DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Hotfix Echo

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] Hotfix Echo

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 12 post(s)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15667	Posted - 2014.12.10 05:08:00 - [181] - Quote Daddrobit wrote: True Adamance wrote: While I can accept that it's probably true we'd not be having this discussion..... ain't no reason in hell an infantry ever deserve to live through a direct hit from a tank shell. Small turrets in Dust may or may not be equivalent to small turrets in EVE..... if they are you don't survive something that knocks starships out of the skies. And that's exactly the mentality I was talking about earlier. "I deserve to kill everything with relative ease and be difficult to kill in return because..." Tankers should have the ability to go 40-0 through individual player skill just like saxonamish or whatever other high tier player, absolutely. But for every one tanker that does, there should be 100s of others that fall to their own lack of abilities just like the rest of the playerbase. Sitting in a tank should not innately make you a good player. If I had my way about it it certainly wouldn't. To be fair to Dust 514 I think we as vehicle players in many respects have been coddled and times, then kicked in the teeth at times..... one of the main reasons I think the Shield HAV is OP is because you cannot 2-3 shot it..... I'm used to dying in a Tank in 1-2 two rounds tops from 500m away (War Thunder).....but I certainly can't tell infantry he guys check out this alpha and blast radius borne from a Tank Simulator as frankly they couldn't handle it. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2451	Posted - 2014.12.10 05:17:00 - [182] - Quote Daddrobit wrote: I'm not saying they shouldn't, in fact i literally said it in what you quoted that they should be able to kill like the top percentile of infantry. What I'm on about is that even bad players are made at least decent just because they're in a tank. And they subsequently get wrecked in 3 volleys from Wiyrkomi, or 3 from an IAFG. Or if I'm there, my rail makes short work of them. It's really not that hard to take out someone in a Soma that has little to no idea what they're doing. I've actually watched people try to turn their turret around when they're taking damage, to figure out where it's coming from, and then they quickly blow up. Me on the other hand, if I'm close enough to swarms to hear them leaving tubes, I put on both my hardeners if I'm in a Gunnlogi; if it's a Madrugar, my NOS lights up and I speed away. But, they still follow me around all sorts of obstacles, including literally an inch above the ground to follow me down a slope. AV is easy, piloting is not. Have you tried being in a tank? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
WeapondigitX V7 The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 177	Posted - 2014.12.10 05:23:00 - [183] - Quote The TAC AR has less range than the scrambler rifle and the TAC AR has less damage per clip. But the TAC AR has much less PG and CPU cost as well when both weapons are of the same tier. The weapons seem very close to being equal. The TAC AR also has a scope, making it more accurate on average over time, at ranges between 25 -55m compared to the scrambler rifle. The TAC AR fires 18 rounds. the scrambler fires roughly 22 rounds with an amarr assault with max skills in a short space of time. The TAC AR has a reload of roughly 3.5 seconds after firing 18 rounds. The Scrambler takes roughly 6 seconds to cooldown without overheat after firing 22 rounds with an amarr assault suit with max skills. the two weapons seem equal here. The SCR has less ADS zoom compared to the TAC AR, making the SCR less accurate on average over time, at long range compared to the TAC AR. The TAC AR has less CPU and PG cost compared to the SCR when they are the same tier at adv level and same tier at proto level. (already stated above in first line of this post, I thought this point needed emphasizing) The SCR can charge a shot, the TAC AR cant. The damage per overheat for SCR with amarr assault with max skills is probably more than the TAC AR. Both weapons have valuable damage profiles. With these considerations, don't increase the clip size of the TAC AR to anything greater than 22 or 23, otherwise it will gain too much value and diversity in its application of use. It will become very debatable on the subject about 'is it is OP?' with much evidence to prove 'yes' with that evidence arising in a few weeks. The adv TAC AR is used much less because the std SCR can be used as a tactical variant while being much cheaper for ISK, while having similar perforamance, despite the std SCRs having slightly less performance than adv TAC ARs. People push themselves to make up for a cheap weapons weaknesses and poorer performance so they can win battles while having larger ISK profits. The game was designed so that you could achive a lot with std tier things where proto gear was very similar, roughly only 20% better at most, sometimes only 5% better.The game was designed in a way so players did not need proto gear to win if they were more skilled than there opponent and smarter with positioning on the battlefield. Although team battles distort how good proto gear is. consider std gear being 100 16 players makes 1600 consider proto as 120 16 players make 1600 + 200 + 120 = 1920 by this oversimplification of the situations that do occur in pub matches and 'can occur but probably will be very rare in PC' you can more clearly see the value of proto gear when used in massive amounts.
Random1628 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 1	Posted - 2014.12.10 05:24:00 - [184] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I actually forgot to write the HMG nerf, in the form of heat, again. Does this include the assault and bust variants?
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2451	Posted - 2014.12.10 05:27:00 - [185] - Quote Daddrobit wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: message begins Rattati, what do you feel about the parallel that Dust turrets are essentially an extension of EVE turrets? I have someone on here complaining that an AR can't do damage to a tank, as well as complaining that infantry can get one-shot by a railgun. True Adamance posted something great on here, to the effect that a turret that can take down starships should have no problem taking down infantry. What do you think of that? Personally, I believe it sounds childish to complain about rifles not being able to damage a tank. I never once said that I feel ARs should do damage to tanks, I only stated that they don't. However for the sake of game balance, I do feel that infantry needs some recourse against untouchable instant death machines, especially with the possibility of real proto tanks making a comeback soon and our current AV only being balanced against basic. Not absolute resistance, but at least -something- to mitigate the damage. You're complaining that they don't, that's what I'm pointing out. 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. 2451	Posted - 2014.12.10 05:29:00 - [186] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Daddrobit wrote: True Adamance wrote: While I can accept that it's probably true we'd not be having this discussion..... ain't no reason in hell an infantry ever deserve to live through a direct hit from a tank shell. Small turrets in Dust may or may not be equivalent to small turrets in EVE..... if they are you don't survive something that knocks starships out of the skies. And that's exactly the mentality I was talking about earlier. "I deserve to kill everything with relative ease and be difficult to kill in return because..." Tankers should have the ability to go 40-0 through individual player skill just like saxonamish or whatever other high tier player, absolutely. But for every one tanker that does, there should be 100s of others that fall to their own lack of abilities just like the rest of the playerbase. Sitting in a tank should not innately make you a good player. If I had my way about it it certainly wouldn't. To be fair to Dust 514 I think we as vehicle players in many respects have been coddled and times, then kicked in the teeth at times..... one of the main reasons I think the Shield HAV is OP is because you cannot 2-3 shot it..... I'm used to dying in a Tank in 1-2 two rounds tops from 500m away (War Thunder).....but I certainly can't tell infantry he guys check out this alpha and blast radius borne from a Tank Simulator as frankly they couldn't handle it. When have pilots ever been coddled? It's been consecutive nerfs since vehicles were first introduced. Replication to Chrome, Chrome to Uprising, Uprising 1.0 to 1.7 (dumbed everything down), then 1.8. Nerf after nerf after nerf. That's not coddling, that's beating a child for spilling milk on a carpet. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
WeapondigitX V7 The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 178	Posted - 2014.12.10 06:00:00 - [187] - Quote I suggest making armor plates roughly std 68 / adv 96/ proto 124 Only nerf things in small amounts. This is a much smaller nerf to armor plates. (I hope I didn't suggest a increase in there hp accidentally, it is meant to be a decrease to current armor plates hp values, I cant remember the current stats, I think it was roughly 80/110/130 ) Players use armor plates a lot because of the following mentality (line of thought): I am dying to proto guys in pubs or PC and they have overwhelming numbers cause my team mates die quickly and im left trying to kill 6 other guys. If im going to die because my position was over run I want to have a better chance at killing 1 enemy before I die. ("taking a enemy with you to the grave") Thus the new players will armor tank and shield tank at the same time, or a new player will armor tank and put damage mods on or use shield regen mods in highs so I can have my shields up quickly to help my allies, mitigating the players armors slow regen slightly. New players generally don't think to retreat, and where to retreat that puts them in an advantageous position. (high shield regen in high slots and low armor regen, high armor using low slots, low shields, slow speed, when looking at it as just total hp, you can see your total hp regained in the short term is higher, players who are killed a lot only worry about the short term of life as a soldier, these players are often those that die to proto stomps) this thinking often gets better results in the short term: It is also how armor tanking gameplay seems to be designed. thus when you have died a lot to proto stomps and you finally get proto gear the idea of maximizing your short term effect on the battle between deaths has been 'drummed into them' meaning it has become hard to let go of that idea because it is the ony idea that has given slightly improved results. The idea of retreating to cover and waiting for shields to regen (using shield based suits) seems harder for most new players to believe it can work when there position is usually over run by enemy proto gear guys or players that are really skilled.
Funkmaster Whale Whale Pod 2572	Posted - 2014.12.10 06:14:00 - [188] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: hfderrtgvcd wrote: Tac ar buff too much armor plate nerf too much scrambler nerf is irrelevant and not really a nerf at all Tac AR kills are 1% in PC. It's obviously not borderline OP. Remains to be seen. Scrambler is just to get rifle alignment for future balancing. Rattati before you go and buff the TAC so much, please watch this video of mine: http://www.twitch.tv/funkmasterwhale/c/5584743 This is me using the ADV TAC for the first time after a viewer asked me to demonstrate it. I honestly think if you gave this gun a 30 round clip it'd be a little too much. It's honestly fine as it is. Second, kills in PC means absolutely nothing. I don't even understand why this is a metric you go by. PC is completely and utterly different from a public match. PC is all about taking and camping objectives. People don't go around farming kills and warpoints in PC like they do in public matches. This is the reason you see Boundless HMG and Shotguns as the top killers because everything revolves around spamming an objective with as much EHP and high-alpha damage to keep it protected. In a public contract, people just go around farming warpoints and mercilessly killing everything. The objectives are cool but winning doesn't give you anything, so the dynamic of the battle is entirely different. Please don't base your balancing off people who claim "it's not used in PC". Follow me on Twitch.tv!
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2452	Posted - 2014.12.10 06:16:00 - [189] - Quote Funkmaster Whale wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: hfderrtgvcd wrote: Tac ar buff too much armor plate nerf too much scrambler nerf is irrelevant and not really a nerf at all Tac AR kills are 1% in PC. It's obviously not borderline OP. Remains to be seen. Scrambler is just to get rifle alignment for future balancing. Rattati before you go and buff the TAC so much, please watch this video of mine: http://www.twitch.tv/funkmasterwhale/c/5584743 This is me using the ADV TAC for the first time after a viewer asked me to demonstrate it. I honestly think if you gave this gun a 30 round clip it'd be a little too much. It's honestly fine as it is. Second, kills in PC means absolutely nothing. I don't even understand why this is a metric you go by. PC is completely and utterly different from a public match. PC is all about taking and camping objectives. People don't go around farming kills and warpoints in PC like they do in public matches. This is the reason you see Boundless HMG and Shotguns as the top killers because everything revolves around spamming an objective with as much EHP and high-alpha damage to keep it protected. In a public contract, people just go around farming warpoints and mercilessly killing everything. The objectives are cool but winning doesn't give you anything, so the dynamic of the battle is entirely different. Please don't base your balancing off people who claim "it's not used in PC". So should weapons be balanced around ambush? 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. 2452	Posted - 2014.12.10 06:17:00 - [190] - Quote And I have the Duvolle TAR. It doesn't do enough for me. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Funkmaster Whale Whale Pod 2572	Posted - 2014.12.10 06:22:00 - [191] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: And I have the Duvolle TAR. It doesn't do enough for me. Watch my video. I went 39-1 using the advanced version. Maybe the issue isn't the gun but your own inability. But hey, let's balance things around people who are terrible and do nothing but whine. That always works Follow me on Twitch.tv!
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2452	Posted - 2014.12.10 06:30:00 - [192] - Quote Funkmaster Whale wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: And I have the Duvolle TAR. It doesn't do enough for me. Watch my video. I went 39-1 using the advanced version. Maybe the issue isn't the gun but your own inability. But hey, let's balance things around people who are terrible and do nothing but whine. That always works Oh yeah, level 5 Gal assault, proficiency 4 for AR, pair of damage mods, can't do much damage outside of 40 meters, yet it's my fault I can't kill with it. Got it I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Funkmaster Whale Whale Pod 2573	Posted - 2014.12.10 06:33:00 - [193] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Funkmaster Whale wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: And I have the Duvolle TAR. It doesn't do enough for me. Watch my video. I went 39-1 using the advanced version. Maybe the issue isn't the gun but your own inability. But hey, let's balance things around people who are terrible and do nothing but whine. That always works Oh yeah, level 5 Gal assault, proficiency 4 for AR, pair of damage mods, can't do much damage outside of 40 meters, yet it's my fault I can't kill with it. Got it Yes it is your fault. Is that really hard to grasp? Like seriously, how daft can you be dude? Just because you suck doesn't mean the rest of us do. Your logic is "buff this weapon because I can't do well with it", when there's evidence sitting right in front of your face of someone doing well with it. I use the TAC AR all the time and I can easily get 20+ kills without dying. Stop sucking at the game and maybe the weapons will work for you. Follow me on Twitch.tv!
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2452	Posted - 2014.12.10 06:37:00 - [194] - Quote Funkmaster Whale wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Funkmaster Whale wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: And I have the Duvolle TAR. It doesn't do enough for me. Watch my video. I went 39-1 using the advanced version. Maybe the issue isn't the gun but your own inability. But hey, let's balance things around people who are terrible and do nothing but whine. That always works Oh yeah, level 5 Gal assault, proficiency 4 for AR, pair of damage mods, can't do much damage outside of 40 meters, yet it's my fault I can't kill with it. Got it Yes it is your fault. Is that really hard to grasp? Like seriously, how daft can you be dude? Just because you suck doesn't mean the rest of us do. Your logic is "buff this weapon because I can't do well with it", when there's evidence sitting right in front of your face of someone doing well with it. I use the TAC AR all the time and I can easily get 20+ kills without dying. Stop sucking at the game and maybe the weapons will work for you. Where did I say buff the weapon? This borders on trolling. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Funkmaster Whale Whale Pod 2574	Posted - 2014.12.10 06:40:00 - [195] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Where did I say buff the weapon? This borders on trolling. Just stop talking dude. I don't even know why I bother with you. Follow me on Twitch.tv!
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2452	Posted - 2014.12.10 06:45:00 - [196] - Quote Funkmaster Whale wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Where did I say buff the weapon? This borders on trolling. Just stop talking dude. I don't even know why I bother with you. So stop I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1097	Posted - 2014.12.10 06:51:00 - [197] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: New Packed Remote Explosive STD/ADV/PRO: Current Damage: 1250/1500/1750 DMG +30% Activation Time: 3/3/3 Radius 0.1 Same PG/CPU Current Remote Explosives STD/ADV/PRO: Activation 5/5/5 These changes look perfectly reasonable. Normal REs are perfectly capable of being used as traps but tossing them into the middle of a group of enemies will yield less results, as with a 5s delay you're much more likely to get gunned down. The Packed REs sound great: is the +30% damage on top of the numbers you wrote? Or are you increasing them further to be 1625/1950/2275? Or are you going the other way an nerfing normal ones to 875/1050/1225? Are you considering looking at Proximity Explosives? With the bandwidth changes they are essentially a massive waste of time: you not only have to spend a bunch of time putting them out in places that aren't too open to be of use, but they're also one shot wonders that might not even do anything. If they had similar bandwidth to REs but were more powerful, you'd be able to lay a smaller minefield that's roughly as effective as the current larger ones. Something like a 1000/1250/1500 tier progression and upping the bandwidth from 2 -> 3; all five PRO PEs would be 7500 damage and 15 Mbit/sec, too much for non-logis to really consider, or allowing non-logis to deploy small traps in support of their AV efforts. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Kalante Schiffer Ancient Exiles. 834	Posted - 2014.12.10 06:57:00 - [198] - Quote 25 bullets to the tac AR is fine. Putting 30 bullets would be over doing it. AE.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 20002	Posted - 2014.12.10 07:07:00 - [199] - Quote I don't think anyone is going to use regular plates, especially not at the higher tiers. Stacking reactives will be significantly more effective than plate/rep combos. Consider 3x complex plates and 2x complex reppers vs 5x complex reactives. 5x complex reactives will yield the same amount of HP as 3 complex plates (330) and almost as much rep as the dual complex reppers (15 vs 18) while having much lower fitting requirements and a very small speed penalty. These plates are close to ferroscales in performance while having higher fitting requirements and a speed penalty. Reactives and ferroscales will replace regular plates across the board. For these reasons I feel the armour nerf is over the top. If you feel that these reasons merit nerfing reactives and ferroscales as well, I will be happy to give you a comparison of armour and shield tanks and why armour tanking will promptly go from the preferred meta to underpowered. The Federation is not a defined region of space, of planets, of mountains, rivers, or woods. It is a vision.
RedPencil Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 156	Posted - 2014.12.10 07:20:00 - [200] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: hfderrtgvcd wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: hfderrtgvcd wrote: Tac ar buff too much armor plate nerf too much scrambler nerf is irrelevant and not really a nerf at all Tac AR kills are 1% in PC. It's obviously not borderline OP. Remains to be seen. Scrambler is just to get rifle alignment for future balancing. The tac ar being unpopular has more to do with map design than the weapon. The gun is very good but the vast majority of fighting in pc is in cqc. That is why hmgs and shotguns are so popular. If you nerf armor plates without touching the speed penalty everyone will simply switch to ferros and reactives. 65/90/115 seems more reasonable to me. scrambler rifle has a very similar function, and is still used in PC Tac AR isn't popular in PC because they choice Breach AR instate isn't it? I wonder what is a ratio between all AR and SCR using in PC. Beware Paper cut M[;..;]M

RedPencil Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 156	Posted - 2014.12.10 07:56:00 - [201] - Quote New RE - Radius 0.1 is ridiculous. Will the damage register correctly if you stack RE on top of each other? - DMG +30% and Activation Time: 3/3/3 isn't reverent. If you buff it to comfort the new radius, please don't. - If you hate RE so much, why don't you make it AV only. Right now merc can see it on tacnet anyway. New Armor Plates - 60/80/100, it will be no reason to select reactive or ferros over plate. New Tac AR - prefer easy step such 25 bullets per clip. New Burst AR - if you say so. New AR - if you say so. New SCR - if you say so. - It is OP because turbo controller not because the SCR itself. New Breach AR - suggest Effective Range below 60M. - 4M nerf (from 70M to 66M) won't show any difference. New Vehicles - No comment. Beware Paper cut M[;..;]M
Pseudogenesis Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 1023	Posted - 2014.12.10 08:13:00 - [202] - Quote This is... a really odd list of changes. RE nerfs are completely unwarranted in my opinion, especially given the recent (unintentional?) nerf. Aggressive use of REs punishes campy, immobile gameplay and forces the game to be more fluid. Plus it's one of the few hard counters to heavies. Granted I'm not sure where their balance lies, I don't have the numbers or anything, but in my time playing the game I have almost never died to frisbee REs. Armor changes are long overdue, but they seem poorly thought out. These armor nerfs will a) drive everyone to the other armor plates and b) enforce CalScout supremacy, ESPECIALLY if penalties to shield stacking aren't instituted. And cloak is still gonna feel like **** to use without providing any real benefit. :/ Rest of the stuff is great, though. Vehicle lovers are probably very happy to hear of the possibility of more content. Stabby-stabber extraordinaire I stabbed Rattati once, you know.
Songs of Seraphim Murphys-Law 115	Posted - 2014.12.10 08:20:00 - [203] - Quote First off, are Logistics and Commandos ever going to be reviewed? At least next hotfix... Packed REs: Don't see the point when standard versions need a better look at other than a 5 second delay. Tactical Assault Rifle: A little too many shots on the clip... Maybe tone it down to 24? Burst Assaut Rifle: I thought more shots per burst was a bad thing? Someone get Cavani to comment on this. Breach Assault Rifle: Lowering the clip isn't going to make it any less overused... either lower the rate of fire or lower the damage and threshold at which it fires. Scrambler Rifle: Any reason other than a future rifle balance? Armor Plates: I have mixed feelings on this one... Personally I think that armor users have it easier, but... hmm... Slightly too much? Maybe 65/80/110? And alter movement penalty to compensate or the other two versions of plates -- as there would be no reason to run any regular plates. Vehicles: I wasn't around during the time of these vehicles so I can't comment. Raging alcoholic. Quafe is life. Quafe is love.
Cat Merc Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 13701	Posted - 2014.12.10 08:50:00 - [204] - Quote Without an increase in fire rate, giving the Burst AR another shot per burst will just make it awkward to use. Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++
Vell0cet Company of Marcher Lords Amarr Empire 2661	Posted - 2014.12.10 09:29:00 - [205] - Quote Joining this party late. The Tac AR may need a small buff, but I think 22 rounds is a pretty good starting place. If it still needs more love, then we can keep adding to the clip size in small increments over time. 30 rounds could be dangerously OP. I'm disliking the Armor nerf for several reasons. First, I'm worried about TTK getting too low. Next, I'd like to see resistance plating and shield resistance modules added eventually. When that happens, you'll have to make a trade off between buffer or resistances. If the buffer is too low, resistances will always be the better choice. This may be a case where buffing shield extenders a bit may be a better approach. If balance demands a nerf to armor plates, do it in several small nerfs over time. As for vehicles, I'd rather wait for capacitors to see a full rebalance around them. That would solve so many balancing problems with vehicles vs. AV and vehicles vs. vehicles. You could make them much tougher, but they'd be vulnerable to being crippled and then easily destroyed. Without capacitors I don't think you can ever balance vehicles properly. They'll either remain fairly weak as they are now with limited fittings and tactics, or be too strong. The solution is to have a capacitor resource so a tanker/pilot can't run everything at once for more than a few seconds, or they could run one thing constantly, but not have much reserve cap if they get into trouble. It gives them flexibility to adapt to what modules are the most important at that time and not be constrained by long cool downs, which is a lousy mechanic. It also opens the door to capacitor warfare down the road, which will be a nice balancing tool. Best PvE idea ever!
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 11676	Posted - 2014.12.10 11:16:00 - [206] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: hfderrtgvcd wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: hfderrtgvcd wrote: Tac ar buff too much armor plate nerf too much scrambler nerf is irrelevant and not really a nerf at all Tac AR kills are 1% in PC. It's obviously not borderline OP. Remains to be seen. Scrambler is just to get rifle alignment for future balancing. The tac ar being unpopular has more to do with map design than the weapon. The gun is very good but the vast majority of fighting in pc is in cqc. That is why hmgs and shotguns are so popular. If you nerf armor plates without touching the speed penalty everyone will simply switch to ferros and reactives. 65/90/115 seems more reasonable to me. scrambler rifle has a very similar function, and is still used in PC SCR would be very OP if you could fire 30 rounds in quick succession (you currently can't because of heat). Similarly, tAR might be OP with a 30 round magazine. I suggest a 23 round magazine instead. Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 730	Posted - 2014.12.10 12:22:00 - [207] - Quote Daddrobit wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Daddrobit wrote: Aye, I agree, if vehicles were specialized more for anti tank over infantry, then I don't think we'd be having this conversation. However that is not the case, tank shots are just as effective at taking out tanks as they are infantry, and that leaves infantry in a bad place getting one shotted by every rail, and blasters in 2-5. So we're not allowed to have good aim with a rail, is that it? That actually takes the cake for worst non-argument I've heard on here. Then CCP should remove aim assist, and actually make it so that it's more difficult to get headshots. Does that sound fair? If we're gonna get penalized for having great aim, then it's only fair that infantry should penalized for having good aim. Nevermind you're forgetting the word experience. There's a lot of us out there that have been doing this for a long, long time and have become very, very good. Yes, I would love it if CCP took away aim assist from the game. I trust my own abilities to aim, I did very well for myself in the past, the less crutches the game has the better. But if you don't think sitting in a vehicle with 5000+ health and resistance to 95% of everything in the game with an instant kill weapon isn't relying on a crutch, then you're delusional. If you don't like infantry, go play World of Tanks. you want zero aim assist? you must not have met any scouts... particularly caldari scouts. also, a forge gun is AV, yet it still kills infantry easily. im not sure why anyone would believe that a weapon designed to pierce hard targets like tanks, would suddenly have trouble penetrating soft body tissue. a direct hit is a direct hit. you can not say they a weapon that deals 1300 damage on a direct hit will not deal 1300 damage to you when you get hit with it, tank or no tank. other games combat this issue with projectile accuracy. the large turrets would need to be accurate enough to hit other large targets, without being accurate enough to reliably hit infantry. basically imagine a circle. if the circle fits inside your target, youll hit them. if the target however, fits inside the circle, theres a chance you might miss, depending on how much space that small target fills up
Dead Cavino Titans of Phoenix 21	Posted - 2014.12.10 12:43:00 - [208] - Quote Can we get a buff to MLT shield rechargers/regulators. This could help out the caldari/minmatar newbros.
Valor Goat 71	Posted - 2014.12.10 13:17:00 - [209] - Quote Vitantur Nothus wrote: Crimson ShieId wrote: Why not up the HP values on shields a bit instead of simply knocking down armor plates? Increase the TTK and make everyone happy? A "more HP" solution would do little to help with module imbalance or King HP. And a slight PG reduction to complex shield extenders as Caldari suits have low PG (except the Callogi because reasons), along with the fact that their stats compared to ADV shield extenders make them not worth the +16 HP. 1EE7
Valor Goat 71	Posted - 2014.12.10 13:18:00 - [210] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Without an increase in fire rate, giving the Burst AR another shot per burst will just make it awkward to use. I thought totally the same about that. Just give it more RoF and fix its damn hit detection, along with Duvolle's. 1EE7



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

Quafe is life. Quafe is love.