until it overheats, causing me to lose a tank because I can't fight back.
Which is something CCP still has not looked into.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2405
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 15:34:00 -
[6] - Quote
Derrith Erador wrote:Well, I may be in the minority of this thought, but I always thought that the pythons CPU and PG system needed to be tweaked. As it is currently, we have to shove a complex PG upgrade to fit any decent fit, but we don't need to heavily invest in shield fitting optimization. There's only one competitive fit that requires fitting OP to go level 3.
My proposition, reduce CPU by 8-10%, while buffing PG by 34-59.
WARNING: do not buff the PG beyond 59, I've done the math on this. And I can safely assure you the most OP fit will be reachable with a PG buff of this magnitude.
Fit is as follows:
1 complex afterburner
1 complex heavy extender
1 complex light shield booster
1 complex PG upgrade
1 xt missile
That's just my two cents, hope it helps!
And before infantry complains "oh you should have to compromise on the fit," well no, infantry doesn't compromise on their fits, because for a PC last night, just as a way of trolling, on an assault Gk0, I fit a Balac's, Cala's, flux, extender, 2 precision enhancers, 2 plates, 1 reactive plate and 2 repair mods. Complex, except the extender because I only have level 3 into shield extension.
If infantry doesn't have to compromise their fit, then vehicles shouldn't have to.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2405
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 15:55:00 -
[7] - Quote
And as far as the new mods go, for active reps, make it like the NOS meaning you can only fit one on a tank. Could do with the passive as well, because we'd otherwise achieve a full rep tank, with no damage attenuation. You all complained about not being able to solo a tank with Darkside swarms that had 3 reps on it. One active and one passive rep wouldn't be able to do that. Add a hardener and plate and a tank is back being good to go.
May also want to test making the damage mod the same way (could do that for infantry too  ), so tankers have time to react instead of getting melted in 2 shots.
Shield should always be passive as per EVE lore, but I've never played EVE so I'm going off what other people tell me. Booster could remain as-is, one pulse adding a large amount of shield and kick starting the regen, but the regen shouldn't be interrupted by taking little damage. It's a forced boost, shunting power into the booster, so there shouldn't be any way a little damage should stop it. I'll even take a 3 second minor slowdown to give it more of a good feel to it.
For Marauders and Enforcers, require level 3 in HAV operation to unlock those. They could both get a speed penalty per level for activating their respective mods, but no more than 10% per level.
The roles should be switched: Marauder gets bonus to damage, Enforcer gets a bonus to defense. 2% or 3% bonus to damage per level for the Marauder, same for the Enforcer with defense. Both could have the siege module already fit, that won't subtract from the hull's CPU and PG. Those would probably be 10x or 12x skills. Infantry would probably want them to be 12x skills. The Marauder should get a flat bonus to turrets, since Caldari has 2 and Gallente only has 1. Could give the Gallente a bigger damage bonus to make up for it however.
Bringing the tanks back in line to what they used to be, would make experience matter a lot more again. If no AV was present, used to be able to battle 2 or 3 tanks and win due to superior driving and aiming. Now, like I've said, any random can hop into a Sica, and my rail will glitch, rendering me without any offense, and dying quickly.
To bring the age-old argument back, I don't see what would be wrong with a tank being its own best counter. As far as pubs go, it's the luck of the draw. The game shouldn't be balanced around ambush, which is what a lot of people seem to want. It should be balanced around FW and PC, to encourage a lot more people to get into those modes. Infantry could always squad with a dedicated tanker in a pub, in case there's a dedicated tanker on the other team.
Pilot suits could be introduced too. No slot layout or different colors and suits to buy from level 1 to 5, just passive bonuses. Gallente could be something like increased acceleration and a reduction to armor plate weight penalty per level. Caldari could be increased passive shield regen and base armor per level. Infantry now has 2 passive skills, no reason the pilot suit shouldn't. Take note that I didn't suggest damage bonuses to either suit. Gunnlogi could do with more armor so that people could stop dual tanking it. Could also introduce vehicle shield regulators to make the Gunnlogi a real shield tank; have around 2000 armor, ammo extension and a regulator.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
| |
|