DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Normalization of AV Damage Profiles

Breakin Stuff wrote:

Bright Cloud wrote:

Breakin Stuff wrote:

Bright Cloud wrote:

What the ****?! Ratatti are you serious? Add a swarm launcher variant that rips shields apart like a hot knfie goes trough butter? We do not want to improve swarm launcher performance. Instead you should take a look at the plasma cannon which is a true shield AV weapon. So my counter proposal would be to buff the plasma cannon in those aspects:

-Change the reload time from 3.5 secs down to 2 secs
-increase projectile speed by 50%
-less falloff on the projectile to make ranged hits easier

There thats how to properly make the thing viable outiside of CQC. Reduced reload time is basically a DPS increase
(cause you need to reload each shot) and the other two make it more viable at range. You might aswell want to give flux grenades a sticky function. No homing just when you hit a vehicle with it they stick to it, it would aswell enhance the CQC AV performance from the gallente. Get up close, throw 2 flux that stick on a gunnlogi and when they set off fire your PLC.

A swarm yhat melts shields is going to have a ***** of a time killing an incubus.

You do realise that the proposed swarm launcher in question will only be a variant. So every 1 with a half working brain will have two fits.

1. that melts shields
2. that melts armor

Or you go ultimate scrub warrior, sit on a rooftop with a commando and have 2 swarm launchers. So he can shot at any vehicle that comes in range with the matching weapon.

How are you going to react if Rattati introduces a heavy AV laser weapon? That will incinerate python shields. Same thing. Shield vehicles need weapons that will crack them open as much as armor vehicles do.

As long as 4/5 (80%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 8 post(s)
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9736	Posted - 2015.03.05 19:41:00 - [1] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: So you would want to swap to a shield swarm and back to an armor swarm as AV infantry? Yes, because that's what this game is all about. For every action you do there are positive and negative consequences. If I choose to pull out a weapon that's good against shields then I'm making the choice to not do as much damage to armor. It makes the game, diverse, unique and above all it gets rid of the "one man army feel" all these generic FPS games are suffering from now. I'm not understanding the issue of having to switch between an Anti armor AV and Anti shield AV? Do we not already have to do this when we make the choice between laser rifle and combat rifle? Large Missiles and Large Blasters? If the issue is players not understanding damage profile's its because they never squad up with other players so thus they stay in their bubble of DUST ignorance which is sadly amplified by the fact that this game does not describe a lot to new players. This game needs to do better with in game descriptions and statistics before we assume that DUST players can't grasp the simple concept of opportunity cost. Example: A corp mate of mine, who is very good and very intelligent in this game didn't know that the weakspot of the dropship is the thrusters on the side until very recently. A lot of Casual DUST players don't even know that vehicles have a weakspot. If the issue is lack of anti shield AV weapons then I really don't see why you'd cause yourself and even bigger headache down the line of neutralizing damage profiles when we could add a variant of laser that does damage to vehicles (but you have to keep the laser on the target for X amount of time) or just add in Variants of Swarm launchers that deal different types of damage which is not "un-lorey" in anyway. *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 9737	Posted - 2015.03.05 20:14:00 - [2] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Bright Cloud wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Bright Cloud wrote: What the **?! Ratatti are you serious? Add a swarm launcher variant that rips shields apart like a hot knfie goes trough butter? We do not want to improve swarm launcher performance. Instead you should take a look at the plasma cannon which is a true shield AV weapon. So my counter proposal would be to buff the plasma cannon in those aspects: -Change the reload time from 3.5 secs down to 2 secs -increase projectile speed by 50% -less falloff on the projectile to make ranged hits easier There thats how to properly make the thing viable outiside of CQC. Reduced reload time is basically a DPS increase (cause you need to reload each shot) and the other two make it more viable at range. You might aswell want to give flux grenades a sticky function. No homing just when you hit a vehicle with it they stick to it, it would aswell enhance the CQC AV performance from the gallente. Get up close, throw 2 flux that stick on a gunnlogi and when they set off fire your PLC. A swarm yhat melts shields is going to have a * of a time killing an incubus. You do realise that the proposed swarm launcher in question will only be a variant. So every 1 with a half working brain will have two fits. 1. that melts shields 2. that melts armor Or you go ultimate scrub warrior, sit on a rooftop with a commando and have 2 swarm launchers. So he can shot at any vehicle that comes in range with the matching weapon. How are you going to react if Rattati introduces a heavy AV laser weapon? That will incinerate python shields. Same thing. Shield vehicles need weapons that will crack them open as much as armor vehicles do. Large Missiles, Small Missiles, Large Rails, Remote Explosives not to mention the other AV options. So having a swarm Missile that can do shield damage at either +10/-10 or +20/-20 while having a Heavy laser AV weapon with the already existing Plasma cannon and Large Blaster (total of 4 weapons not counting flux) is going to throw vehicles weapons off? Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not following. This just gives armor a slice of the pie that shields been eating by themselves since last build. In regards to swarms I'd like to reference what someone said earlier, that sounds more like an issue with the swarms mechanics itself and not the suit. There are plenty of AV that crack open armor right now and now we are even getting an HMG that does damage to vehicles now. The only AV I shrug off are mid- low tier plasma cannons (in low volume of course). Everything else is a threat to my Madrugar. 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 9738	Posted - 2015.03.05 20:53:00 - [3] - Quote Are you guys under the assumption that the shield variants would have the same base damage as the normal variant? No that's obviously terrible. The correct thing to do which I thought was obvious is to adjust damage accordingly to the damage profile. No one wants a laser breach forgegun doing base 2000+ damage then shield bonuses on top of that. That's like making the a laser plasma cannon variant with the same base damage but with laser profile, clearly a terrible idea for a light AV weapon that fires like a laser. Essentially what's happening is a new weapon with the same shell. New base damage, mechanics (hopefully), new profiles. *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 9738	Posted - 2015.03.05 21:06:00 - [4] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: Are you guys under the assumption that the shield variants would have the same base damage as the normal variant? No that's obviously terrible. The correct thing to do which I thought was obvious is to adjust damage accordingly to the damage profile. No one wants a laser breach forgegun doing base 2000+ damage then shield bonuses on top of that. That's like making the a laser plasma cannon variant with the same base damage but with laser profile, clearly a terrible idea for a light AV weapon that fires like a laser. Essentially what's happening is a new weapon with the same shell. New base damage, mechanics (hopefully), new profiles. variation on firing mechanics plus the profiles are critical for making weapons "feel" unique in DUST. Even if all of them have identical DPS, the firing mechanics combined with the different profiles means that none of the weapons will behave identically in all situations. that's an amazing thing. Which I would hope is what Rattati has in mind and not just a "change profile annnnnd done" attitude about it. *As long as 4/5 (80%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*