|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
Sgt Kirk
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
9722
   |
Posted - 2015.03.03 04:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
Lol the only assault is the Minmatar assault.
They called me crazy....I AINT CRAZY.
That is a huge issue about the Knives and especially the Amarr commando.
Something needs to be done about those pronto while reining in that Min Assault.
As long as 4/5 (80%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP
|
Sgt Kirk
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
9725
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 06:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:HMG dps and range will be toned down, burst hmg will keep current range, assault hmg will be a longer range autocannon with anti-vehicle capability.
More Anti Armor Anti Vehicle weapons!
Just what we needed!
I sure hope you at least intend on having EM Warhead Swarms when you add in the Auto Cannon.
As long as 4/5 (80%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP
|
Sgt Kirk
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
9729
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
Aeon, you put Gallente Assault Rail as pure.
As much as I'd love for that to be true....nah.
As long as 4/5 (80%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP
|
Sgt Kirk
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
9733
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:
To address anti-shield concerns, after we add HAV progression, we will add anti-shield swarm launchers, and homing av-flux grenades, probably reduce lock on range on normal swarm launchers and add an anti-air version, most likely a single long range swarm missile to hopefully improve the rendering of incoming threats to dropships.
Whoa, don't tell me you consider my post an outrage of anger.
That's standard sarcasm that's found literally everywhere and did no think you'd find something like that as an outrage.
it's lighthearted way of saying another anti armor AV weapon shouldn't be brought into this game until at least some other viable anti shield weaponry is brought in.
So sorry you took that as "offensive"
As long as 4/5 (80%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP
|
Sgt Kirk
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
9733
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Vulpes Dolosus wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:
To address anti-shield concerns, after we add HAV progression, we will add anti-shield swarm launchers, and homing av-flux grenades, probably reduce lock on range on normal swarm launchers and add an anti-air version, most likely a single long range swarm missile to hopefully improve the rendering of incoming threats to dropships.
Well then I hope you buff the Python then. Swarms already 3-shot even the best fits, and they do -20% damageGǪ I think the idea is to separate anti-air and antitank swarms from each other.
I'm really glad this is finally being taken into consideration.
I've said this since closed beta and it has always fell on deaf ears or the feedback was completely negative.
Also, I don't see why you'd need to buff swarms right off the bat, that's jumping the gun a bit. We don't even know how they will behave.
I proposed a moderate damage, long range, high speed missile with a longer lock up time. Not as powerful as basic swarms
(now the anti tank swarms?)
As long as 4/5 (80%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP
|
Sgt Kirk
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
9733
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Sgt Kirk wrote:
Also, I don't see why you'd need to buff swarms
Going to stop you right there. No. this thought is bad. swarms need ZERO buffing. it is not at any point being suggested.
Sorry I meant Pythons.
If they make the current swarms anti tank and slower with the already mentioned idea for Anti air missiles is there a need to buff the python right off the bat?
That's reminiscent of old CCP tactics of vehicle balance of changing too many things at once and that never went over well.
As long as 4/5 (80%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP
|
|
|
| |
|