DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative

Breakin Stuff wrote:

taxi bastard wrote:

my concern is the balance vs AV and cost.

a marauder tank with "normal" speed and turning and "massive" EHP is very worrying.
if it was the speed of a turtle and massive EHP i could see how it could be balanced.

a enforcer tank with fast speed and fast turning and low EHP, how fast are they going to go? ok i see the balancing points but tanks are already fast as hell are you planning to nerf the speed of the rest of the tanks and make enforcers the speed of current tanks?

militia HAV and normal HAV - needs price increase and speed nerf imo

which proposal are you looking at?

My proposal (the return to chrome) would have militia HAVs being a lot squishier, maddies and gunnlogis being a moderately difficult fight for AV with Mads being hardmode.

the reason I chose chrome is because it was the most fun for me and cited as most fun for a majority of HAV pilots who experienced it, as well as the AV gunners who hammered their faces in.

a lot of the MAJOR issues with AV/V involving marauders (anemic WP payouts for AV) have been addressed with vehicle damage points.

And if the chrome stats get adopted the speed of HAVs would have to be returned to chromosome levels. I don't have the exact numbers but they were slow to compensate for the fact that it took a lot of effort to hammer them into oblivion.

the only things I could see as viable targets for keeping speed would be the sica and soma because they died fast if a proto forge gunner or swarmer was on the field. Usually in two shots. Three for a solidly skilled HAV driver cheaping out to get kills and save ISK for better tanks.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6340	Posted - 2015.01.12 19:43:00 - [931] - Quote all you'd have to do is: Mjolnir: Laser (EM) profile Nova: Explosive profile (current) Scourge: Projectile (kinetic) profile Inferno: Plasma (thermal) profile But I'd worry more about getting vehicle and heavy weapon parity in some form or fashion before making a whole crapton of different swarms. Plus I'm dubious about the whole idea simply because if there's a swarm for every enemy, what's the point of forge guns or the plasma cannon? Or RE and prox mines? Including some more options like we have in EVE, while a neat concept might render certain options unnecessary. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6348	Posted - 2015.01.12 21:32:00 - [932] - Quote added placeholder stats for an officer scrambler lance and militia scrambler lance EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
taxi bastard Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 296	Posted - 2015.01.12 22:32:00 - [933] - Quote my concern is the balance vs AV and cost. a marauder tank with "normal" speed and turning and "massive" EHP is very worrying. if it was the speed of a turtle and massive EHP i could see how it could be balanced. a enforcer tank with fast speed and fast turning and low EHP, how fast are they going to go? ok i see the balancing points but tanks are already fast as hell are you planning to nerf the speed of the rest of the tanks and make enforcers the speed of current tanks? militia HAV and normal HAV - needs price increase and speed nerf imo
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6354	Posted - 2015.01.12 22:37:00 - [934] - Quote taxi bastard wrote: my concern is the balance vs AV and cost. a marauder tank with "normal" speed and turning and "massive" EHP is very worrying. if it was the speed of a turtle and massive EHP i could see how it could be balanced. a enforcer tank with fast speed and fast turning and low EHP, how fast are they going to go? ok i see the balancing points but tanks are already fast as hell are you planning to nerf the speed of the rest of the tanks and make enforcers the speed of current tanks? militia HAV and normal HAV - needs price increase and speed nerf imo which proposal are you looking at? My proposal (the return to chrome) would have militia HAVs being a lot squishier, maddies and gunnlogis being a moderately difficult fight for AV with Mads being hardmode. the reason I chose chrome is because it was the most fun for me and cited as most fun for a majority of HAV pilots who experienced it, as well as the AV gunners who hammered their faces in. a lot of the MAJOR issues with AV/V involving marauders (anemic WP payouts for AV) have been addressed with vehicle damage points. And if the chrome stats get adopted the speed of HAVs would have to be returned to chromosome levels. I don't have the exact numbers but they were slow to compensate for the fact that it took a lot of effort to hammer them into oblivion. the only things I could see as viable targets for keeping speed would be the sica and soma because they died fast if a proto forge gunner or swarmer was on the field. Usually in two shots. Three for a solidly skilled HAV driver cheaping out to get kills and save ISK for better tanks. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2691	Posted - 2015.01.12 22:46:00 - [935] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I'm still amazed that swarms have DPS values that would have been considered viable against chromosome marauders in TODAY's build. This explains a lot. Still waiting on feedback from anyone on dropships or other things To put this into perspective, dropships in chrome were 2-shot-kills for a forge gun. 3 if you were maxed out on the tree (and I missed once). I'd like to be able to propose numbers to fix this but I need someone familiar with dropship weaknesses during chrome to weigh in. Alternately we can just drop these changes and let Rattati adjust them. Just give the ADS a 5% RoF per level if you do. Or we can leave dropships on the hull-centric model (which everyone hates based on all of the feedback I have seen) and let them figure it out. I don't know enough about dropship fitting to sanely poke at these numbers without likely buggering them up!!! Or I can look at pokey's proposals and steal from his notes, as I have been stealing from everyone else. I flew LDS's, and the problems I had was being alphaed before you even got to the drop off, which was annoying, especially for their ridiculous cost (seeing as it had a built in **** CRU). They need a way to avoid damage, as otherwise they are ****. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2691	Posted - 2015.01.12 22:49:00 - [936] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: taxi bastard wrote: my concern is the balance vs AV and cost. a marauder tank with "normal" speed and turning and "massive" EHP is very worrying. if it was the speed of a turtle and massive EHP i could see how it could be balanced. a enforcer tank with fast speed and fast turning and low EHP, how fast are they going to go? ok i see the balancing points but tanks are already fast as hell are you planning to nerf the speed of the rest of the tanks and make enforcers the speed of current tanks? militia HAV and normal HAV - needs price increase and speed nerf imo which proposal are you looking at? My proposal (the return to chrome) would have militia HAVs being a lot squishier, maddies and gunnlogis being a moderately difficult fight for AV with Mads being hardmode. the reason I chose chrome is because it was the most fun for me and cited as most fun for a majority of HAV pilots who experienced it, as well as the AV gunners who hammered their faces in. a lot of the MAJOR issues with AV/V involving marauders (anemic WP payouts for AV) have been addressed with vehicle damage points. And if the chrome stats get adopted the speed of HAVs would have to be returned to chromosome levels. I don't have the exact numbers but they were slow to compensate for the fact that it took a lot of effort to hammer them into oblivion. the only things I could see as viable targets for keeping speed would be the sica and soma because they died fast if a proto forge gunner or swarmer was on the field. Usually in two shots. Three for a solidly skilled HAV driver cheaping out to get kills and save ISK for better tanks. The only time it was truely fun was when a rail or missile higher than STD wasn't on the field though iirc. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6354	Posted - 2015.01.12 22:49:00 - [937] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: I flew LDS's, and the problems I had was being alphaed before you even got to the drop off, which was annoying, especially for their ridiculous cost (seeing as it had a built in **** CRU). They need a way to avoid damage, as otherwise they are ***. So what would be a good way to improve them? A bonus to afterburners of some type? Better fitting for tank? better PG/CPU? higher base speed? Knowing they're dcked up and knowing how to fix them fairly isn't the same thing. I know the first one, but number two, not so much. And as far as the rail or missile, take a look at my spreadsheet and give me suggestions on how to change the turrets so that the TTK isn't so very godawful short. I've heard HAV drivers say that 1.0-1.2 were the best for HAV vs. HAV balance. TELL ME WHY. That way I can figure out how to adjust numbers. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16527	Posted - 2015.01.12 22:54:00 - [938] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: added placeholder stats for an officer scrambler lance and militia scrambler lance Does the Scrambler Lance look like this? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2691	Posted - 2015.01.12 22:55:00 - [939] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: I flew LDS's, and the problems I had was being alphaed before you even got to the drop off, which was annoying, especially for their ridiculous cost (seeing as it had a built in **** CRU). They need a way to avoid damage, as otherwise they are ***. So what would be a good way to improve them? A bonus to afterburners of some type? Better fitting for tank? better PG/CPU? higher base speed? Knowing they're dcked up and knowing how to fix them fairly isn't the same thing. I know the first one, but number two, not so much. And as far as the rail or missile, take a look at my spreadsheet and give me suggestions on how to change the turrets so that the TTK isn't so very godawful short. I've heard HAV drivers say that 1.0-1.2 were the best for HAV vs. HAV balance. TELL ME WHY. That way I can figure out how to adjust numbers. I'd say that that 1.2 (1.0 and 1.1 had broken ass blasters) to 1.6 really for turret balance, as it stayed about the same throughout this time. If the numbers were changed so that max SP HAV's had around the same TTK for Chromosome HAV's and 1.2-1.6 turrets, I would be fine with it. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6354	Posted - 2015.01.12 22:56:00 - [940] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: added placeholder stats for an officer scrambler lance and militia scrambler lance Does the Scrambler Lance look like this? I hate you. No. GOD no. We'd need a mechanical horse for that to be justifiable. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6354	Posted - 2015.01.12 22:57:00 - [941] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: I flew LDS's, and the problems I had was being alphaed before you even got to the drop off, which was annoying, especially for their ridiculous cost (seeing as it had a built in **** CRU). They need a way to avoid damage, as otherwise they are ***. So what would be a good way to improve them? A bonus to afterburners of some type? Better fitting for tank? better PG/CPU? higher base speed? Knowing they're dcked up and knowing how to fix them fairly isn't the same thing. I know the first one, but number two, not so much. And as far as the rail or missile, take a look at my spreadsheet and give me suggestions on how to change the turrets so that the TTK isn't so very godawful short. I've heard HAV drivers say that 1.0-1.2 were the best for HAV vs. HAV balance. TELL ME WHY. That way I can figure out how to adjust numbers. I'd say that that 1.2 (1.0 and 1.1 had broken ass blasters) to 1.6 really for turret balance, as it stayed about the same throughout this time. If the numbers were changed so that max SP HAV's had around the same TTK for Chromosome HAV's and 1.2-1.6 turrets, I would be fine with it. Find me turret numbers from that time period. If they look sane I'll add them in theorycrafting as suggested fixes EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6355	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:02:00 - [942] - Quote separated theorycrafting into three tabs. AV theorycrafting Turret Theorycrafting Dropship Theorycrafting Waiting on HAV driver and Dropship pilot input to tackle the last two. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 148	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:15:00 - [943] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: separated theorycrafting into three tabs. AV theorycrafting Turret Theorycrafting Dropship Theorycrafting Waiting on HAV driver and Dropship pilot input to tackle the last two. Dropships have a few major issues: Swarms balanced around killing tanks will always have an easy time killing Derpships (unless dropships can outrun swarms...which makes swarms completely irrelevant at killing derpships) Blasters are next to useless on dropships...so a role wide bonus to optimal range/dispersion would be helpful on them. They don't have the eHP to sustain hovering over a given area to provide fire support or any other kind of support really (so they can't fulfill the roll of gunships, medivacs, spawn beacons etc) Dropship issues could be addressed through expanding fitting (both stats and slots). As well, they could benefit from some sort of active countermeasure against swarms (limited built-in supply of flares or some such nonsense). In addition, they could greatly benefit from changes to the mCRU (Making it function more similarly to the other spawn options...as currently a player has to be clone terminated to select an mCRU). I would suggest that peak STD Dropship eHP should be something similar to a high-tier MLT HAV, and adjust from there HAV current top speed isn't altogether unreasonable IMO, the Gunnlogi has a bit much in acceleration, and the Maddy could use some more. In addition, I don't think we should limit our thinking on HAVs to just be Tanks...a Heavy Attack Vehicle can refer to a number of possible configurations...I think they could benefit from a few transport slots that get taken away depending on configuration. I also think that the Top Small Guns could use a larger angle of fire (I think they should be able to shoot up to put it simply). Front Small Turrets could benefit from being moved onto the top of the hull proper...and an option for a Co-Axial Small gun would be nice (although, a Co-Axial could make them too much like solo-murder machines) /Rambling Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16529	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:15:00 - [944] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: added placeholder stats for an officer scrambler lance and militia scrambler lance Does the Scrambler Lance look like this? I hate you. No. GOD no. We'd need a mechanical horse for that to be justifiable. No way. Just have the main body of the weapon as a simple mount to the weapon upon which the gunner affixes a small chamber used to generate the energy for the electro-laser. Now that's an elegant form of Anti Vehicle weaponry. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 148	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:18:00 - [945] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: added placeholder stats for an officer scrambler lance and militia scrambler lance Does the Scrambler Lance look like this? I hate you. No. GOD no. We'd need a mechanical horse for that to be justifiable. The weapon only looks like a Lance, but shoots Lazors like what you'd expect Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6355	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:21:00 - [946] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: added placeholder stats for an officer scrambler lance and militia scrambler lance Does the Scrambler Lance look like this? I hate you. No. GOD no. We'd need a mechanical horse for that to be justifiable. The weapon only looks like a Lance, but shoots Lazors like what you'd expect looks too much like a dark reaper missile launcher as well. and thaddeus you gave me an idea EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 148	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:23:00 - [947] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: added placeholder stats for an officer scrambler lance and militia scrambler lance Does the Scrambler Lance look like this? I hate you. No. GOD no. We'd need a mechanical horse for that to be justifiable. The weapon only looks like a Lance, but shoots Lazors like what you'd expect looks too much like a dark reaper missile launcher as well. and thaddeus you gave me an idea You say that like it's a bad thing XD the Sniper Rifle looks like a Pulse Rifle Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16529	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:24:00 - [948] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: added placeholder stats for an officer scrambler lance and militia scrambler lance Does the Scrambler Lance look like this? I hate you. No. GOD no. We'd need a mechanical horse for that to be justifiable. The weapon only looks like a Lance, but shoots Lazors like what you'd expect looks too much like a dark reaper missile launcher as well. and thaddeus you gave me an idea I even have a bunch of lore to back up what it is and every purchase comes with a small post combat drone designed to collect and dispose of the wasted energy chambers as after use they continue to leak harmful radiation. C'mon Senpai! *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6355	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:29:00 - [949] - Quote Adamance you may approve of this. It would allow a HAV driver to fully coordinate with a squad. Infantry Transport Bay EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 148	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:31:00 - [950] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Adamance you may approve of this. It would allow a HAV driver to fully coordinate with a squad. Infantry Transport Bay in module theorycrafting Sooo much this.. I instead proposed a base increase to transport capacity that was reduced by higher tier turrets (But tbh, I like the module more) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16529	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:32:00 - [951] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Adamance you may approve of this. It would allow a HAV driver to fully coordinate with a squad. Infantry Transport Bay in module theorycrafting Sounds cool. We used to roll in 3 man rapid movement tank squads in Amarr FW. One six man team could hold all of the exterior objectives on any Large Socket Map and annihilate any vehicle on field by having superior DPS. Also I don't want to sound like an ass but could a suggestion be put forwards about making tanks, especially marauders, bigger. Tanks in Dust feel very small to me.....but that could just be the 3rd person veiw. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6356	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:34:00 - [952] - Quote Now imagine carrying supporting infantry from objective to objective while you provide supporting fire and they provide you with a screen against bastards like me who do things like shoot you with a forge gun. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16529	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:35:00 - [953] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Now imagine carrying supporting infantry from objective to objective while you provide supporting fire and they provide you with a screen against bastards like me who do things like shoot you with a forge gun. Honestly is MAV were a thing I'd stack one of these. Probably not on an MBT but if I was designing a HAV around transport sure I might.. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 148	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:36:00 - [954] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Now imagine carrying supporting infantry from objective to objective while you provide supporting fire and they provide you with a screen against bastards like me who do things like shoot you with a forge gun. Maddies....MADDIES...OUR ENEMIES HIDE IN METAL BAWKSES as someone who loves to run a CRU on his HAV and park it as a battle-box, I love the module idea Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6356	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:37:00 - [955] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Now imagine carrying supporting infantry from objective to objective while you provide supporting fire and they provide you with a screen against bastards like me who do things like shoot you with a forge gun. Honestly is MAV were a thing I'd stack one of these. Probably not on an MBT but if I was designing a HAV around transport sure I might.. Until MAVs are a thing, why not adapt to what we have? EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16529	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:40:00 - [956] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Now imagine carrying supporting infantry from objective to objective while you provide supporting fire and they provide you with a screen against bastards like me who do things like shoot you with a forge gun. Honestly is MAV were a thing I'd stack one of these. Probably not on an MBT but if I was designing a HAV around transport sure I might.. Until MAVs are a thing, why not adapt to what we have? Again sounds great but I think most players would have to go out of their way to fit something like this if more eHP mods were available to them. I still have yet to work out using your proposal if 1x 180 Poly Plates 1x Pro Passive Armour Plate 1-2x Carapace or 1-2 Heavy Armour Reppers are a possible fitting. I know I'd use them but would other people? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1526	Posted - 2015.01.13 01:36:00 - [957] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks. Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly. Missiles are tank mounted swarms that actually require aim and timing, don't have a 400m range, and don't ignore obstacles and terrain. I'm proud to be able to use missiles. Hell, I can use all the turrets with deadly proficiency. So can I but it's not right that Missiles have a potential TTK of less than 3 seconds VS one specific type of vehicle (when only two are present in the game). It would also not be right if CCP released the Laser Turret and it was capable of dealing 4500 damage per second to shields. Missiles unfortunately are the be all end all of most tank battles. I'd rather they simply be one option of many. Just to reiterate, I am following this thread and actively consolidating your feedback into a single proposal. Thank you. Oh come one, you seriously can't be sucking up True Adamance Info. It is completely biased from an Armor point of view. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16539	Posted - 2015.01.13 02:11:00 - [958] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Oh come one, you seriously can't be sucking up True Adamance Info. It is completely biased from an Armor point of view. I'm only calling the imbalances as I see them and they are very obviously there. Whether Shield HAV need to be toned down, prevented from armour tanking, or Armour HAV need to be buffed/adjusted is up to CCP Rattati. Of all the people in this thread only Pokey, Thaddeus, and Breaking actually have made proposals. I've had some sort of input into those in some way or another helping them bounce ideas around and they all make fair proposals each rather unique full credit to them as they have put so much time in number crunching and well reasoned suggestions for consideration. I'm supportive of their efforts but I won't lie that when I see such great disparities between specific aspects of tank balance I will call them out and comment on them. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1535	Posted - 2015.01.13 03:28:00 - [959] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Oh come one, you seriously can't be sucking up True Adamance Info. It is completely biased from an Armor point of view. I'm only calling the imbalances as I see them and they are very obviously there. Whether Shield HAV need to be toned down, prevented from armour tanking, or Armour HAV need to be buffed/adjusted is up to CCP Rattati. Of all the people in this thread only Pokey, Thaddeus, and Breaking actually have made proposals. I've had some sort of input into those in some way or another helping them bounce ideas around and they all make fair proposals each rather unique full credit to them as they have put so much time in number crunching and well reasoned suggestions for consideration. I'm supportive of their efforts but I won't lie that when I see such great disparities between specific aspects of tank balance I will call them out and comment on them. Buff armor tanks. Don't nerf my Gunny!!! Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16546	Posted - 2015.01.13 03:32:00 - [960] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: True Adamance wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Oh come one, you seriously can't be sucking up True Adamance Info. It is completely biased from an Armor point of view. I'm only calling the imbalances as I see them and they are very obviously there. Whether Shield HAV need to be toned down, prevented from armour tanking, or Armour HAV need to be buffed/adjusted is up to CCP Rattati. Of all the people in this thread only Pokey, Thaddeus, and Breaking actually have made proposals. I've had some sort of input into those in some way or another helping them bounce ideas around and they all make fair proposals each rather unique full credit to them as they have put so much time in number crunching and well reasoned suggestions for consideration. I'm supportive of their efforts but I won't lie that when I see such great disparities between specific aspects of tank balance I will call them out and comment on them. Buff armor tanks. Don't nerf my Gunny!!! If we can address a couple of weapons imbalanced then certainly. But if you want a skill tree like the old one for Chromosome or Uprising did you'll have to accept changes and alterations to the Gunnlogi. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris