|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2910
   |
Posted - 2015.02.17 13:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
Well, I know that anything I reply with, will get me banned and the post will be deleted.
Congratulations, infantry, those of you who don't use vehicles, you've won.
I won't bother commenting if and unless Rattati gives me a go-ahead to start tearing everything apart.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2911
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 13:26:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:A) fixing the fitting of Gallente HAVs making them competitive
Can be done with the Chrome - Uprising 1.6 slot layout and restoring the CPU and PG skills to 5% per level.
B) introducing HAV progression
You could just give back the old Marauders, and much improved Enforcers, because the Enforcers of old were completely useless and were a huge SP and ISK sink.
C) tweaking fitting styles that are not intended
Could say the same for far too many infantry fits. HP tanks scouts, speed Min assault with shotguns, using REs as the primary weapon, other things I can't think of at the moment because work in a bit, but it's sandbox, so it's not like it's unfair.
D) making blasters competitive AV weapons
They're not that bad if you know how to use them.
E) adding slots to HAV's to make them more fun and versatile to fit.
They were fun and versatile to fit when we had the slots and variety. They were also far stronger than they are now.
Gallente Marduk and the Caldari Gladius.
This isn't directly related to the hulls so whatever.
2)
Please note that with this new progression, Hardeners will be limited to one per fitting, one of each. Triple hardening is not going to be an option any more. I would prefer that if hardeners are activated, the enemy tank has a way to bypass those, by using dmg mods to counter. More on that later.
Why not limit suits to one recharger/energizer each? This is supposed to be sandbox, where we can fit things the way we want, not be restricted because infantry can't wait for the right time to strike. The only limits infantry has are PG and CPU. Now we're getting a hard limit on more than one module. Nice
3)
We are also adding native repair rates, again so shield tanks aren't forced to fit repairers to have some form of rep rate, thereby reducing the chance of cookie cutter fits. This was also done for dropsuits a little while back.
I'll say it again, and I know you're going to get real angry: you're giving us literal cookie cutter fits. I don't care about native reps. Cal tanks fit plates, not armor. We need the armor as a last resort, because shield can't stand up to one lone PRO AV.
4)
Blasters will be increasing in damage, so they can break through the shield regen of a hardened shield tank.
They already can.
5)
Furthermore, we will be adding a PG cost to CPU upgrades, and CPU cost to PG upgrades. The utility of using CPU mods to massively boost fitting capabilities of shield tanks will be severely reduced.
I don't think there's any CPU cost to PG upgrades for infantry. Dunno why now that's being raised for vehicles, as well as the CPU upgrade now getting a PG fitting cost. You're essentially nerfing our ability to fit vehicles the way we want, despite it being sandbox.
Nothing needs to be changed from Chrome numbers.
And yes, it really does come down to blaming infantry, because pilots have always been ignored and marginalized all to make infantry happy, while we wrack our brains to come up with the best compromise, actually achieve it, have fun for a bit, and then that gets nerfed, despite having figured out a workaround for the latest vehicle nerf.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2914
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 01:56:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:So no "useful" feedback, no numbers. I believe you wanted, 7 slots, you have them, you also wanted more fitting space and progression, and no extra skills for SHAVs. Where's the love? 
I already did my numbers. I think that counts as feedback.
All pilots want the base core skills to be 5% for shield, armor, CPU and PG per level. Infantry CPU enhancers don't require any PG to use. Why are you going to introduce that, and at such a high fitting cost? And why increase the CPU cost of PG modules? These constitute more nerfs, which is what vehicles don't need.
One hardener? The game is supposed to be a sandbox. If someone wants to use dual SMGs on a sentinel, there's nothing stopping them. Why can I not fit two hardeners on a vehicle? Because people complain that they have to reload to destroy a vehicle? That's too bad.
Chrome was far better as far as hulls went. Uprising 1.0 turret damage was also superior to Chrome turret damage, as the TTK was extended, making for more exciting tank fights. What we have now is essentially what we had in Chrome, albeit slightly longer. Uprising required incredible module management to survive one battle after another, especially if you find yourself taking on two tanks. As far as PC goes, they're kinda useless, as it's better to have more infantry running around to drop links and hack objectives, rather than have someone sitting in a tank twiddling their thumbs, waiting for some action. An ADS is far more useful, actually able to rapidly fly two people where they're needed, along with attacking and defending objectives that don't have a roof over them.
What passives can a solo tank have? If it's just HAV operation to have access to them, then there's no passive bonus. The DHAVs and UHAVs I'm unsure about, will absolutely have passive bonuses, likely two each; one role, one racial.
If we had 5% to shield, armor, CPU and PG per level now, vehicles would be in a much, much better place. Armor tanks wouldn't be next to useless, though they would still certainly be outclassed by shield tanks. Instead of nerfing shield tanks to the level armor tanks are at, buff armor tanks to the level shield tanks are at. They should be their own best counters, rather than AV being so much damn better at destroying tanks than another tank is.
You could avoid so much unnecessary work by just copying and pasting a lot of the Chrome stats, reworking the turret skills, adding in the old core skills, as well as keeping core grid management and calibration, and giving the destroyers decent hulls and good damage. The Sagaris and Surya must be really hard to kill. There's also no way that someone on any given team will have 0 SP into vehicles at all. I recently saw a Sica with a Gomorrah cannon, taking out other vehicles. That's large turret operation and large rail to 3. Vehicles shouldn't be balanced around one person being able to solo them. Ask any old pilot that's been here for a long time. Vehicle play was far more fun when we were actually able to take out other vehicles without having to worry about AV.
Why bother taking out your own vehicle when AV is far more effective for less than 1/3 the price?
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2914
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 02:05:00 -
[4] - Quote
Nearly forgot about the shield mods.
Why make them much harder to fit? Again, this is supposed to be sandbox, not pigeonholing us into only a few viable fits, which is what we have now. We want variety, not a total of 5 or 7 accepted fits.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2915
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 03:08:00 -
[5] - Quote
Doc DDD wrote:UHAVS ( 3 infantry ) are going to need built in perma hardeners ( at least 25% ) or else their TTK will be laughable versus any group of organized AV ( 3 infantry ).
How long would it take 3 full proto commando swarmers to pop a full proto UHAV hardened with 3 people inside? What about 3 forgers? 3 DHAVS?
With the proposed tank nerfs, three organized players would put themselves at a disadvantage if they bring thier tank out of the redline without some sort of damage mitigation buff.
Don't you understand? If one Minmando can't make mincemeat out of that ultimate super glorious most extreme of heavy tanks to the max tank, then that's unfair and it needs to be nerfed.
I'm a fan of both of them having at least 12,000 base HP, largely modifiable with HP mods. If they don't have that as a starting point, then they may as well be scrapped completely, as anything less is not an "ultra heavy vehicle."
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2916
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 03:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
Doc DDD wrote:
Not most people, just 3 people that spend more time posting on the forums then calling in a tank in- game.
Nevermind time posting, they need to actually play often enough to know what they're talking about. Numbers on a page mean little when it comes to battle conditions.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2916
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 03:33:00 -
[7] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
right, so your entire point is based on supposition and tinfoil.
and what you yourself intend to do.
Right, done paying attention to you, moving along.
He at least plays the game, in a tank.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2916
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 03:36:00 -
[8] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Um no, I cite EVE because it works in EVE, and it's not working right in Dust.
Give me a compelling answer to WHY there should be so many large differences. Convince me why the current system is better than how it works in EVE, I can be reasoned with.
It's not working right because everybody else wants to ignore lore. If we had active reps for armor, it would be a lot better. If shield had constant recharge, and the old booster, but better, shield would be in a good position.
But no, throw it all away in favor of destroying a playstyle that some want, because the rage of the many outweighs the desire of the few.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2917
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 14:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
right, so your entire point is based on supposition and tinfoil.
and what you yourself intend to do.
Right, done paying attention to you, moving along.
He at least plays the game, in a tank. Are you capable of talking to someone without trying to browbeat them? Not impressed with you or Doc right now. There's almost nothing constructive between the two of you.
So when I tell people they should actually play the game so they know, through experience, what they're talking about, that's being insulting; but when a lot of people, including you, start insulting me, calling me a redline tanker, when 98% of you don't play with any regularity, yet I'm on practically every day, that's all fine and dandy.
Am I right?
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2917
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 14:02:00 -
[10] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Oh I found out you can't interrupt shield boosters. they only get one pulse for the listed amount.
if you take damage, it just eats part (or all) of that benefit entirely.
so instead of 5 pulses that result in say 1950 HP repped to shields it just does it all at once, rather than spacing it out over 10-15 seconds.
So I dunno what people are thinking whern you say you can "interrupt" the regen.
See? You don't use vehicles. If you used shield vehicles, and used a booster, and saw that the slightest damage stops it completely, you wouldn't've had to say anything about that at all. It doesn't get "interrupted," it stops completely and starts the cooldown.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2917
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 14:07:00 -
[11] - Quote
Sgt Kirk wrote:This thread stopped being constructive once he got in here.
Heaven forbid I should have a different opinion and actually voice that opinion.
Maybe I should go back to my 15g of chocolate a week.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2922
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 14:22:00 -
[12] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:
Sooo...does that mean you're buffing AV to handle tanks, effectively killing dropships, or leaving AV as is, effectively killing AV vs tanks?
AV needs to be toned down.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2928
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 23:40:00 -
[13] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:DUST Fiend wrote:
Sooo...does that mean you're buffing AV to handle tanks, effectively killing dropships, or leaving AV as is, effectively killing AV vs tanks?
AV needs to be toned down. you're hilarious.
Says the guy that doesn't use vehicles because he doesn't play the game.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2941
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 03:19:00 -
[14] - Quote
Doc DDD wrote:Yeah look in the Commando thread for commando enlightenment.
Has there been anymore information regarding fragmented small missiles? Other than maybe soon?
Maybe when turrets are finished. Right now we just have the base tank hulls. There's still the DHAVs and UHAVs, and probably later down the line the logi ships and LAVs.
I want the small fragmented to put on my Python to make all the reds rage.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2941
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 13:03:00 -
[15] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:MRBH1997 wrote:I like the idea of this, but after playing with the possible fits, I believe the rebalanced CPU and PG upgrades should take less of the opposite. I feel it removes fittings for the gunnlogi that should be possible. Also the PG/CPU seems a little too low for the Gallente HAV and same for the Caldari. With the new PG/CPU system, fittings are hard to make workable if someone has proto. So seeing this, either PG/CPU should be buffed slightly or skills should be available to vehicle specialists to increase their PG/CPU output like before. i believe the intent was that you can not fit full proto anymore. you must make some trade off, either the quality of the modules or the quality of turrets used.
I'm surprised they're still letting us have vehicles with how much infantry cries about them.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2952
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 15:56:00 -
[16] - Quote
duster 35000 wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Doc DDD wrote:Yeah look in the Commando thread for commando enlightenment.
Has there been anymore information regarding fragmented small missiles? Other than maybe soon? Maybe when turrets are finished. Right now we just have the base tank hulls. There's still the DHAVs and UHAVs, and probably later down the line the logi ships and LAVs. I want the small fragmented to put on my Python to make all the reds rage. Inb4 it's op even though python is an easy kill.
It'll be OP because it could one shot scouts.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2960
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 17:51:00 -
[17] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
5. Thanks for breaking quite a few vehicle fits but this is also another bad idea and i shall explain why.
PG/CPU modules are there to add variety to fits or to squeeze a bit more juice out so you can add something else or upgrade to a higher tier module.
The shield vehicles would always benefit more from this due to having nothing worthwhile for shields in the low slots since PDS, nanofibers, damage mods etc removed or moved to a different slot hence why a few made the Gunnlogi to dual tank so they whack on an armor plate in the lows where as armor would be sacrificing tank.
The Python is a prime example, i need a complex PG expansion unit on every fit and you adding a 200CPU penalty to it means it breaks every fit i have and i need to reduce all the modules to a lower tier and thus makes the PG module useless and not worth it.
I believe Rattati's intention is to buff the resources of hulls such as the Python so that either the use of the PG expander is non-problematic, or unnecessary.
So it essentially stays the same. Why buff Python fitting if the PG mod will just use more CPU?
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2963
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 19:18:00 -
[18] - Quote
duster 35000 wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
You want a PG module to give you x% more PG for a tradeoff of something like -% CPU?
Well that is an option I suppose but that's not what I was saying. Like....just as an example, Rattati is adding in Shield Regulators for vehicles. For a MBT (again just as an example), if he uses Infantry reg values, 2 regulators on a Caldari MBT would drop its recharge delay to ~1.8s which is actually pretty good. So for a Caldari MBT user, having those regs in the lows is a valuable thing, OR they can choose go with the longer recharge delay (due to not using the regs) in order to get more CPU/PG by using the Enhancers. I guess my point is that personally I don't mind shield vehicles making us of resource modules, but I would like there to be an equally attractive alternative they could use instead of PG/CPU mods, so there is actually a sort of tradeoff. Because right now, there's really not much going on for shield vehicles in the lows, so resource mods are often the clear and obvious choice. But you are right in that any sort of 'cost' for fitting them, if Rattati goes that direction, it needs to be percentage based. You can get away with absolute values for things like Heavy vs Light HP modules, but for generic modules like resource extenders, it needs to scale to the vehicle, so % based is the way to go. Shield vehicles would need a slight resource buff when they add low slow stuff, otherwise you won't be able to fit any proto shield mods In the highs.
But that's fair for infantry.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2968
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 22:05:00 -
[19] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:duster 35000 wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
You want a PG module to give you x% more PG for a tradeoff of something like -% CPU?
Well that is an option I suppose but that's not what I was saying. Like....just as an example, Rattati is adding in Shield Regulators for vehicles. For a MBT (again just as an example), if he uses Infantry reg values, 2 regulators on a Caldari MBT would drop its recharge delay to ~1.8s which is actually pretty good. So for a Caldari MBT user, having those regs in the lows is a valuable thing, OR they can choose go with the longer recharge delay (due to not using the regs) in order to get more CPU/PG by using the Enhancers. I guess my point is that personally I don't mind shield vehicles making us of resource modules, but I would like there to be an equally attractive alternative they could use instead of PG/CPU mods, so there is actually a sort of tradeoff. Because right now, there's really not much going on for shield vehicles in the lows, so resource mods are often the clear and obvious choice. But you are right in that any sort of 'cost' for fitting them, if Rattati goes that direction, it needs to be percentage based. You can get away with absolute values for things like Heavy vs Light HP modules, but for generic modules like resource extenders, it needs to scale to the vehicle, so % based is the way to go. Shield vehicles would need a slight resource buff when they add low slow stuff, otherwise you won't be able to fit any proto shield mods In the highs. But that's fair for infantry. Jesus H Christ its not about the f++++++g infantry!! You think for one flipping second i think about rail f*****g rifles vs duvolle ARs when i'm bouncing pythons diving from 600 m to 150m rail turret blazing becuase lol infantry? For all of your BS about tanking, at least i'veseen you in a tank, and a jihad jeep on a regular bais. But really, please **** off with you shitposting.
Jihad jeep on a regular basis? You have the wrong person there.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2999
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 16:38:00 -
[20] - Quote
duster 35000 wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:duster 35000 wrote:
A gunlogi with nitro is worse than a maddy with nitro.
REALLY! That's a new one. Guess that speed is too much to handle for most tankers. Must be a top tier tanker thing. Top tier physics. Gunlogi loses a high slot if they fit nitro...less hp, etc..
It's exactly that, Tebu. If you tanked, you would know that.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3005
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:22:00 -
[21] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:You buff AV then you kill the LAV
You buff AV you kill the DS
You buff AV you kill the ADS
You buff AV you kill the DHAV
Any which way you buff AV you kill something else and completely take it off the field and out of the game.
Simple solution - HAVs take out HAVs and AV does secondary damage because ADS/DS/LAV cannot survive now so it means any new LAV/DS like Logi then its already made useless before it gets out the door.
AV cannot be the end all solution, AV is there for when you do not have vehicle support but right now it is there no matter what and is the end all solution. If it gets buffed it kills everything, if it gets nerfed then it may require more than 1 AV person but the 3man HAV getting destroyed by 1 AV is unfair but having AV making every other vehicle useless is just as bad. fairly bold statements there bunky. Historically statements like this have been proven false repeatedly. if AV isn't to be buffed in response to the new HAVs then we should just leave HAVs as they are now. compromise: when nobody leaves happy. But no. You dont get improved tanks and demand that AV be marginalized to worthlessness. That's not a solution. Plus LAVs are too durable anyway. A militia trash LAV takes multiple shots from proto antitank guns to kill even if no modules are loaded. Kill LAVs my ass. You're reaching pretty hard asserting dropships even. Try again.
I annihilated a Soma in 4 volleys with swarms on a Minmando a few days ago. That is unacceptable. The power of swarms is akin to dropping an asteroid on a vehicle.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3005
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:32:00 -
[22] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Everything you just posted is opinion.
And bluntly I'm not interested in taking Red star opinions seriously when all you guys do is repeat spkr4thedead's usual not-points.
And in what deluded post has anyone in any of the latest HAV threads seriously suggested buffing swarms? My count is at zero. So why are you using swarms as your be-all end-all example?
Opinion? You don't play the game. You don't use vehicles. You ignore everything we say, and continue up to press your incredibly biased point backed up with no facts, only your "experience" as a spreadsheet warrior.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3005
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:35:00 -
[23] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:You buff AV then you kill the LAV
You buff AV you kill the DS
You buff AV you kill the ADS
You buff AV you kill the DHAV
Any which way you buff AV you kill something else and completely take it off the field and out of the game.
Simple solution - HAVs take out HAVs and AV does secondary damage because ADS/DS/LAV cannot survive now so it means any new LAV/DS like Logi then its already made useless before it gets out the door.
AV cannot be the end all solution, AV is there for when you do not have vehicle support but right now it is there no matter what and is the end all solution. If it gets buffed it kills everything, if it gets nerfed then it may require more than 1 AV person but the 3man HAV getting destroyed by 1 AV is unfair but having AV making every other vehicle useless is just as bad. fairly bold statements there bunky. Historically statements like this have been proven false repeatedly. if AV isn't to be buffed in response to the new HAVs then we should just leave HAVs as they are now. compromise: when nobody leaves happy. But no. You dont get improved tanks and demand that AV be marginalized to worthlessness. That's not a solution. Plus LAVs are too durable anyway. A militia trash LAV takes multiple shots from proto antitank guns to kill even if no modules are loaded. Kill LAVs my ass. You're reaching pretty hard asserting dropships even. Try again. I annihilated a Soma in 4 volleys with swarms on a Minmando a few days ago. That is unacceptable. The power of swarms is akin to dropping an asteroid on a vehicle. Hah, ok. And just yesterday evening I sat there and ate swarms and shrugged them on like they were nothing in my gunnlogi. See I made swarms look and feel underpowered. So from that I MUST conclude that swarms need a buff. See what I did there?
Shield vs. armor. You'd point is invalid. They were probably MLT swarms. I was using a level 5 Minmando with PRO swarms.
Your point is invalid.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3005
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:53:00 -
[24] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Everything you just posted is opinion.
And bluntly I'm not interested in taking Red star opinions seriously when all you guys do is repeat spkr4thedead's usual not-points.
And in what deluded post has anyone in any of the latest HAV threads seriously suggested buffing swarms? My count is at zero. So why are you using swarms as your be-all end-all example?
Not really when rattati is seriously thinking about limiting the hardener to 1 and nerfing PG/CPU modules or creating various fits on protofits. Im right when i talk about SL in uprising and now, im right on the new advanced/prototype HAVs which are just in name and not nature because of no slot increase, im right about the ADS unable to dodge SL. I play the game every day and i see what happens to my vehicles and how a SL pushes me off easily or i can dual a FG because they have a chance to miss. I have FG and SL to proto and prof 5, i have used them and i know the downsides and upsides of both. Opinions come from playing the game and just being a spreadsheet warrior doesn't cut it because the spreadsheet pits whatever it is on an empty field with no cover, no moving, no tactics, no variables whatsoever so it produces a false outcome. Unfortuanly not many use FG, the majority is AV and last i checked the SL is AV, the FG is generally fine, the PLC is not but buffing any AV can defo kill the rest of the vehicles. But you may say ' I'm not interested in taking Red star opinions seriously when all you guys do is repeat spkr4thedead's usual not-points.' so then why should i take your points seriously or anyone from your corp seriously? should i tie you all with the same brush? why should CCP take you seriously? Should anyone take your opinion seriously? TBH with your latest post it reeks of 'im not listening to you la la la la la la' which frankly is childish and not in any way helpful. And you've never seriously entertained nor considered any counterpoint in any post so I'm not exactly inclined to listen to someone who simply dismisses me as a "spreadsheet warrior" or as someone who "Doesn't play the game. I say again: No one has ever suggested buffing swarms. Quite the opposite in fact. Why are you using them as your justification for saying AV should never be buffed?
We do consider everything, and the problem is most propositions are bad to outright terrible and game-breaking. We reply to every point, breaking down why they're bad, but as usual it's completely ignored, and I can almost hear the "la la la I'm not listening to you" while you cover your ears.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3006
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:10:00 -
[25] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:
As is yours. That was kinda the point.
And you just admitted to it.
But seriously, what is wrong with you guys. Seriously, swarms OP? If anything it shows a disparity with armor which IS acknowledge and IS being addressed.
I mean google "reasonable" and then try being it for a change. Screaming that you are right and everyone else is wrong just makes you look stupid and uneducated. I
Again, destroying a tank in 4 volleys is overkill.
You had shield, I vaporized an armor with a weapon that has a bonus against armor, along with a flat 10% damage bonus.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3006
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 18:35:00 -
[26] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Only spkr would argue that it's unfair for proto AV to smash a militia tank.
But at least over the last two years he's consistent!
I did the smashing. I've been smashed in return. The national corps do that very well. I don't see them coming on here and talking about AV and vehicles. But, all of you want to easily solo vehicles. It's a squad of infantry with AV vs you going solo. Of course you're all going to complain that AV is hard to use and UP, and vehicles are too hard to destroy.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3006
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 18:41:00 -
[27] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:
As is yours. That was kinda the point.
And you just admitted to it.
But seriously, what is wrong with you guys. Seriously, swarms OP? If anything it shows a disparity with armor which IS acknowledge and IS being addressed.
I mean google "reasonable" and then try being it for a change. Screaming that you are right and everyone else is wrong just makes you look stupid and uneducated. I
Again, destroying a tank in 4 volleys is overkill. You had shield, I vaporized an armor with a weapon that has a bonus against armor, along with a flat 10% damage bonus. Yes, A SOMA. A madrudger could take a bit more than that. And yet again the disparity between armor and shields IS being addressed and discussed.
The correct answer is bringing armor up to the level shield is at, not nerfing shield to the point where the differences are back to Chrome/Uprising levdls.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3006
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 19:32:00 -
[28] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Only spkr would argue that it's unfair for proto AV to smash a militia tank.
But at least over the last two years he's consistent! I did the smashing. I've been smashed in return. The national corps do that very well. I don't see them coming on here and talking about AV and vehicles. But, all of you want to easily solo vehicles. It's a squad of infantry with AV vs you going solo. Of course you're all going to complain that AV is hard to use and UP, and vehicles are too hard to destroy. You do realize that I pilot right. I've been with several top corps and my prowess has always been appreciated and needed. I'm typically a first pick for PC teams. I know my stuff. And above all I want a well balanced and challenging end game. No I don't want infantry AV to hold the advantage over a tank, and I seriously don't think breaking wants that either. Above all we want and expect a challenge. You always revert back to how tanks were when tanks were OP and blame AV for being unable to kill a tank and the cause for how tanks are now. Things were balanced heavily to the tank side and I'm sorry fella, that isn't right.
When have tanks ever been OP?
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3006
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 19:38:00 -
[29] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
The correct answer is bringing armor up to the level shield is at, not nerfing shield to the point where the differences are back to Chrome/Uprising levdls.
That's exactly what I said, and by taking one look at proto fits you can see that's what they are attempting to do! Who in the world ever said NERF SHIELDS? Where and why are you even saying this. Makes no sense.
Doc brought up that shield is being double nerfed.
As far as protofits, who knows what the skills are?
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3009
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 16:03:00 -
[30] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
You keep talking anecdotal opinion and ignore the fact yhat my numbers for TTK basically require that the AV gunner be God's Gift to tankbusting of for the tank to be driven by an oblivious idiot.
It assumes somehow the AV gunner can put all of his shots directly on the HAV without interruption, interference or cchance of missing.
Swarms are NOT included in my TTK delusions or recommendations. They are problematic at best and I refuse to touch them to use or for balance suggestions unless a mechanical rework is on the table.
But if an HAV driver ALLOWS an AV gunner to hammer him nonstop without interference (even if that's moving behindcover and siccing squadmates on him) then he deserves to die.
You should see my recommendations for the UHAV. I'm pushing for 14,000 EHP vs. Infantry AV. With AV balanced to combat MBTs running between 6,000 and 9,000 HP with difficulty solo.
But keeping the UHAVs somewhere around 6-9k versus tank turrets.
I don't care if other infantry will think it's unfair. I think it'll be hilarious.
And my fully skilled, triple modded, maxed out AV guns cap out right around where an unskilled, unmodded railgun starts at for DPS on rattati's scale. So no. AV will not be better at killing tanks than tanks do if I have my way.
It's not hard to get PRO AV. It's insanely powerful, and should be less effective at taking out vehicles compared to tank turrets.
14,000 eHP is not enough for an "ultra heavy tank." They should start at 14,000 eHP, and increase from there. Rattati hinted at needing a laser strike to take them out.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3010
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 16:46:00 -
[31] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Just because you two want to have everything and compromise nothing doesn't require the rest of us to be on board or cooperate. But sure, keep banging on the Surya bus when you two are literally the only people on this forum who buy into the idea that the surya wasn't overpowered.
And I don't care about the chrome surya. Rattati has opted to not go with my recommendation to go back to chrome basis for vehicles and AV. I've moved along, and really don't care about what you think things should be, I only care about what they are versus what they will be.
But you two are welcome to try and stonewall everyone else, because it's been kinda amusing watching you bang your heads on the wall.
What does infantry have to compromise with?
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3014
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 18:21:00 -
[32] - Quote
And this is why we've lost so many pilots. Those that don't use vehicles having the sole say in the direction vehicles go in.
Unfortunately, it likely won't end. As it is, pilots aren't being listened to now. We're losing base HP on both hulls. That constitutes a nerf to vehicles, no matter what you want to say.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3015
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 18:32:00 -
[33] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Doc DDD wrote:If we are worried about balancing in ambush, just remove vehicles all together from oms. ..
The only thing keeping tanks alive as long as they are now is the ability to stack hardeners, removing this ability, while nerfing shield regen and cpu/pg chips, nerfing base HP of hulls to force the 2 extra slots to be filled with isk costing hp modules, all add up to a vehicle nerf. Armor tanks seem to be in a better place though.
Seems like this was more of an AV buff initiative then a ' let's make tanks useful and give them something to do' LOL ambush. there's a lot of whining about OMS and vehicles. It's pure magic. suck up the pain and spawn AV. And the gunnlogi is OP. Pure and simple. It's only effectively stopped by another gunnlogi, which has been the developer definition of OP> A thing that can only effectively be countered by itself. Well, a blaster gunnlogi won't last against a madrudger blaster. But blasters are kinda crap atm due to being trapped in limbo between AV and AI, so that's not saying much. And yeah, the gunnlogi is OP right now. Though I can't say I would go so far as saying it takes another gunnlogi to destroy. A maddie does stand a chance, but given all the anti armor AV out there, you don't often see many. And if you do they are usually too busy fighting AV off or dying to it. So it's hard to judge how a gunnlogi and maddie match up nowadays. Well, I guess that kinda means the best counter is another gunnlogi huh, as they won't get insta popped by the AV lol. This does make me wonder though, how much of a buff does the maddie need to be on par with infantry AV and would such a buff put them over the top against a gunnlogi.
The Gunnlogi is not OP. It's the one hull that can survive AV long enough to escape. I'm considering multiple AV in this. It's always more than one against me;the only time it's a single person is when it's MLT suits.
I like and prefer armor over shield. Problem is, it gets annihilated far too fast. This has nothing to do with all you lemmings believing the lie that I'm a bad pilot. It has to do with armor being paper weak, and AV being akin to an asteroid strike.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3015
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 18:36:00 -
[34] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:And this is why we've lost so many pilots. Those that don't use vehicles having the sole say in the direction vehicles go in.
Unfortunately, it likely won't end. As it is, pilots aren't being listened to now. We're losing base HP on both hulls. That constitutes a nerf to vehicles, no matter what you want to say. Well spkr, if we listened to YOU, tanks would be unstoppable God-Engines. Fortunately, very few people share your opinions.
I've never said that. I have said that AV should be a deterrent. Deterrent =/= useless.
Can you possibly explain why tanks can't beat on tanks, with AV providing supplementary damage, rather than relegating a friendly tank to a mere distraction?
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3017
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 20:09:00 -
[35] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:And this is why we've lost so many pilots. Those that don't use vehicles having the sole say in the direction vehicles go in.
Unfortunately, it likely won't end. As it is, pilots aren't being listened to now. We're losing base HP on both hulls. That constitutes a nerf to vehicles, no matter what you want to say. Well spkr, if we listened to YOU, tanks would be unstoppable God-Engines. Fortunately, very few people share your opinions. I've never said that. I have said that AV should be a deterrent. Deterrent =/= useless. Can you possibly explain why tanks can't beat on tanks, with AV providing supplementary damage, rather than relegating a friendly tank to a mere distraction? Because a weapon that is incapable of killing the intended target is a worthless waste of resources and SP.
So you want AV to be the main counter to vehicles, rather than vehicles countering vehicles. Got it
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3017
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 20:48:00 -
[36] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
So you want AV to be the main counter to vehicles, rather than vehicles countering vehicles. Got it
He didn't say that only that AV should be capable of killing HAV in a meaningful manner.... y'know ....having actually talked to Breaking on the odd occasion when he hasn't called me a "nerd" instead of spewing vitriol at him..... Our Cannon are bigger and better than existing AV forms and should act like it. None of this rapid firing bullshit.
Better? Swarms and forge don't glitch. Swarms don't require aim. Infantry is a smaller target and can take cover much easier than a tank. Also, a suit with PRO AV (doesn't have to be a PRO suit) is cheaper than a PRO turret by itself.
AV is better than a vehicle in more ways than one.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3028
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 23:30:00 -
[37] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:I never said that the two extra turrets is worthwhile.
But some people want the option.
I could care less if a tank had one person or ten. Well you would because if that tank had 10people in it you would need 10people with AV to kill it. I could cheerfully shoot at something like that all DAY.
You'd cry OP trying to destroy it.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3029
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:25:00 -
[38] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:LudiKure ninda wrote:Solution is simple,.. If you dont drive tanks or ADS you can fck off from this thread.
Never gonna happen.
Of course it won't happen, because despite you not using vehicles, you still believe with absolute conviction that you know what's best for vehicles, and not those that actually use them, and use them often.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3029
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:38:00 -
[39] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:LudiKure ninda wrote:Solution is simple,.. If you dont drive tanks or ADS you can fck off from this thread.
Never gonna happen. Of course it won't happen, because despite you not using vehicles, you still believe with absolute conviction that you know what's best for vehicles, and not those that actually use them, and use them often. I am, however, concerned with the overall balance of how they interact with everything ELSE, something which you are contemptuous at best towards so far as concerns go. You have no interest in vehicles being anything but better on all levels than literally any other thing at everything. So of coure I will appear to be hostile and hateful by your perspective. You're hostile and hateful towards everyone else.
It's a vehicle weighing far more than a person in battle armor, with far better defenses, but sadly less damage output. Of course they should be better than a person in a battle suit.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3030
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:03:00 -
[40] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Yet more of the same. Just because you claim not to speak for R* the message doesn't change.
It's also amazing, your theories on my motivation.
My assertions are based on what you have said. Your counterarguments on my intent have nothing to do with anything I have said or presented your arguments are entirely based on what you assume I mean when I have been pretty direct in my intent.
You have been remarkably adept at playing coy by comparison.
Your stated playstyle preference seems, based on your comments and your direct statements involves an automatic win. With no recourse for a majority of the playerbase.
not one thing you have said has been based on any numbers, no evidence. Just assertions of intent and twisting the words of people who disagree.
As long as you campaign for tanks to be a win button that can't be fought by the majority of the playerbase, then the playerbase will campaign to keep your playstyle nerfed into the ground.
And thus far you, spkr and docDDD (Hi Ripper!) Are the only people in the last four months besides lazer got banned who assert that I'm being unreasonable. Being apart of a corp has nothing to do with this child. You still believe that 1 AV should be able to take out a 3man HAV. If i said it should take out 3 AV to take out 1 man HAV you complain and say it is unfair and that it should take 1 player to take out 1 player. The double standards is there for all to see, you hide behind 'balance' yet you want it as unbalanced as possible in the favor of AV while making vehicles a sideshow at best and absolutely useless at its very worst. Since are going to be like this i can do exactly the same thing. It should take 3 AV working together to take out a HAV, don't quote 1 player to 1 player BS to me since you obv don't want it and if you cry balance i will say 'tank', my missiles should hammer infantry into the ground but a flaylock and core locus do the job better where is the balance? All players like you do is take, take and take some more, you suck the life out of this game while you still complain that it is too hard for you, that you need more buffs and the playstyle that is supposed to counter you should be nerfed more and more. It won't stop with this game, slowly it dies out and you move onto the next like a virus slowly ruining it because something is too hard or you can't solo it and the cycle continues. Vehicles are in this game and yet you want a clip of whatever to kill every vehicle, why don't you move to a game where vehicles do not exist? I play planetside and can deal with AV and other vehicles but that is because the game is more developed and i have countermeasures yet no matter what pilots say you always disagree. You don't want turrets to kill infantry, you don't want HAV to have too much health that 1 clip cannot kill it outright, you want to buff AV for the new vehicles yet don't care about the DS/LAV which will be made useless, it is always what you or infantry want and never what pilots actually want who happen to use and skill into the vehicles hoping that it can actually become a proper playstyle rarther than a freak sideshow who can be put out of the game by 1 player with minimal SP investment. sorry dude, I lost interest when you resorted to name calling to make a point. Which you're incapable of without a hefty dose of anecdotal opinion. Sorry to tell you vehicles aren't the central focus of the game. And I think this conversation has abundantly demonstrated the fact that you're not interested in Rattati's HAVs because they aren't overpowered enough. Later.
Vehicles are the central focus of this balancing act.
And yes we know they aren't any focus at all. They're less than an afterthought, providing easy points for AV.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3030
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:05:00 -
[41] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:LudiKure ninda wrote:AV we hawe right now could blow up a crome surya or sagaris with no problems..  And yeah I know that my english sucks..  no it couldn't. the AV options have all been nerfed since then and are not back at chromosome levels of power.
You call swarms previously able to do ~3000 damage per volley a nerf from Chrome? Lol
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3031
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:15:00 -
[42] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:LudiKure ninda wrote:AV we hawe right now could blow up a crome surya or sagaris with no problems.. And yeah I know that my english sucks.. no it couldn't. the AV options have all been nerfed since then and are not back at chromosome levels of power. You call swarms previously able to do ~3000 damage per volley a nerf from Chrome? Lol You mean those things that no longer exist? Your mastery of cherrypicking irrelevancies to current situations is amazing.
A Minmando can still destroy a Soma in 4 volleys, and a Madrugar in 5. That's too much, and makes vehicles useless. 2nd bring out a vehicle at all? About its only use now is to take out installations at a distance. That's still no good use.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3031
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:18:00 -
[43] - Quote
Then stop treating us as if we were hostages.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3031
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:25:00 -
[44] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Then stop treating us as if we were hostages. You two aren't hostages. You are unwilling to compromise on any point for any reason without exception. You have been holding the discussion hostage in all of rattati's threads about HAVs recently.
Everybody was crying bloody murder when the fused locus, flaylock and tac AR were being nerfed. Same with the Cal logi. Many announced they were biomassing, or stop playing, or that it was the end of the game. It's still going, and those that threatened that are still here. Why should I compromise? I did that in my hull spreadsheet. I won't do more than that. My conviction is unwavering.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3031
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:34:00 -
[45] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Then stop treating us as if we were hostages. You two aren't hostages. You are unwilling to compromise on any point for any reason without exception. You have been holding the discussion hostage in all of rattati's threads about HAVs recently. Everybody was crying bloody murder when the fused locus, flaylock and tac AR were being nerfed. Same with the Cal logi. Many announced they were biomassing, or stop playing, or that it was the end of the game. It's still going, and those that threatened that are still here. Why should I compromise? I did that in my hull spreadsheet. I won't do more than that. My conviction is unwavering. And guarantees that no one besides your cheerleader squad will support you.
You want compromise on the power of AV. I'm just reciprocating.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3037
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:14:00 -
[46] - Quote
Tanks were fine during Chrome.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3039
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 05:17:00 -
[47] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Tanks were fine during Chrome. CCP Rattati wrote:
Now go forth and fit them and demonstrate why we should, or should not make changes. Please post ProtoFit links whenever possible!
You're only two years late on Chrome feedback. Nostalgia isn't a reason for rattati to make changes to tank stats.
It's not nostalgia. It simply worked. Tanks beat the hell out of tanks. That's working as intended, not these pocket asteroids infantry carry around with them.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3039
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 05:18:00 -
[48] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Tanks were fine during Chrome. Not really, seeing as Rails 3 shotted them. Oh wait, I forgot, you're fine with shitting damage.
When have I said I want the Chrome turret damage back?
I've repeatedly said that the Chrome hulls with Uprising 1.0 turret damage would be the best conglomeration.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3039
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 05:37:00 -
[49] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:No single hardener rule
No PG/CPU upgrade debuff (increased fitting costs as previously discussed)
stay posted
Good news everyone.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3040
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 05:40:00 -
[50] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:
No PG/CPU upgrade debuff
Huh? An upgrade debuff?
Hopefully it means they won't cost a ton the other way. They basically nullify each other, making them both useless: you need PG for something, so you add a mod, but you lose too much CPU so you add one of those mods, putting you back at square one with not enough CPU or PG.
At least that's what I hope it means.
I just hope they won't get nerfed due to the fits we've been making.
Something like this will probably get the modules, hull and fitting costs nerfsmashed through the planet.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3040
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:15:00 -
[51] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:
No PG/CPU upgrade debuff
Huh? An upgrade debuff? Hopefully it means they won't cost a ton the other way. They basically nullify each other, making them both useless: you need PG for something, so you add a mod, but you lose too much CPU so you add one of those mods, putting you back at square one with not enough CPU or PG. At least that's what I hope it means. I just hope they won't get nerfed due to the fits we've been making. Something like this will probably get the modules, hull and fitting costs nerfsmashed through the planet. I hope they won't be "abused" so that one hull becomes much better than the other. That's why I wanted to give them fitting cost of the opposite capacity. Let's see what happens with the new hulls.
Abused in what way? Fitting them in such a way that when combined with experience, they become shockingly hard to kill? That's not abusing anything. We found fits that worked and used them, sometimes experimenting to find something that will work, other times for fun.
All that needs to be done is buff armor to the level shield is at, really. Nothing needs to be nerfed, including the CPU and PG fitting cost.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
|
|
| |
|