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

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] Normalization of AV Damage Profiles

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 8 post(s)
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 975	Posted - 2015.03.05 07:58:00 - [31] - Quote If there is no racial parity planned on heavy weapons in the future (and other vehicles) then I'd say go for it, as it will simplify the task of balancing. When the time comes you can re-visit the damage profiles. Having said that, buffing the forge gun and Plasma cannon will be a must to dethrone the king of AV weapons - the swarm launcher.
Jadek Menaheim Xer Cloud Consortium 5513	Posted - 2015.03.05 08:00:00 - [32] - Quote Rattati did you ever get a chance to test equipment throw distance modification with these new myofib modules active? If so, did it make a significant difference? Neckbeard for Good charity shave
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 304	Posted - 2015.03.05 08:00:00 - [33] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Not really a fan. I think it waters down the New Eden feel too much in exchange for easier to balance mechanics. Just my personal opinion. That's not the primary reason, as stated. It's user experience and completely new concepts for players coming from other fps's. Improved descritions and npe would improve this without becoming just another fps with mmo elements tacked on. Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5196	Posted - 2015.03.05 08:10:00 - [34] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: So you would want to swap to a shield swarm and back to an armor swarm as AV infantry? I currently will switch between Swarms and Plasma cannon to fit the target I'm hunting, so switching to EM swarms instead of Explosive swarms would really be no different to me personally. And the fact remains that you don't HAVE to switch, it just makes your life a lot easier if you do. The reason you see such an issue with swarms is because it has the extreme -20/+20 profile...the same thing exists with say the Mass Driver trying to fight heavily shielded enemies....you can kill them without swapping weapons, but it's just going to be a lot tougher. I mean that's kind of the thing with damage profiles, picking a more extreme one will make you extremely strong against one type and extremely weak against another. Or you can play it safe and go with a more neutral 10/10 weapon and lessen that effect on both ends. I think the main reason people struggle with the current damage profiles is because their options are so limited. Either you're suicidal with a Plasma Cannon, or forced to go with an extreme profile like swarms. If we had more viable 10/10 profile options, people could run a more 'neutral' damage profile if they're worried about having to swap weapons, and for those who dont care if they have to swap weapons, they can use the 20/20 profile ones. Now I understand what I'm saying basically boils down to "We need more AV weapon options" which may or may not be a possibility, but I am trying to illustrate what I feel the real underlying issue is. EDIT: Additionally as a sidebar as an improvement to player understanding of damage profiles...a small blurb on the weapon attribute info screen outlining what type of damage and what modifiers it has, would go a long way in helping people better understand profiles. If you wanted to get really fancy, you could list out the damage for both vs armor and vs shields on either the weapon screen or the fitting screen. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
LOOKMOM NOHANDS Warpoint Sharx 86	Posted - 2015.03.05 08:11:00 - [35] - Quote I like the idea overall as balance becomes far easier to achieve. I am concerned that there are too many changes going on at once with the changes to vehicle HP and reps being changed as well. I really think thos should come with the notice that there will be an accelerated hotfix cycle specific to damage numbers and vehicle HP.
WeapondigitX V7 The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 237	Posted - 2015.03.05 08:12:00 - [36] - Quote I like the idea of infantry AV having more simple damage profiles (100% against armor and shields). It makes things more simple and easier for players to combat vehicles with armor killing weapons while not needing to rely on other players for shield AV weapons and vise versa. However I dont think changing the damage profiles of turrets, such as large and small rail turrets and blaster turrets, would improve the user experience. It would devalue to uniqueness of fitting difference between enemies. If a person does badly in a vehicles fight, they can partially rely on there fitting abilities/resistances to help them win the fight. If you change the damage profile of turrets then there is less incentive and value in using a particular fitting over another at medium ranges where blasters and rails can be used well (80m).
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7523	Posted - 2015.03.05 08:53:00 - [37] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Avallo Kantor wrote: Agreed with Pokey, players learning this game already will have to become familiar with damage profiles and having exceptions to the rule will hurt overall learning as the players will have to learn the rules (for infantry) and exceptions (vs vehicles) My main concern there is that the overall complexity will increase, not decrease, due to players already having to learn the rules, and then having to learn additional exception rules. Ex: Current Learning Load: Weapon Profiles vs Shields and Armor Proposed Learning Load: Weapon Profiles vs Shields and Armor, Except for Weapons X, Y, Z. That said, without the weapon line up to justify it, the imbalance of Shield vs Armor tanks will always be unbalanced while there exist a large disparity between means to fight 'vs shields' against 'vs armor'. So for the current meta game balance, I think this approach would be more beneficial, but long term (assuming new weapons to balance numbers out long term) the damage profiles should remain. Indeed. I mean if the concern is player understanding, I don't think dumbing it down is the right way to go. I mean we saw this with CCP Z's plan for character progression in Legion where he basically stripped out much of the freedom we have in the skill system for a dumber more linear system like every other game has, simply because "Its too hard to understand". That was met with massive backlash because it stripped away a lot of what made the New Eden experience interesting. I think this falls under a similar context in that if the issue is that damage profiles are difficult for new players to understand, I don't feel the best choice is to simply get rid of them, but rather make them easier to understand through proper documentation and explanation. I understand this takes additional resources to do, but at the same time a change that gets the desired effect, is not always the best choice if a better choice also accomplishes the same goal. And like Avallo pointed out, adding exceptions to rules actually increases the learning curve, rather than decreasing it. Additionally as for the benefit of faster balance iterations, I believe that in most cases you should assume neutral damage when it comes to calculating overall DPS. Damage profile (obviously with some minor adjustments) works itself out in the end. Some weapons will simply work better against certain targets than others....that's how all weapons in this game work, infantry and AV alike. I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask someone to bring the right tool to get the job done either. I mean if I have a Laser Rifle and come up against a heavily armored unit...I'm going to get my ass kicked because I didn't have the right tool for the job. I don't see why AV needs to be different. I understand what you're trying to accomplish and I think it's a noble cause...but I think you're going about it the wrong way. So you would want to swap to a shield swarm and back to an armor swarm as AV infantry? Actually rattati if you're willing I have stat proposals for an amarr light AV weapon to use with either the scrambler rifle or the laser rifle asset. I have a proposal for an autocannon as well using the assault HMG Asset. A scrambler lance for a golden forge gun asset And a plasma mortar for use with the shotgun asset. While I hardly expect you to use my numbers exactly I believe the mechanics and design philosophy should do well. Filling out the roles is, in my honest opinion, the best option. If you find the design ideas acceptable I can take a shot at a minmatar light AV. On the normalization of profiles, my sole issue with that is that the meta is already stagnant. I would actually prefer to have a hard time killing a gunnlogi with a forge gun if it means I can kill it better with lasers/plasma. I understand where you are coming from. But my issue is that the AV/V meta has stagnated. So my spreadsheet has been updated with proposals for all of the AV options. They are balanced with the current weapon profiles in mind. They are balanced with your current gunnlogi/madrugar/marduk/etc. Specifically so that the HAV driver will have time to retaliate or escape at his discretion if the AV gunner does not have him dead to rights. Tge forge and PLC are included in proposals. Swarms are not because I can't figure out what to change without buggering them up. In my opinion the profiles are what separate the weapons and make a VAST difference. If you simply took a 500 DPS AV weapon and you balance them at 500 you can have wild variations of firing mechanics. But they are effectively the same weapon. Tack on a laser or projectile profile and you suddenly have a unique weapon that fills a solid role. If you have to change the profiles please introduce new guns anyway. The AV meta is srstagnant because there is no variety. AV
Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL 438	Posted - 2015.03.05 09:11:00 - [38] - Quote Pokey said (Additionally as for the benefit of faster balance iterations, I believe that in most cases you should assume neutral damage when it comes to calculating overall DPS. Damage profile (obviously with some minor adjustments) works itself out in the end. Some weapons will simply work better against certain targets than others....that's how all weapons in this game work, infantry and AV alike. I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask someone to bring the right tool to get the job done either. I mean if I have a Laser Rifle and come up against a heavily armored unit...I'm going to get my ass kicked because I didn't have the right tool for the job. I don't see why AV needs to be different.) Luther say's Hmm the Laser Rifle sucks ,Amarr commando sucks hate to say it but their weapons explode damaging themselves. My Amarr frigate lasers haven't exploded in Eve yet ,Why have them explode in dust.If being like Eve is smart what happened to Amarr?
Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL 438	Posted - 2015.03.05 09:16:00 - [39] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, after a lot of thought on this issue, I want to get your feedback. Those I have asked, have unanimously supported the idea. I started thinking about the complexity of adding shield swarm missiles, plus the negative effect on new player understanding of the damage profile mechanics leading me to the concept of: The total normalization of AV profiles. I.E. Weapons just apply an X% damage against vehicles. This was done for the first time for Nova Knives with no real issues. I.E. Assault Rifles = zero % Forgegun = 100% Possibly in near future Breach Mass Driver = 75% Flaylock Pistol = 50% Nova Knifes = 50% (this is the current case) Pros Veteran Experience improved, no need to swap between shield AV and Armor AV Theoretical balancing of AV becomes much easier Authoring on CCP side becomes easier, allowing more rapid iteration on AV-V balance New Player Experience massively improved Eliminates the current imbalance due to faction AV parity Cons Lore Complexity I believe that an FPS in New Eden should not import overly burdensome game design philosophies, at the cost of enjoyable gameplay, and I think this is one of those cases. Keep it constructive and civil, just say yeah/nay and why So if AV = Anti Vehicle would that also include Turrets on vehicles ? ps CCP Rattili I am ok with trying anything as many times as it takes.You have my vote.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17934	Posted - 2015.03.05 09:19:00 - [40] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Avallo Kantor wrote: Agreed with Pokey, players learning this game already will have to become familiar with damage profiles and having exceptions to the rule will hurt overall learning as the players will have to learn the rules (for infantry) and exceptions (vs vehicles) My main concern there is that the overall complexity will increase, not decrease, due to players already having to learn the rules, and then having to learn additional exception rules. Ex: Current Learning Load: Weapon Profiles vs Shields and Armor Proposed Learning Load: Weapon Profiles vs Shields and Armor, Except for Weapons X, Y, Z. That said, without the weapon line up to justify it, the imbalance of Shield vs Armor tanks will always be unbalanced while there exist a large disparity between means to fight 'vs shields' against 'vs armor'. So for the current meta game balance, I think this approach would be more beneficial, but long term (assuming new weapons to balance numbers out long term) the damage profiles should remain. Indeed. I mean if the concern is player understanding, I don't think dumbing it down is the right way to go. I mean we saw this with CCP Z's plan for character progression in Legion where he basically stripped out much of the freedom we have in the skill system for a dumber more linear system like every other game has, simply because "Its too hard to understand". That was met with massive backlash because it stripped away a lot of what made the New Eden experience interesting. I think this falls under a similar context in that if the issue is that damage profiles are difficult for new players to understand, I don't feel the best choice is to simply get rid of them, but rather make them easier to understand through proper documentation and explanation. I understand this takes additional resources to do, but at the same time a change that gets the desired effect, is not always the best choice if a better choice also accomplishes the same goal. And like Avallo pointed out, adding exceptions to rules actually increases the learning curve, rather than decreasing it. Additionally as for the benefit of faster balance iterations, I believe that in most cases you should assume neutral damage when it comes to calculating overall DPS. Damage profile (obviously with some minor adjustments) works itself out in the end. Some weapons will simply work better against certain targets than others....that's how all weapons in this game work, infantry and AV alike. I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask someone to bring the right tool to get the job done either. I mean if I have a Laser Rifle and come up against a heavily armored unit...I'm going to get my ass kicked because I didn't have the right tool for the job. I don't see why AV needs to be different. I understand what you're trying to accomplish and I think it's a noble cause...but I think you're going about it the wrong way. So you would want to swap to a shield swarm and back to an armor swarm as AV infantry? Actually rattati if you're willing I have stat proposals for an amarr light AV weapon to use with either the scrambler rifle or the laser rifle asset. I have a proposal for an autocannon as well using the assault HMG Asset. A scrambler lance for a golden forge gun asset And a plasma mortar for use with the shotgun asset. While I hardly expect you to use my numbers exactly I believe the mechanics and design philosophy should do well. Filling out the roles is, in my honest opinion, the best option. If you find the design ideas acceptable I can take a shot at a minmatar light AV. On the normalization of profiles, my sole issue with that is that the meta is already stagnant. I would actually prefer to have a hard time killing a gunnlogi with a forge gun if it means I can kill it better with lasers/plasma. I understand where you are coming from. But my issue is that the AV/V meta has stagnated. So my spreadsheet has been updated with proposals for all of the AV options. They are balanced with the current weapon profiles in mind. They are balanced with your current gunnlogi/madrugar/marduk/etc. Specifically so that the HAV driver will have time to retaliate or escape at his discretion if the AV gunner does not have him dead to rights. Tge forge and PLC are included in proposals. Swarms are not because I can't figure out what to change without buggering them up. In my opinion the profiles are what separate the weapons and make a VAST difference. If you simply took a 500 DPS AV weapon and you balance them at 500 you can have wild variations of firing mechanics. But they are effectively the same weapon. Tack on a laser or projectile profile and you suddenly have a unique weapon that fills a solid role. If you have to change the profiles please introduce new guns anyway. The AV meta is srstagnant because there is no variety. will absolutely try "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL 438	Posted - 2015.03.05 09:22:00 - [41] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Grimmiers wrote: I had a trello card about making the laser rifle and mass driver viable av weapons for min and amarr. A breach laser rifle that has a clip size of 50 with a faster overheat would be worth it the damage to vehicles was upped. It might even make the amarr commando more viable. I'm actually against normalizing av weapons even with missing assets. I think it would be nice to make current assets fill the place similar to the assault hmg being a potential av weapon. Yep, those could be cool as well. Overheating weapons for increased damage in Eve maybe that is happening when the laser rifle explodes can we get plus damage right before it explodes hmm?
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5197	Posted - 2015.03.05 09:26:00 - [42] - Quote Luther Mandrix wrote: Pokey said (Additionally as for the benefit of faster balance iterations, I believe that in most cases you should assume neutral damage when it comes to calculating overall DPS. Damage profile (obviously with some minor adjustments) works itself out in the end. Some weapons will simply work better against certain targets than others....that's how all weapons in this game work, infantry and AV alike. I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask someone to bring the right tool to get the job done either. I mean if I have a Laser Rifle and come up against a heavily armored unit...I'm going to get my ass kicked because I didn't have the right tool for the job. I don't see why AV needs to be different.) Luther say's Hmm the Laser Rifle sucks ,Amarr commando sucks hate to say it but their weapons explode damaging themselves. My Amarr frigate lasers haven't exploded in Eve yet ,Why have them explode in dust.If being like Eve is smart what happened to Amarr? Im not really sure what that has to do with what I said... "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 12108	Posted - 2015.03.05 09:30:00 - [43] - Quote Not a fan of this, but I won't complain if you do this. Support 'Keshava' for the new Gallente HAV name in honor of Cat Merc's cat which recently passed away.
Jadek Menaheim Xer Cloud Consortium 5516	Posted - 2015.03.05 09:32:00 - [44] - Quote I gladly look forward to players being able to provide weapon support from the top of dropships. It'll be easier for a scout at least to jump on a landed dropship according to your earlier remarks on jump height. First squad to run 5 PLC scouts on a dropship will have all my love and adoration. Neckbeard for Good charity shave
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7523	Posted - 2015.03.05 09:36:00 - [45] - Quote Wait a minute. Am I fundamentally missing a modifier here? All of my numbers on the forge gun for example assume a base 100% damage to all vehicles, which is further modified by the railgun profile, skills and damage mods. Is there another modifier in there which I am unaware of? Or are you speaking of eliminating the rail profile? AV
Haerr Nos Nothi 2435	Posted - 2015.03.05 09:55:00 - [46] - Quote nay and why
Greiv Rabbah M.T.A.C Assault Operations Command Lokun Listamenn 145	Posted - 2015.03.05 09:59:00 - [47] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, after a lot of thought on this issue, I want to get your feedback. Those I have asked, have unanimously supported the idea. I started thinking about the complexity of adding shield swarm missiles, plus the negative effect on new player understanding of the damage profile mechanics leading me to the concept of: The total normalization of AV profiles. I.E. Weapons just apply an X% damage against vehicles. This was done for the first time for Nova Knives with no real issues. I.E. Assault Rifles = zero % Forgegun = 100% Possibly in near future Breach Mass Driver = 75% Flaylock Pistol = 50% Nova Knifes = 50% (this is the current case) Pros Veteran Experience improved, no need to swap between shield AV and Armor AV Theoretical balancing of AV becomes much easier Authoring on CCP side becomes easier, allowing more rapid iteration on AV-V balance New Player Experience massively improved Eliminates the current imbalance due to faction AV parity Cons Lore Complexity I believe that an FPS in New Eden should not import overly burdensome game design philosophies, at the cost of enjoyable gameplay, and I think this is one of those cases. Keep it constructive and civil, just say yeah/nay and why Difficult to just yea/nay this. I'd say yea to shield swarms I.e. separate the rockets and the launcher. Kinetic/explosive/plasma/em warheads to give a racial variety on rockets. But nay to making swarms a flat damage to vehicles. This works for the can opener, sure, because its always been even damage to shields/armor, but I think av is advanced enough gameplay that you should understand damage profiles before you start piloting or fighting vehicles. Yea to making mass drivers FINALLY av again, nay to leaving out almost every mass driver when you do it(reason: lore) Yea to flaylock finally becomingban av sidearm, please also add lock-on flaylock for av cqc(reason:also lore) I think oversimplifying av will be detrimental to gameplay in the same way oversimplifying vehicles was. There was all this talk about new vehicles, and then most of our vehicles got taken away instead to oversimplify in the name of balance. Now you've been talking bringing vehicles back and adding (at least heavy)av weapons, but then backpedal into the realm of oversimplifying av. Dangerous territory I think. Hopefully you can pick some good stuff from this post but however you decide to handle it, please remember that cutting av to bare essentials like CCP cut vehicles down to bare essentials will hurt a lot of people Sebiestor scout, MTAC pilot, Merc w/ a face
Iria Gren Liquid Swords 115	Posted - 2015.03.05 10:24:00 - [48] - Quote at the risk of repeating others there is a simple fix to the "new player learning curve" with the proposed changes, put ALL useful information in the weapon profile including damage type, damage profile, av property's, optimum range, fall off curve, and absolute range. then weapons are not mysteries like "your kidding the shotgun is hybrid blaster and the forge gun is a rail!" or "wow the assault rife is useless at 55 meters" simple and useful for all players
Jebus McKing Nos Nothi 1625	Posted - 2015.03.05 10:27:00 - [49] - Quote Complexity is good. Complexity is why I play DUST and not "modern military shooter X". Complexity is DUST's strength, not a burden tacked on because it is set in New Eden. I'd rather want to see all weapon damage profiles to matter even more than they do now than seeing this mechanic being watered down. Rewarding those who put thought into bringing the right weapon/communicating with their teammates to bring the right combination of weapons is more important than making it easier for new players for those few weeks when they actually are new players. But, if something is as complex as DUST it also needs proper explanation. After almost 3 years we still don't even have the weapon damage profiles displayed in the triangle weapon info screens (same goes for weapon ranges ). At least make some helpful loading screens with information about how the weapon damage profiles affect damage vs shield/armor. Instead of making a shield AV swarmlauncher, can't we just make a PLC with a lock-on mechanic to counter LAV/Dropships? Or, even better, make it a laser guided missile like the rocketlauncher in Half-Life 1. Jebus hates scans.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1022	Posted - 2015.03.05 10:27:00 - [50] - Quote Not a fan. Dust 514's elevator pitch is "Sci-Fi lobbyshooter with consumable loadouts and weapon profiles". This should not be changed. If you think the effect of weapon profiles is too large (a laser does 50% more damage to shields than to armor) I could see a reduction in the amplitude of weapon profiles. Plasma could become 95/105, Rail 105/95, Laser 90/110 and Projectile 107.5/92.5. However I definitely want to keep the mechanic. I have no sympathies for lore-consistency between Eve and Dust. But damage profiles are as relevant to Dust as consumable items.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7524	Posted - 2015.03.05 10:49:00 - [51] - Quote Iria Gren wrote: at the risk of repeating others there is a simple fix to the "new player learning curve" with the proposed changes, put ALL useful information in the weapon profile including damage type, damage profile, av property's, optimum range, fall off curve, and absolute range. then weapons are not mysteries like "your kidding the shotgun is hybrid blaster and the forge gun is a rail!" or "wow the assault rife is useless at 55 meters" simple and useful for all players I have to agree here. I realize that there is already a case of information overload going on here but things like the damage profiles are simply not listed or explained anywhere except on the forums. There's a lot of weapon statistics that aren't shown which are critical to understanding what's going on. Example: a lot of forge gunners were unaware there was a full second refire delay which pauses your shots. That isn't listed antwhere but the code. And that one second added in uprising combined with the rate of fire nerfs to forge guns really kicked the butt of heavy AV. It's one of the reasons swarms are more common use. AV
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 651	Posted - 2015.03.05 11:17:00 - [52] - Quote After reading through all the responses, I feel I have to make a u-turn on this topic. So Nay... The reason is (as stated by many others) the current lack of AV variation makes the it hard to balance, we get that. We simply don't have enough options when dealing with vehicles. Instead of adjusting the system to fit the available options, focus should be to increase the options to fit the system.
LudiKure ninda Dead Man's Game RUST415 216	Posted - 2015.03.05 11:47:00 - [53] - Quote This is bad,..right now Swarms are raping my python,cant stand more than 3 volley, from normal one,..I dont wanna even say what wirkomy swarms on minmando can do to my python... And it seems that they hawe too long lock on range,and they follow you forewer.. And 4 shield tank,.without hardner wirkomy swarms on minmando are gonna kill it almost as fast as armor tank.. I really hope that something is gonna be fixed with minmando and swarms,.chause that thing is superoverkill... And now youre gonna add shield swarms,.. oh my god ( -í° -£-û -í°) `SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED`
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1824	Posted - 2015.03.05 12:21:00 - [54] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I.E. Assault Rifles = zero % Forgegun = 100% Possibly in near future Breach Mass Driver = 75% Flaylock Pistol = 50% Nova Knifes = 50% (this is the current case) Let the small arms have their minimal effectiveness vs vehicles UNLESS removal would lighten the load on the engine. It's very cool to have squad leader yell "small arms on the tank - he's about to go down!" MD and Flaylock can have effectiveness, they are ridiculously low compared to the previous lore/design intent, although the can be changed if the devs will it so. CCP Rattati wrote: Pros ~~Veteran Experience improved, no need to swap between shield AV and Armor AV~~ Theoretical balancing of AV becomes much easier Authoring on CCP side becomes easier, allowing more rapid iteration on AV-V balance ~~New Player Experience massively improved~~ Eliminates the current imbalance due to faction AV parity Cons ~~Lore~~ Complexity Fixed those. Those +/- 20% have no effect on the veteran nor the junior experience AV is AV and the sheer damage output and projection method surpass the damage profiles tenfold in importance. (A case where it has too great an effect is Large Missiles turrets versus armor HAVs, but that's because the missiles are slightly OP themselves and that is the reason, not the damage profile) If someone claims profiles are confusing, it's no bigger barrier than wondering "oh my forge shot did that much damage to than Gunnlogi, but took only that small chunk out of Madrugar's health" and then realising "aah the Maddie has more total HP, that's why it's health bar changed less" + Pros: Makes balancing the vehicles themselves easier as they are more comparable (a mirror from ease of AV balance) My answer is Yes, go ahead and remove damage profiles per tanking type BUT consider using them between vehicle types (would make balancing the AV weps that are used to hit all LAVs, HAVs, and dropships far easier) Looking at both sides of the coin. Even Aurum one.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1824	Posted - 2015.03.05 12:25:00 - [55] - Quote Iria Gren wrote: at the risk of repeating others there is a simple fix to the "new player learning curve" with the proposed changes, put ALL useful information in the weapon profile including damage type, damage profile, av property's, optimum range, fall off curve, and absolute range. then weapons are not mysteries like "your kidding the shotgun is hybrid blaster and the forge gun is a rail!" or "wow the assault rife is useless at 55 meters" simple and useful for all players THIS ^ is by far one of the greatest barriers of player entry beyond the first test period of the game. Even as basic thing as weapon range requires quite a lot of forums searching (on a console game!) and even then it's a tedious task to make sure it is the latest info (as forums posts don't sadly include the current build live at the time of the posting) Heck, even I was trying to search for sniper rifle info and the only thing I found was preliminary suggestion, nothing final. And I knew roughly what time period to search. Looking at both sides of the coin. Even Aurum one.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7525	Posted - 2015.03.05 12:31:00 - [56] - Quote LudiKure ninda wrote: This is bad,..right now Swarms are raping my python,cant stand more than 3 volley, from normal one,..I dont wanna even say what wirkomy swarms on minmando can do to my python... And it seems that they hawe too long lock on range,and they follow you forewer.. And 4 shield tank,.without hardner wirkomy swarms on minmando are gonna kill it almost as fast as armor tank.. I really hope that something is gonna be fixed with minmando and swarms,.chause that thing is superoverkill... And now youre gonna add shield swarms,.. oh my god the minmando bonus would no longer apply to swarms. This is not a buff to the minmando. AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7525	Posted - 2015.03.05 12:34:00 - [57] - Quote Page 3 and all the posts. Are lacking in vitriol. Can we do this more often? It's kinda neat. AV
LudiKure ninda Dead Man's Game RUST415 216	Posted - 2015.03.05 12:36:00 - [58] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: This is bad,..right now Swarms are raping my python,cant stand more than 3 volley, from normal one,..I dont wanna even say what wirkomy swarms on minmando can do to my python... And it seems that they hawe too long lock on range,and they follow you forewer.. And 4 shield tank,.without hardner wirkomy swarms on minmando are gonna kill it almost as fast as armor tank.. I really hope that something is gonna be fixed with minmando and swarms,.chause that thing is superoverkill... And now youre gonna add shield swarms,.. oh my god the minmando bonus would no longer apply to swarms. This is not a buff to the minmando. I hope so,.. ( -í° -£-û -í°) `SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED`
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7525	Posted - 2015.03.05 12:43:00 - [59] - Quote LudiKure ninda wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: This is bad,..right now Swarms are raping my python,cant stand more than 3 volley, from normal one,..I dont wanna even say what wirkomy swarms on minmando can do to my python... And it seems that they hawe too long lock on range,and they follow you forewer.. And 4 shield tank,.without hardner wirkomy swarms on minmando are gonna kill it almost as fast as armor tank.. I really hope that something is gonna be fixed with minmando and swarms,.chause that thing is superoverkill... And now youre gonna add shield swarms,.. oh my god the minmando bonus would no longer apply to swarms. This is not a buff to the minmando. I hope so,.. Minmando gets an explosive buff. If the new swarms crack shields it means the ammando with it'cataclysmic ONE damage mod or the gallente commando with it's superamazing ONE damage mod. AV
Stormblade Green KnightKiller's inc. 34	Posted - 2015.03.05 13:01:00 - [60] - Quote I have to disagree.... 1) because drop ship pilots will whine some more about their counter. Swarms. One might say... I'm very skilled... yet I'm his apprentice... So what does that say about my mentor?



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.