| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
knight guard fury
Carbon 7
Iron Oxide.
1496
   |
Posted - 2015.01.20 00:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
Everything but 2 things about them are fine.
1. The price on std RE's are 15k
And
2. They deal no damage whatsoever to vehicles even though they are meant to be AV since bandwidth reduced that with normal RE's
Fix these 2 things and I'll be as happy as I can be with them
SP earned perday/week
|
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
3567
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 12:50:00 -
[2] - Quote
Its the radius not letting them deal damage. I think CCP should consider increasing the radius to at least 1m, as that would make it as hard to hit infantry with as a LOLBreachFlaylock
"Minja" and "Masochist" are synonyms.
FA's Shotgunning T-Dome Champ
I piss Remote Explosives and shit Shotgun shells.
|
|
CCP Rattati
C C P
C C P Alliance
15237
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 13:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Thing is, I already changed to 1 m, in the followup hotfix. Let's see what can be done.
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
Kuruld Sengar
Y.A.M.A.H
162
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 14:34:00 -
[4] - Quote
May I ask what mechanism the remote uses to detect if damage is dealt?
If it uses a line based system where several lines are drawn from the origin there can be issues with a target fallen between lines if there are too few.
If it uses a system where it checks if an object is inside the blast 'bubble', maybe it is trying to detect a point inside the object that represents the object and the rest of the vehicle is build around that point. This point would likely be the coordinates of the vehicle if you did a console query for it's location I'd think. If it is looking for this point, it may be that the surface of the vehicle is too far from that point for the remote to register the target.
My guess is that it is the second one seeing as it would be less resource intensive and a tank can hardly fall between the lines. Although the first one better explains how a target can be saved by someone standing between them and the remote.
As far as I can tell, every other av weapon uses direct damage so they would be unaffected, and the other remotes have a large enough blast radius. |
LAVALLOIS Nash
455
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 16:26:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Thing is, I already changed to 1 m, in the followup hotfix. Let's see what can be done.
Regardless of performance issues like stats, the fact that is retails for 15,000ISK each is ridiculous.
Thing is, by making them "packed", its like they were intended for use against vehicles. 15,000ISK just for the remotes (excluding the rest of the AV fit cost) is already a big chunk that hurts to lose. AV on foot, especially remote planting, is high risk. The cost is too prohibitive to reflect that.
Im not sure if the pricing is accidental or on purpose. (im hoping accidental, because regular STD remotes costs 1,500ISK, and the ADV and PRO packed variants price match their regulars).
It is is a rounding error or a extra zero, kindly disregard this post! |
TheD1CK
Dead Man's Game
RUST415
1618
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 16:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Thing is, I already changed to 1 m, in the followup hotfix. Let's see what can be done.
I presume the intention of these , is to blow up vehicles/installations
If that's the case mercs need to use the right explosive for the right job
Which is need, as recent RE nerfs make AV a pain, the packed RE if working solves that
If the blast radius is increased they become anti-infantry so unless this is what you want, don't do it.
|
knight guard fury
Carbon 7
Iron Oxide.
1502
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 18:06:00 -
[7] - Quote
The thing is though, it applys damage to infantry, but it just doesn't for vehicles
SP earned perday/week
|
THUNDERGROOVE
Fatal Absolution
1313
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 19:39:00 -
[8] - Quote
knight guard fury wrote:The thing is though, it applys damage to infantry, but it just doesn't for vehicles
They deal damage upwards. If you stick it to the top or side of a tank, it won't dead damage because of that.
They can do damage, but only if a tank is parked on it.
Dual tanking is for bad players.
21 day EVE trial.
|
Kaze Eyrou
DUST University
Ivy League
1770
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 21:51:00 -
[9] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Thing is, I already changed to 1 m, in the followup hotfix. Let's see what can be done.
Every time there is a synchronization, I test all 3 tiers of the packed REs out.
All tiers currently do no damage.
EDIT: On installations I should add. I haven't found a red nice enough to let me try it on them or their tank.
CB Vet // Logi Bro // @KazeEyrou
Kaze's Helpful Links
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
7918
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 22:54:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Thing is, I already changed to 1 m, in the followup hotfix. Let's see what can be done.
Doubt it'll make much of a difference, honestly. Thing that has to be considered is that the explosives aren't moving at the same speed as the vehicle when they go off, the explosion is stationary. This is the same reason, I think, that proximity explosives will sometimes not do any damage to an LAV but instead just kill the gunner if the LAV is moving fast enough.
The explosion radius needs to be large enough that it properly damages the vehicle in question in the eventuality that it is moving at it's top speed. That or the explosion needs to move -with- the vehicle when the RE's are detonated.
Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
|
|
|
THUNDERGROOVE
Fatal Absolution
1313
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 23:05:00 -
[11] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:I think, that proximity explosives will sometimes not do any damage to an LAV but instead just kill the gunner if the LAV is moving fast enough.
This was the most annoying thing about being a proper LLAV pilot. My tanker that I was keeping alive would have to drop a link, so I could spawn and hopefully get in before the hordes of brainless swarmers killed it.
Dual tanking is for bad players.
21 day EVE trial.
|
knight guard fury
Carbon 7
Iron Oxide.
1504
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 01:28:00 -
[12] - Quote
Kaze Eyrou wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Thing is, I already changed to 1 m, in the followup hotfix. Let's see what can be done. Every time there is a synchronization, I test all 3 tiers of the packed REs out. All tiers currently do no damage. EDIT: On installations I should add. I haven't found a red nice enough to let me try it on them or their tank.
I have tried on stationary and moving HAV' and they deal no Dmg either way; even if I put them below it doesn't work(though I only put them under an lab and not an hav)
SP earned perday/week
|
taxi bastard
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
333
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 03:27:00 -
[13] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Thing is, I already changed to 1 m, in the followup hotfix. Let's see what can be done.
ratti surely you must be able to play test them before release?
put them on a vechile and see if they do damage......if yes its working if no back to the drawing board.
amazed it got released as it is |
taxi bastard
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
333
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 03:28:00 -
[14] - Quote
knight guard fury wrote:The thing is though, it applys damage to infantry, but it just doesn't for vehicles
vehicle user have bribed rattie with chocolate covered bacon i tell you!!!
|
Kuruld Sengar
Y.A.M.A.H
169
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 09:48:00 -
[15] - Quote
knight guard fury wrote:Kaze Eyrou wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Thing is, I already changed to 1 m, in the followup hotfix. Let's see what can be done. Every time there is a synchronization, I test all 3 tiers of the packed REs out. All tiers currently do no damage. EDIT: On installations I should add. I haven't found a red nice enough to let me try it on them or their tank. I have tried on stationary and moving HAV' and they deal no Dmg either way; even if I put them below it doesn't work(though I only put them under an lab and not an hav)
The only place on a vehicle it does damage is if you put it inside the seat of an lav. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |