Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 66 post(s) |
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame Amarr Empire
634
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 18:52:00 -
[271] - Quote
Luther Mandrix wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Guys
I am doing my homework here, with the loadouts. I started a brand new character and walked exactly through the steps of "what mighe each fit be with a given PG/CPU", without using PG/CPU mods. That means using suboptimal fits to experiment and get a fit under the cap.
To do a full PRO tank, and leaving the small turrets, we need way higher PG/CPU, and or some core PG/CPU skills, that I like actually.
I need to do this first in an environment that is known, IE 7. Once I have bashed out all the requirements for that to work, there shouldn't be any problem going to 7 slots. Problem is that that may require a little different approach with progression, because I don't want to rebalance all module efficiencies at the same time to make sure 7 slots isn't OP.
So, please propose eHP reduction that follows going to 7, because brick tanking should not be a thing.
Also, recommend some shield modules for lows.
Also, list out the unusable modules, and give hints on how to fix them, f.ex. shield boosters and the like. "What would they have to be like for me to start using them"
Thanks! How about a Explosive Plate mod that only gives ehp if you are hit by missiles? special plate or frequency shield that only buffs against a certain weapon type (Rock,Paper thing)
1. You mean damage resistance plates for a certain type of damage - they exist in EVE
2. We only have 2 damage types it seems - Shield and armor - we know stuff does explosive but in this game that -20% to armor
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
6723
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 22:12:00 -
[272] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Same old words
*Yawn*
Call me when you come up with something besides the same old accusative posts Sparky, you're like a broken record.
It's not even annoying anymore, just boring.
AV
|
|
CCP Rattati
C C P C C P Alliance
15668
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 02:20:00 -
[273] - Quote
spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least.
An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting.
Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills.
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
emm kay
Direct Action Resources
238
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 02:38:00 -
[274] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote: 5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets
ADS + treads *slow clap*
There is a reason you never see me in battle.
it's because I see you first.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
6724
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 02:47:00 -
[275] - Quote
Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done.
I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver.
Spreadsheet link in signature.
AV
|
Zatara Rought
Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance
5043
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 02:58:00 -
[276] - Quote
Wow, Rattati def ate his wheaties today.
Founder & CEO of Fatal Absolution
Skype: Zatara.Rought Email: Zatara.Forever@gmail
official pawn of ArkenaKirkMerc
|
|
CCP Rattati
C C P C C P Alliance
15678
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 03:01:00 -
[277] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done.
I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver.
Spreadsheet link in signature.
Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well.
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
Ripley Riley
Incorruptibles
6962
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 03:03:00 -
[278] - Quote
Rattati sass factor 10 Wish more game devs would sort out destructively negative player voices like so.
Just call me Ripple. Ripple Riley.
@Ripley_Riley
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
6726
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 03:45:00 -
[279] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:
Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well.
While a cool concept, the mass driver doesn't really hit hard or fast enough to be a credible threat and would impugn on your postulated plasma mortar. So beyond breaking regen it's not viable without a massive buff for solid AV work. It would make an excellent LAV killer.
The laser rifle's overheat escalation would create more balance problems. There is a reason when I posited the scrambler lance model as steady, non-escalating DPS. The laser rifle can hit upwards of 5000 DPS at the hot end.
Dunno about you but I don't think that's worth the headache of sifting through the screaming.
AV
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
7972
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 03:50:00 -
[280] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least.
An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting.
Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills.
You know when a Dev tells you what the entire community has been saying since you made your first post on the forums, it's probably time to rethink your feedback methods.
(I am brimming with excitement that this finally happened, btw)
Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2729
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 04:12:00 -
[281] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done.
I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver.
Spreadsheet link in signature. Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well.
I don't think that making AI weapons, especially sidearms into viable AV weapons is a REALLY bad idea. That would make AV weapons more useless, and makes Pilots jobs harder, because more people has AV on hand. Also, it will have people asking why X weapon is both AI and AV, but not Y, and it will get to the point where AV is useless unless buffed to where they would be OP, and then that will make vehicles even harder to use.
And I definitely don't want that at all.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
CCP Rattati
C C P C C P Alliance
15681
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 04:21:00 -
[282] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done.
I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver.
Spreadsheet link in signature. Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well. I don't think that making AI weapons, especially sidearms into viable AV weapons is a REALLY bad idea. That would make AV weapons more useless, and makes Pilots jobs harder, because more people has AV on hand. Also, it will have people asking why X weapon is both AI and AV, but not Y, and it will get to the point where AV is useless unless buffed to where they would be OP, and then that will make vehicles even harder to use. And I definitely don't want that at all. Players don't have a way to have meaningful AV unless primary. Most other FPS games have a way to have a secondary weapon, meaning that players can gang up on vehicles and take them down. That is definitely where I intend to go, while maintaining balance.
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2729
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 04:42:00 -
[283] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done.
I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver.
Spreadsheet link in signature. Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well. I don't think that making AI weapons, especially sidearms into viable AV weapons is a REALLY bad idea. That would make AV weapons more useless, and makes Pilots jobs harder, because more people has AV on hand. Also, it will have people asking why X weapon is both AI and AV, but not Y, and it will get to the point where AV is useless unless buffed to where they would be OP, and then that will make vehicles even harder to use. And I definitely don't want that at all. Players don't have a way to have meaningful AV unless primary. Most other FPS games have a way to have a secondary weapon, meaning that players can gang up on vehicles and take them down. That is definitely where I intend to go, while maintaining balance.
I know that is your intention, I'm saying that giving everyone AV, especially in a state where all AV is able to take out anything with similar skill requirements would make Pilots jobs ridiculous.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
18473
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 05:39:00 -
[284] - Quote
CCP Rattati once upon a time
ALL weapons did full amount of damage against vehicles just that in those days vehicles had a heafty amount of HP than a whole squads combined anti infantry fire was considered wasting bullets but in theory they could have driven a tank off and had real threat capabilities against much lighter vehicles such as the dropships and the LAV. (but it was rather fun to rodeo a tank and use a 'can opener' aka shotgun on it. AV weapons available at the time where however seemingly capable of doing much more massive amounts of damage against the vehicles.
This was all prelaunch mind you and the reasons why this was undone was never made apparent but the idea of potentially bringing that feeling back and adjusting every weapon to be appropriately balanced on effectiveness as its a movable target now could be a thing even with AV still in the mix.
As of note AV weapons of this era were also all very much capable of AI measures.
CPM 1
Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior
\\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
6726
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 05:49:00 -
[285] - Quote
I honestly prefer heavy weapons as AV/AI dual purpose to begin with.
Forge guns aren't exactly poor against infantry except in close work
AV
|
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance
819
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 06:28:00 -
[286] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done.
I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver.
Spreadsheet link in signature. Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well. I don't think that making AI weapons, especially sidearms into viable AV weapons is a REALLY bad idea. That would make AV weapons more useless, and makes Pilots jobs harder, because more people has AV on hand. Also, it will have people asking why X weapon is both AI and AV, but not Y, and it will get to the point where AV is useless unless buffed to where they would be OP, and then that will make vehicles even harder to use. And I definitely don't want that at all. Players don't have a way to have meaningful AV unless primary. Most other FPS games have a way to have a secondary weapon, meaning that players can gang up on vehicles and take them down. That is definitely where I intend to go, while maintaining balance.
So are AV grenades being removed or something? Because those fit what you're looking for. No need to make sidearms something they're not supposed to be.
If you want people to have the option of ganging up on a vehicle to take it down then make flux grenades disable vehicle movement for a couple seconds. Now squads or teams can flux a stupid pilot that gets too close and hold him while others AV grenade him. Problem solved AV nades and flux become useful, but not OP solo.
EDIT: or instead of flux grenade disabling vehicle movement, let them slow them down for a few seconds. And let the movement penalty stack so multiple flux grenades slow it down even more |
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
6726
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 06:59:00 -
[287] - Quote
I find the AV things we have now very adequate.
We need full racial flavor But honestly the mass driver and flaylock being full power against vehicles won't break them.
The laser rifle, however...
The heat mechanic will cause problems because of the exescalating level of destruction.
Don't get me wrong, it's a neat idea! I'm just iffy on the LR as a good add there.
AV
|
THUNDERGROOVE
Fatal Absolution
1330
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 07:08:00 -
[288] - Quote
I mean, currently you can kill any shield dropship with three Viziams before anyone overheats.
We used to do it a lot around 1.7. The tears man.
Dual tanking is for bad players.
21 day EVE trial.
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
4526
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 07:37:00 -
[289] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least.
An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting.
Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills.
This is why I like you.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
4526
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 07:47:00 -
[290] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:I know that is your intention, I'm saying that giving everyone AV, especially in a state where all AV is able to take out anything with similar skill requirements would make Pilots jobs ridiculous.
I think this goes back to a concept we discussed in our vehicle episode of Biomassed, in that ideally I would love to see more AV saturation on the field so that it is easily accessible to everyone without making serious sacrifices to their combat effectiveness. If AV is more present on the field, vehicles can afford to be extremely powerful because they potentially will have to deal with a lot of AV all the time.
Unfortunately as things are, most effective AV takes the place of the primary weapon, and aside from Commandos, this means that any suit running AV is severely gimped against infantry. Because this tradeoff is rather large, AV players (reasonably so) expect Primary AV weapons to perform extremely well since they have to give up so much to run it. This lends itself to the mentality that "One AV should be able to take out a single pilot" which I don't particularly like and it lends itself to many of the balance issues we currently struggle with.
However if AV is easily accessible by people without making huge sacrifices, this means that you can say "it takes multiple people to take out a single pilot, *but* they don't have to make huge sacrifices/swap fits in order to do so". An example of this is Titanfall, where the Titan exosuits are extremely powerful, but at the same time all infantry have an AV weapon all the time. These AV weapons are not particularly powerful, but because they can switch to it on the fly without sacrificing their normal loadout, and the fact that EVERYONE has one, a Titan that gets itself surrounded by infantry will quickly get nuked, but in a 1 vs 1 fight it will win nearly all of the time.
I'm not advocating for everyone to have an AV weapon, but I think that if AV options that were less effective, but easier to fit without massive sacrifices, many people would feel they can make more of a difference against vehicles without completely gimping their AP abilities. This also allows the pilots to feel powerful by being able to take on multiple infantry at once, but vulnerable if they get zerged.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
|
Syeven Reed
T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K
1198
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 08:08:00 -
[291] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least.
An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting.
Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills.
Ratatti uses Burn, it's super affective!
SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED
EvE - 21 Day Trial
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
774
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 08:23:00 -
[292] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:
Players don't have a way to have meaningful AV unless primary. Most other FPS games have a way to have a secondary weapon, meaning that players can gang up on vehicles and take them down. That is definitely where I intend to go, while maintaining balance.
I would argue that players that don't want to run an AV primary already sufficient options AV grenades, remotes, proximity mines and Commando suits.
AV 'nades to Forge guns: Players can equip AV grendades, which do the same damage as equivalent tier Forge guns, without sacrificing the rest of he fit to AV work. You can throw all of the AV grendades in the time it takes to charge one forge shot.
- ADV EXO-11 packed AV nades: 1303 dmg, 1,563 damage vs armor - ADV 9K330 forge gun: 1,320 dmg, 1452 dmg vs armor
- PRO Lai Dai Packed AV grenade: 1,563 dmg, 1876 dmg vs armor - PRO Kalilkioota Forge gun : 1,444 dmg, 1, 588 vs armor
2 players, not a gang not even half a squad, but just two guys tossing 4 ADV nades at aTank can do 5212 damage base or 6252 vs armor. The same 2 players tossing 4 pro grenades can do base or 6252 (oddly symetrical)base or 7504 damge vs armor. Which falls in line direcly with what you want. Tank is called, in, everybody switches to the same slayer suit but with a grenade, and toss hem when the tak gets close. Poppeed in no time/
Remotes are already well known for both AV and AI capapbilities.
Commandos: They turn Swarms and Plasma Cannons into sidearms.
We have to draw a line somwhere, that is if players do not want to bring out any sort of AV to fight a vehicle, then the responsibilty lies on them. They know dust has vehicles, they know there is AV options available to them. Every player that has speced into grenades has AV grenades as an option. Unlocking ADV commandos cost 750K SP, which is less SP than geting dropsuit armor upgrades to 5.
Unless you wan to add in a second grenade slot to all suits? I guess the trick is how to convince more players about having AV options fit in case of an AV engagement rather than over relying on the the few dedicated AV players on a side as a cructh.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
|
CCP Rattati
C C P C C P Alliance
15691
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 09:40:00 -
[293] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:we should have 3 AV grenades
good point, with the HAV re-intro, that could help.
I stil think two or three sidearms should be effective, just not overly effective.
Another topic that I like is some damage threshold to slow vehicles down.
Or AV flux grenades.
All in the context that HAVs may become a tad more powerful in the same instance.
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
Regis Blackbird
DUST University Ivy League
574
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 09:44:00 -
[294] - Quote
I agree that only two weapons dedicated for AV (Swarms and Forge) are too few, and you are sacrifice a lot (AI) to run them. While the idea of bumping existing small/sidearms weapons AV capabilities are an interesting one, I still remember the bickering when small arms fire would trigger the vehicle shield recharge delay.
If we are bringing racial symmetry to HAVs by using existing models (Caldari and Gallente hulls), can't we do something similar to bring symmetry to the AV weapons?
If we combine the model of the Forge Gun and the effect of the Laser Rifle, can't we get a heavy laser? If we combine the model of the Swarm Launcher and the effect of the Mass Driver, can't we have a heavy artillery?
It is probably not as easy as it sounds, but it might be worth investigating?
Also, please bump AV grenades back to 3 |
shaman oga
Dead Man's Game
3788
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 09:54:00 -
[295] - Quote
I would prefer flux mines and a buff to current proxy mines, flux are already in a good place for fluxing vehicles, there's no need to eliminate skill and add aim bot flux nades.
Regarding the rest, i would wait for vehicles before everything else, i remember i was not number 1 fan of packed lai dai at the time.
Pronounced Scam - man - hoga
Minmatar omni-merc
|
nicholas73
Glitched Connection
323
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 10:24:00 -
[296] - Quote
While we're at it could be bring back inertia to vehicles? Like before the vehicle overhaul, HAVs are way too fast for their size.
"If the truth is a cruel mistress, then a lie must be a nice girl" - Hikigaya Hachiman (Oregairu)
|
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance
819
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 10:29:00 -
[297] - Quote
Av flux grenades would be awesome, and simple. |
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame Amarr Empire
635
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 10:32:00 -
[298] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least.
An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting.
Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills.
1. Negative - You would be if you had seen your playstyle nerfed into the ground after each update and build with no possible positive outcome or even a glimmer of hope
2. Repetitve - Yea i have to be because people dont listen like when they say the swarm launcher is fine when its consistantly broken
3. Arrogant - Well you dont get be considered one of the best PC tankers if you dont believe in yourself and your abilities in a HAV
4. Those fits are terrible - Aswell as being correct it would have also helped your PG/CPU problems if you put back in some core skills and also some missing modules which also help with your PG/CPU problem but instead you are working with one hand tied behind your back and not using all availible options
5. PRO tanks - Currently again your spreadsheet is still working with the 3/2 slot layout - Even old HAVs were 7 slots and Marauders were 8 so until the spreadsheet is updated with increase slots for ADV/PRO tanks they never will be, it will be just tiercide with the same cookie cutter fits but more of an SP sink
6. Honestly - Chrome was best and we are going further away from it, im seeing AV and infantry put forward bad ideas and actively leading the way in ruining my playstyle, the best of the best in vehicle users and pilots are no longer here because they dont trust CCP and that there are better games with more balance and unfortunately are not here to offer anything
7. I will still be here - I wont go because AV and infantry dont like what i have to say, i wont go because you dont like it that i find big gaping holes in your propsals, i wont go because i dont want to see a playstyle be actively demolished by the people who dont like it, i wont be pushed out because you want to be surrounded by yes men who all tell you that you are doing a wonderful job - If you dont like it i dont really care, your only option is to ban me and if that happens anytime soon then i know i was right all along and it is a closed shop
8. Thats not feedback is it? - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml |
|
CCP Rattati
C C P C C P Alliance
15698
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 11:06:00 -
[299] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least.
An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting.
Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills.
1. Negative - You would be if you had seen your playstyle nerfed into the ground after each update and build with no possible positive outcome or even a glimmer of hope 2. Repetitve - Yea i have to be because people dont listen like when they say the swarm launcher is fine when its consistantly broken 3. Arrogant - Well you dont get be considered one of the best PC tankers if you dont believe in yourself and your abilities in a HAV 4. Those fits are terrible - Aswell as being correct it would have also helped your PG/CPU problems if you put back in some core skills and also some missing modules which also help with your PG/CPU problem but instead you are working with one hand tied behind your back and not using all availible options 5. PRO tanks - Currently again your spreadsheet is still working with the 3/2 slot layout - Even old HAVs were 7 slots and Marauders were 8 so until the spreadsheet is updated with increase slots for ADV/PRO tanks they never will be, it will be just tiercide with the same cookie cutter fits but more of an SP sink 6. Honestly - Chrome was best and we are going further away from it, im seeing AV and infantry put forward bad ideas and actively leading the way in ruining my playstyle, the best of the best in vehicle users and pilots are no longer here because they dont trust CCP and that there are better games with more balance and unfortunately are not here to offer anything 7. I will still be here - I wont go because AV and infantry dont like what i have to say, i wont go because you dont like it that i find big gaping holes in your propsals, i wont go because i dont want to see a playstyle be actively demolished by the people who dont like it, i wont be pushed out because you want to be surrounded by yes men who all tell you that you are doing a wonderful job - If you dont like it i dont really care, your only option is to ban me and if that happens anytime soon then i know i was right all along and it is a closed shop 8. Thats not feedback is it? - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml
I very much appreciate the spreadsheet. The tone of this reply is more or less, however, much of the same, case in point 4 and 5 indicate willful misunderstanding. If you ever get banned it will be for breaking the forum rules, but you don't need to be banned to be ignored. My hope is that you can find a constructive way to post and help vehicle users.
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame Amarr Empire
635
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 11:17:00 -
[300] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least.
An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting.
Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills.
1. Negative - You would be if you had seen your playstyle nerfed into the ground after each update and build with no possible positive outcome or even a glimmer of hope 2. Repetitve - Yea i have to be because people dont listen like when they say the swarm launcher is fine when its consistantly broken 3. Arrogant - Well you dont get be considered one of the best PC tankers if you dont believe in yourself and your abilities in a HAV 4. Those fits are terrible - Aswell as being correct it would have also helped your PG/CPU problems if you put back in some core skills and also some missing modules which also help with your PG/CPU problem but instead you are working with one hand tied behind your back and not using all availible options 5. PRO tanks - Currently again your spreadsheet is still working with the 3/2 slot layout - Even old HAVs were 7 slots and Marauders were 8 so until the spreadsheet is updated with increase slots for ADV/PRO tanks they never will be, it will be just tiercide with the same cookie cutter fits but more of an SP sink 6. Honestly - Chrome was best and we are going further away from it, im seeing AV and infantry put forward bad ideas and actively leading the way in ruining my playstyle, the best of the best in vehicle users and pilots are no longer here because they dont trust CCP and that there are better games with more balance and unfortunately are not here to offer anything 7. I will still be here - I wont go because AV and infantry dont like what i have to say, i wont go because you dont like it that i find big gaping holes in your propsals, i wont go because i dont want to see a playstyle be actively demolished by the people who dont like it, i wont be pushed out because you want to be surrounded by yes men who all tell you that you are doing a wonderful job - If you dont like it i dont really care, your only option is to ban me and if that happens anytime soon then i know i was right all along and it is a closed shop 8. Thats not feedback is it? - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml I very much appreciate the spreadsheet. The tone of this reply is more or less, however, much of the same, case in point 4 and 5 indicate willful misunderstanding. If you ever get banned it will be for breaking the forum rules, but you don't need to be banned to be ignored. My hope is that you can find a constructive way to post and help vehicle users.
1. Until something changes and that change is on the positive side of things the replies will always be the same
4/5. Im still seeing 3/2 on a PRO HAV in your spreadsheet and nothing about modules and skills - Until that changes i will call it as i see it and you will call my comment a willful misunderstanding |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |