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)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17886	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:21:00 - [1] - Quote 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 "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

David Spd Caldari State 179	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:26:00 - [2] - Quote If this is gonna be a thing, there needs to be clear and concise explanation SOMEWHERE in the game. I am somewhat neutral to the idea in general, but I do think that the game simply does not educate players at all, and this is a real problem. Every six months or so CCP needs to go over what features are staying (and viewed "core" to the gameplay experience) and introduce them through the "new player experience". Either that or make an in-game guide that explains the game in detail. Something. ANYTHING. --> I'm a closed beta vet; I just don't post often <-- "Other people just complicate my life." ~Solid Snake
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2579	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:28:00 - [3] - Quote I disagree, because the different weapons having different profiles is what makes the weapons unique. However, if we are unable to get shield AV (as in +20/-20) this would be a decent if not ideal solution. Are we ever to get a new weapon for Dust? If not, this solution might be good with some tweaks. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5189	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:31:00 - [4] - Quote 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 little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17887	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:34:00 - [5] - Quote 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. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

thehellisgoingon MONSTER SYNERGY 306	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:35:00 - [6] - Quote Nay. There are known issues that should be fixed before adding more content to the game.
Major IMPACT Dead Man's Game RUST415 93	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:35:00 - [7] - Quote Re-introduce the vehicles first, then we'll see from there.
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2580	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:37:00 - [8] - Quote 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. I agree, but in the absence of proper shield AV, this might have to do until Legion. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 651	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:39:00 - [9] - Quote Yeah, go for it! (To have several versions of the same weapon to deal shield or armour damage just sounds silly, and confusing...). But as previously mentioned in this thread, we need to know (in-game) which weapons deal damage to vehicles, and by how much. If it really is as simple as a single percentage, perhaps we can show it in the fitting window somehow?
Necron Animus Mantodea MC 8	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:39:00 - [10] - Quote I like it time to wreck tanks with my PLC

CeeJ Mantis Mantodea MC 153	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:41:00 - [11] - Quote Will proficiency still work as it is now, or be adjusted to work like the nova knives (though likely with a lower percentage increase per level.)? In general, I like this idea as it means that you don't have to skill into so many things to be effective against different vehicles. Longest plasma cannon kill: 236.45m
anaboop NECROM0NGERS 159	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:41:00 - [12] - Quote My shield glasses shattered when i read this. Does that mean shield based AV will do less damage to shields due to profile decrease? Fully sick Anaboop trading card
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4660	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:43:00 - [13] - Quote If it's possible to revisit this when/if we do reach AV parity I think this would be reasonable. For AV weapons what happens to proficiency skills? Also with this change what happens to commando bonuses? Maybe commandos just get +X% damage bonus per level to light AV weapons as part of the role? Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 3091	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:47:00 - [14] - Quote I only agree because we don't have AV racial parody. However, I'm sure Pythons are going to need a slight buff to HP (500-750 I'd imagine; perhaps shield LAVs and STD DSs as well). As things are, 3-4 swarm shots virtually guarantee a kill, and that's with the -20% damage profile. I also think armor tanks will be much more resilient, but perhaps this is a good thing since they seem to be underperforming as is. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5189	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:48:00 - [15] - 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. Fair enough but do they not have to understand the same concepts while fighting infantry? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 7269	Posted - 2015.03.05 06:02:00 - [16] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: just say yeah/nay and why Yeah. Agree with your pros. Can think of no cons. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 329	Posted - 2015.03.05 06:39:00 - [17] - 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 You should up the standard mass driver efficiency up too... Molestia approved
Avallo Kantor 484	Posted - 2015.03.05 06:44:00 - [18] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. Fair enough but do they not have to understand the same concepts while fighting infantry? I suppose I would rather we have better explanations in-game about damage profiles in general, rather than move away from them completely (at least for AV). 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.
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2581	Posted - 2015.03.05 06:47:00 - [19] - Quote Will ask again, are new weapons on the horizon or are we staying with what we already have? I think many veteran's opinions on this change hinge on the answer to this question. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 215	Posted - 2015.03.05 07:06:00 - [20] - Quote as an interim solution until such time as we get full racial parity in AV weapons I like it... and even then, if it is more fun to have it stick around (at least on some weapons)...then by all means...(for instance, making swarm launchers deal just damage...since it is the "new player friendly" weapon system...) I like stuff that goes along with the lore as much as possible...additionally, players are going to learn about damage types anyway (From how infantry weapons interact)...but I can see the frustration in not being able to kill an Armor Tank when all you have is a laser weapon...or a shield tank when all you have is an explosive weapon... Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal

Raffael-Puma Austria Storm.Fighters E.B.O.L.A. 3	Posted - 2015.03.05 07:11:00 - [21] - Quote Rattati, why do you every time want to touch/change a running system? Set -30 schield damage from swarmlauncher, like in uprising 1.7! I think we need 4-6-8 rockets, with a not so high damage as now and test event for intelligent swarms! Please make that remote explosives only can damage HAVs, they destroy fully the gameplay! Before we need shield bonus swarm we need a HMG for every rass or hybrid HMG (-0/+0__20.5dps) Please think about your "crazy" ideas and make the game more playable, than you have time to Test some thinks, but for now please set AV like Uprising 1.7 with higher AV-granades damage and 3 not 2 and then we can see if we need some changes! I hate all Updates after Uprising 1.7 and the RailRifle nerf! Only selfrepair is cool, but havy need more HP/s
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5193	Posted - 2015.03.05 07:15:00 - [22] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2279	Posted - 2015.03.05 07:17:00 - [23] - Quote I dislike this, makes it a bit too easy for one weapon to be 'the best' or simply just too useful. Why would I carry a swarm if the plc does the same thing but can also be shot at infantry? Why carry a forge when it's numerically inferior and I could use a commando instead? Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Grimmiers 810	Posted - 2015.03.05 07:34:00 - [24] - Quote 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.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17922	Posted - 2015.03.05 07:37:00 - [25] - Quote 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? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Fizzer XCIV Tal-Romon Legion Amarr Empire 2490	Posted - 2015.03.05 07:40:00 - [26] - Quote Is this just trying to avoid adding in Laser AV? Home at Last <3
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 396	Posted - 2015.03.05 07:49:00 - [27] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Pokey stuff Agreed, the problem is not "this game is complex", it's that none of this complexity is explained in game ADS Ramming Revenge! Plasma Cannon Rampage
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 396	Posted - 2015.03.05 07:52:00 - [28] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Rattati stuff You grin and bare the suboptimal position, or pair your av grenades with the opposite profile. Light av is for getting close! ADS Ramming Revenge! Plasma Cannon Rampage

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17925	Posted - 2015.03.05 07:55:00 - [29] - Quote 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. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Sinboto Simmons Dead Man's Game RUST415 7873	Posted - 2015.03.05 07:57:00 - [30] - Quote actually that's an interesting idea, the ability to swap ammunition fired is something many have been asking for, imagine a Mass Driver that could swap between shield and armor damag. (Would probably want to set a cooldown on that though) Sinboto - The True Blood Minja Forum Warrior level 5 Prof 2 Born of the Brutor tribe

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?

shaman oga Dead Man's Game 4097	Posted - 2015.03.05 13:16:00 - [61] - Quote Not like it a lot. Despite being easier to understand, there would be no advantage in running shield or armor vehicles. I would prefer to have more AV weapons. Question: how would you change proficiency? Milk my barge > Acquire Key > Open mistery box > quit Dust514
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 376	Posted - 2015.03.05 13:18:00 - [62] - Quote I like the removal of damage profiles for simplicity of programming.... fine for forges and plc... It would be a 20% damage buff to swarms vs shield vehicles, which seems pretty insane... Gives ALL suits the maxed minmando damage buff to swarms vs SHIELDS, plus an additional 10%. Pythons will be in pretty bad shape, armor tanks and incubus will have their tiny sheilds stripped very fast. Swarms doing less damage to armor is very welcome as they rendered armor useless. Would recommend a damage balance pass on swarms first due to simplicity of locking target. Breach mass driver i could see at 50%... it's quite a bit of damage for a spam weapon, don't really want a return of Flaylock/massdriver spam with all these indoor maps. Flaylock at 25% or less.. same reason... why use anything other than flaylock if you can blow up tanks and dropships with it... pre-emptive spam avoidance vote. The worry with this is that 90% of a team spamming flaylocks at a tank will get old fast. Funny for a day or two though. Nova Knives are fine.. you have to get close and chances are tank will drive away from you
Stormblade Green KnightKiller's inc. 35	Posted - 2015.03.05 13:20:00 - [63] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I like the removal of damage profiles for simplicity of programming.... fine for forges and plc... It would be a 20% damage buff to swarms vs shield vehicles, which seems pretty insane... Gives ALL suits the maxed minmando damage buff to swarms vs SHIELDS, plus an additional 10%. Pythons will be in pretty bad shape, armor tanks and incubus will have their tiny sheilds stripped very fast. Swarms doing less damage to armor is very welcome as they rendered armor useless. Would recommend a damage balance pass on swarms first due to simplicity of locking target. Breach mass driver i could see at 50%... it's quite a bit of damage for a spam weapon, don't really want a return of Flaylock/massdriver spam with all these indoor maps. Flaylock at 25% or less.. same reason... why use anything other than flaylock if you can blow up tanks and dropships with it... pre-emptive spam avoidance vote. The worry with this is that 90% of a team spamming flaylocks at a tank will get old fast. Funny for a day or two though. Nova Knives are fine.. you have to get close and chances are tank will drive away from you Case in point. One might say... I'm very skilled... yet I'm his apprentice... So what does that say about my mentor?
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 6069	Posted - 2015.03.05 13:45:00 - [64] - Quote There is good complexity and there is bad complexity. Good Complexity adds a depth of interest to the game where you feel like you can gain an advantage by knowing the mechanics better than the next guy. Good complexity makes a sub mechanic of the game into a mini game of its own, and is fun. Bad Complexity just makes mechanics hard to understand, annoying, or aggravatingly inefficient, and leads to more work than fun. In the case of Damage Profiles on AV weapons I believe that we would have to have the full variety of vehicles and AV weapons to make Damage Profiles a fun mechanic. With only part of the complement of AV and Vehicles existing in the game, Damage Profiles are just bad complexity causing more trouble than they are worth. I say, ditch the Damage Profiles for AV for now. In the future, on DUST's next game platform, when we have a complete line of AV and Vehicles, then you can reintroduce Damage Profiles. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7525	Posted - 2015.03.05 14:48:00 - [65] - Quote Fox I'd rather recycle art assets and force feed racial parity. It's far more fun as an option. AV
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 835	Posted - 2015.03.05 15:40:00 - [66] - Quote 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. Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7526	Posted - 2015.03.05 15:47:00 - [67] - Quote 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. AV
Ku Shala UNITED MERCINARY AND PILOTS ALLIANCE 1285	Posted - 2015.03.05 16:49:00 - [68] - Quote If / until more av variety is added this is simply the best solution +1 *-¦a+ó a+ú-Æa+äla+ä (CK-0 Specialist)* Caldari Loyalist Superior technology will privale.
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 835	Posted - 2015.03.05 16:59:00 - [69] - Quote 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. Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7533	Posted - 2015.03.05 17:21:00 - [70] - Quote 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. AV

Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 5192	Posted - 2015.03.05 17:31:00 - [71] - Quote Personal opinion is to allow all weapons to do 100% damage to vehicles. AV weapons simply do more. Then allow vehicles to actively tank more. But thats just kind of my Halo mentality. I like everyone being able to focus fire on a vehicle whether they are AV or not to do damage and help bring it down. That helps the new user experience greatly, and doesn't **** off the tankers if you give them some appropriate module love. Usually banned for being too awesome.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7533	Posted - 2015.03.05 17:37:00 - [72] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: Personal opinion is to allow all weapons to do 100% damage to vehicles. AV weapons simply do more. Then allow vehicles to actively tank more. But thats just kind of my Halo mentality. I like everyone being able to focus fire on a vehicle whether they are AV or not to do damage and help bring it down. That helps the new user experience greatly, and doesn't **** off the tankers if you give them some appropriate module love. that would make tanks entirely too easy to kill, for an ISK cost that is exorbitant in a game with REALLY poor match rewards. AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7533	Posted - 2015.03.05 17:45:00 - [73] - Quote Another argument for pushing heavy weapon parity would be the ability to trade the splash resistance for a heavy weapon bonus (that applies to all of them), and a racial weapon bonus (which applies to the matching racial heavy weapon) Honestly the HP is high enough that fatties don't need resists to rifles. and unless fragmented weapons are UNGODLY powerful or the anti infantry module is game-breaking the splash resistance isn't going to be needed to fend off the vehicle turrets. Let me be blunt, the resists don't help enough on the calsent and the minsent to be worth it, and they are TOO effective on the amsent and galsent. AV
Raffael-Puma Austria Storm.Fighters E.B.O.L.A. 3	Posted - 2015.03.05 18:01:00 - [74] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Another argument for pushing heavy weapon parity would be the ability to trade the splash resistance for a heavy weapon bonus (that applies to all of them), and a racial weapon bonus (which applies to the matching racial heavy weapon) Honestly the HP is high enough that fatties don't need resists to rifles. and unless fragmented weapons are UNGODLY powerful or the anti infantry module is game-breaking the splash resistance isn't going to be needed to fend off the vehicle turrets. Let me be blunt, the resists don't help enough on the calsent and the minsent to be worth it, and they are TOO effective on the amsent and galsent. What's your problem? The hitbox is to high! The amarr havy needs 20% and the gallente needs 35% risistence at all weppons! (Knives and explosives risistence should be 90-99%!!!! I hate all Updates after Uprising 1.7! All Havy's are Underpowered! They need more Range and min. 3000HP! Want 20.5 dps!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7533	Posted - 2015.03.05 18:08:00 - [75] - Quote Raffael-Puma Austria wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Another argument for pushing heavy weapon parity would be the ability to trade the splash resistance for a heavy weapon bonus (that applies to all of them), and a racial weapon bonus (which applies to the matching racial heavy weapon) Honestly the HP is high enough that fatties don't need resists to rifles. and unless fragmented weapons are UNGODLY powerful or the anti infantry module is game-breaking the splash resistance isn't going to be needed to fend off the vehicle turrets. Let me be blunt, the resists don't help enough on the calsent and the minsent to be worth it, and they are TOO effective on the amsent and galsent. What's your problem? The hitbox is to high! The amarr havy needs 20% and the gallente needs 35% risistence at all weppons! (Knives and explosives risistence should be 90-99%!!!! Thanks for the laugh. That cheered up my day. AV
lee corwood Knights Of Ender RISE of LEGION 1189	Posted - 2015.03.05 18:29:00 - [76] - Quote David Spd wrote: If this is gonna be a thing, there needs to be clear and concise explanation SOMEWHERE in the game. I am somewhat neutral to the idea in general, but I do think that the game simply does not educate players at all, and this is a real problem. Every six months or so CCP needs to go over what features are staying (and viewed "core" to the gameplay experience) and introduce them through the "new player experience". Either that or make an in-game guide that explains the game in detail. Something. ANYTHING. It used to be like this. When I started in beta and there was no academy, there was a giant (and I mean GIANT) email that explained everything with notification windows that you could choose to never see again or re-show the next time you logged in. It explained a lot but is a horrible way to interact with your user base. We all know that as soon as we see a wall of text, our eyes glaze over. Now, academy is way dumped down and a lot of things in my opinion never explained. I find there are a lot of general content missing inside of the game itself for skills. This is a problem because it makes it easy for speculation and hard to accurately test. (for instance the charged damage of a nova knife modifier is no where to be found. Neither is headshot). Sorry to derail. Just wanted to say you might want to get a content marketing team in to redo all the content in game to be up to date with all these floating around spreadsheets that are hard to find. For this thread, I'm a yay. Knights of Ender Director Logi 4 Life \| Youtube Vids
HOLY PERFECTION UNIVERSAL C.A.R.N.A.G.E 55	Posted - 2015.03.05 18:37:00 - [77] - Quote Ha, i thing swarms are OP in general and imagine a commando with shield and armor swarms. GOOD GOD KILL US ALL WHY DONT YOU. *I WILL WIN... DESTINY*
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7534	Posted - 2015.03.05 18:40:00 - [78] - Quote HOLY PERFECTION wrote: Ha, i thing swarms are OP in general and imagine a commando with shield and armor swarms. GOOD GOD KILL US ALL WHY DONT YOU. easy to imagine. the armor swarms are the ones we have today. plus to be anti-shield they'd have to be gallente or amarr, which do about 6% less DPS than the minmando anyway. 1% less than any assault AV
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 875	Posted - 2015.03.05 19:27:00 - [79] - Quote In all fairness, the forge gun is already pretty beefy against shields... Giving it more damage against them would be horrible. The only option would be to make the damage meet in the middle, which would likely make armour vehicles the go to vehicles thanks to constant regen and higher hp. I'm no expert, but I feel the slight convenience for swarm users is not worth throwing what little balance we already have, out the window.
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9736	Posted - 2015.03.05 19:41:00 - [80] - 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*

Ghost Kaisar Negative-Feedback 10334	Posted - 2015.03.05 19:53:00 - [81] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: So you would want to swap to a shield swarm and back to an armor swarm as AV infantry? 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. For those wondering, that was me Currently listening to: Max Anarchy OST Old School Scout, watch out for the knives
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7538	Posted - 2015.03.05 20:12:00 - [82] - Quote Ghost Kaisar wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: So you would want to swap to a shield swarm and back to an armor swarm as AV infantry? 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. For those wondering, that was me I couldn't figure out where the tank weakspot was till about three months ago. I don't really ever see the BACK of a tank running in a fatsuit AV
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9737	Posted - 2015.03.05 20:14:00 - [83] - 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**
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1854	Posted - 2015.03.05 20:30:00 - [84] - 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? That's what I have to do when I'm Infantry. Why I see a 600 HP Cal Assault, I switch my RR for a ScP. I don't see why it shouldn't be the same for vehicles. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1854	Posted - 2015.03.05 20:32:00 - [85] - 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 Also, this will throw off shield tank vs AV balance heavily. Nobody uses Armor tanks because they get 3 shotted by swarms, It would be sad to see the same happen to shield vehicles. Balance Armor tanks. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17485	Posted - 2015.03.05 20:33:00 - [86] - Quote I'm relatively ambivalent to the whole affair...... but it is concerning to think that the game is getting less challenging from a technical stand point because players simply do not want to bother understanding the core mechanics of the game and new content has all but confirmed to be off the table. Good luck though, we'll see how it works out for us all. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1854	Posted - 2015.03.05 20:39:00 - [87] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: 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. P.S. We can also give each warhead swarm it's own flight characteristics. EM (laser) warheads fire at longer ranges and faster but have poor accuracy and guidance Thermal (Hybrid Plasma) is a shorter ranged, decent speed but high guidance weapon. Projectile and explosives, I lost track whether they just made vehicles missiles projectile or all missiles... Kinetic (Hybrid Rail) long range, highly accurate high guidance but somewhat low damage but you're sure to hit your target the majority of the time. Of course we only need one Anti shield variant for now if this happens but that's an idea. Listen dude, weapons that have to 20+/20- bonus towards shield absolutely destroy them to bits. This is already a thing in infantry. My 640 shield Cal Assaults shields get vaporized by a standard ScR in under a second. Not to mention, weapons like that have a 138% bonus with proficiency level 5. Forget swarms, thinking about Heavy weapons, a Laser Forgegun with proficiency 5 will have 138% efficiency vs a Normal FG that will have 126.5% efficiency. Definitely not fair for shield infantry or Tanks. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7538	Posted - 2015.03.05 20:43:00 - [88] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Listen dude, weapons that have to 20+/20- bonus towards shield absolutely destroy them to bits. This is already a thing in infantry. My 640 shield Cal Assaults shields get vaporized by a standard ScR in under a second. Not to mention, weapons like that have a 138% bonus with proficiency level 5. Forget swarms, thinking about Heavy weapons, a Laser Forgegun with proficiency 5 will have 138% efficiency vs a Normal FG that will have 126.5% efficiency. Definitely not fair for shield infantry or Tanks. That's actually why on my proposed scrambler lance weapon, holding the trigger through the overheat will do about 720 damage to a calsent's shields. And it'd still require a reload to finish the job. It's intended for the amsent, which would only have one damage mod capability AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3041	Posted - 2015.03.05 20:48:00 - [89] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Ghost Kaisar wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: So you would want to swap to a shield swarm and back to an armor swarm as AV infantry? 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. For those wondering, that was me I couldn't figure out where the tank weakspot was till about three months ago. I don't really ever see the BACK of a tank running in a fatsuit And you think you know what's best for vehicles and the game, but you obviously don't know anything about either. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9738	Posted - 2015.03.05 20:53:00 - [90] - 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*

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7538	Posted - 2015.03.05 20:55:00 - [91] - Quote 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. AV
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9738	Posted - 2015.03.05 21:06:00 - [92] - 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*
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2955	Posted - 2015.03.05 21:20:00 - [93] - Quote Oh, you must want people to call me OP. Okay, Master Splinter, challenge accepted. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Isa Lucifer Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 164	Posted - 2015.03.05 21:54:00 - [94] - Quote Nay, Just create a Guide in the new player experience part saying that information. Actually that information should be inserted in the data page of every weapon. New Eden is cool because it is complex. Because it has depth. Don't take that away. Please. Amarr Victor
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7539	Posted - 2015.03.05 22:01:00 - [95] - Quote wrong thread. need to remember to sh*tpost in the appropriate threads. AV
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 725	Posted - 2015.03.06 01:43:00 - [96] - 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. One could argue that having this sudden increase in complexity and depth -- the new concepts that we all have to adjust to -- that makes the game worth playing. That this complexity is what would keep new players that would like the highly customizable mechanics that exist today. The only thing that makes it hard for new players to learn this stuff is how NOT easy it is for new players to meet others (with mics) and talk about all this wonderful complexity. I personally think that this change will not make the experience easier as you expect, but that you should probably try it out. It may work out well and if it possible to fix AV-V then could be reintroduced in smaller stages later once the core balance is established. Assuming we want it back. We may all love it and say good riddance! Basically, worth a shot imo. EDIT: THe more I think about it, the more uncomfortable I feel. Maybe we really shouldn't....
Lupus Wolf Minmatar Republic 134	Posted - 2015.03.06 05:05:00 - [97] - Quote The only reason I would be behind this is if you eventually brought the current profiles back along with the other racial vehicles and AV weapons (Or the rest of the racial weapons, for that matter). Redundant usernames FTW *Quafe, you lied to me...* 30% Logi, 25% Tanker, 40% Dropship Pilot, 5% Drunk LAV Driver
Mad Syringe ReDust Inc. 497	Posted - 2015.03.06 14:52:00 - [98] - Quote Absolutely no to normalization of damage types... This is one of the few things that makes dust a "thinking mans Shooter"... Instead, why not make different swarms for every race... (maybe not gallente because of PLC but...) Minmatar: Nuclear warhead like in EVE, makes no difference what you fire it at, nukes everything... (just kidding, explosive is fine) Amarr: Nova launcher micro fusion warheads with the power of the sun, damage profile of the lazor. Gallente: Plasma warheads, do what it says, damage profile of all plasma weapons Caldari: Bolt charge warheads, micro rail technology ctapults a rail charge into the armor of the vehicle... damage profile as hybrid rail tech... Also +1 on showing the damage profiles AND the ranges IN GAME, It can't be, that you have to search the forums for viable information like that!!! And considering the newbs in this game, it would help them a lot more, if they had one or two gamemodes exclusively for Low SP characters, call it academy 2.0 and 3.0 with up to 5mil and up to 10 mil SP requirements... That would help new players way more than normalization of profiles!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7565	Posted - 2015.03.06 17:19:00 - [99] - Quote Do what you gotta do Rattati. I just believe that the idea will cause more headaches in the long run. Like the question of balancing shield and armor vehicles. If the type of AV hitting you doesn't matter then the only difference is armor has more hit points, shields have a higher base regen. I'm relearning to enjoy crunching numbers, but I wouldn't want to be the guy tackling that issue. AV
DUST Fiend 15951	Posted - 2015.03.06 20:15:00 - [100] - Quote You would have to normalize shield and armor HP more but it could work. Contests, Sales, Writing etc Fly Safe

Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 558	Posted - 2015.03.06 21:10:00 - [101] - Quote I can agree with removing profiles from AV / Vehicle damage -IF- when all the vehicles and AV weapons are done, we can bring profiles back and set it right. Do it so we don't have to rush and botch up the new vehicles and new AV weapons in our attempts at balancing what we already have. Know what cannot be known.
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State 1824	Posted - 2015.03.06 22:14:00 - [102] - Quote This is a bad move , to simplify this game is a major flaw in the thought process . The reason why you have the player base that you do , that's the type to be loyal in their feedback and attitude towards this game is because it's like nothing else on the market as of yet and it has it's own backdrop , in it's own universe , with it's own unique weapons and physics / mechanics , in simplifying this you make it like others on the market with only a few distinctions and you still loose in the " teaching / information " category which is a major problem in-game . Making things similar is a easy and lazy way to fix a problem of informing new and current players , also it takes a major attraction from the game which made it stand out from the rest and that's the fact that different weapons function differently with their profiles , you have to think about combo's to approach different threats which is more along the lines of a RW problem , people say that , " this is not the Real World " but if your trying to get that game emulsification you have to help to create that feeling like , " Hey , I'm really here and I'm doing this and this must be done to find this result ." ... That's what make games like The Witcher , World Of Tanks and many others that have their own lore , they get you involved in " Their Universe " and different things act differently , which produce different results . This overall " vanilla-ing " of this game wil be it's downfall because your taking away it's main feature and killing New Eden in the process because nothing but what's on paper will make it stand out , when you get on the ground ... nothing will stand out and different weapons will have similar features and produce similar results , nothing will stand out anymore . Where will the attraction be now ? You just can't get beyond the fact the a few more weapons need to be developed and just the fact that there are only two heavy weapons but four races with their own heavy , just lacks the enhancement of development . This just like the new vehicles will be nothing special but in names alone , you can't just place new skins on existing vehicles and say , " This is a Amarr HAV / Minmatar ."... because I see a Caldari or Gal HAV in-front of me . Just like trying to change the mechanics of existing weapons to catch the feeling of other races that don't have . The attempt is nice but it just seems lazy and rushed / thrown together , to keep from addressing the real issue of not having all the tools needed to get a quality result . Not a knock because you guys will do this regardless so I really don't understand " feedback " ... it's nice to hear what others think but to do nothing about concerns leave nothing accomplished by the community . Just can't get around the fact the every race needs their own weapons / vehicles and not copy and paste creations . Edit : This just seems like another case of forgoing the existing problems to include a new game mechanic that will take away from the sandbox play , we need the problems that are present erased before we introduce some or any new mechanic that's not needed like new weapons , weapons and vehicle content is a must and must be done because it's a priority that's along the lines of existing issues ( Terrain glitches and Bugs & such ) , these issues must be addressed to help make this game complete . Doubts are like flies and should be treated as such and crushed .
Greiv Rabbah M.T.A.C Assault Operations Command Lokun Listamenn 169	Posted - 2015.03.07 14:12:00 - [103] - 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. This is a frightening statement. I've seen several times over the past couple years the mmo players that were brought here from other games get left in the lurch in favor of appeasing fps players that will either complain every time anything changes, or else will just move on to the next big thing whenever destiny/the new cod/bf/whatever the hot shooter is. You've done some nice things to help with that, like missions and market, but it seems only if both the fps and the mmo groups are in agreement about needing it. Otherwise the fps group has more say by default, and if something needs to get cut its mmo bits. Why? mmo players are long term players, and have a track record of long term players. We also dont take issue with throwing some cash in regularly/somewhat regularly. New players coming from fps's are more likely to leave when another shinier fps comes out, and are harder to sell the idea of a long term game. Mmo players find an mmo they love and play it for several years or until theyve done "everything". We are an easy sell for the long term game, but not when we watch you brush us aside so many times. Especially for a crowd that's notorious for a short attention span. This got a little long-winded sry about that. Sebiestor scout, MTAC pilot, Merc w/ a face
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State 1824	Posted - 2015.03.07 14:39:00 - [104] - Quote Greiv Rabbah wrote: This is a frightening statement. I've seen several times over the past couple years the mmo players that were brought here from other games get left in the lurch in favor of appeasing fps players that will either complain every time anything changes, or else will just move on to the next big thing whenever destiny/the new cod/bf/whatever the hot shooter is. You've done some nice things to help with that, like missions and market, but it seems only if both the fps and the mmo groups are in agreement about needing it. Otherwise the fps group has more say by default, and if something needs to get cut its mmo bits. Why? mmo players are long term players, and have a track record of long term players. We also dont take issue with throwing some cash in regularly/somewhat regularly. New players coming from fps's are more likely to leave when another shinier fps comes out, and are harder to sell the idea of a long term game. Mmo players find an mmo they love and play it for several years or until theyve done "everything". We are an easy sell for the long term game, but not when we watch you brush us aside so many times. Especially for a crowd that's notorious for a short attention span. This got a little long-winded sry about that. I appreciate your opinion but these comments are wrong on so many levels , # PCMASTERRACE ... that type of thinking is bias and so outdated , it's like those who claim that they were quitting EVE because Dust 514 went to the console instead of the PC first , yes ... that was their major player base but it's always good for a business to branch out and make their presence known in different areas as to attract more attention , more revenue and help others understand who's developing quality games . This type of thinking is so counterproductive , if you people get mad about such business decisions then it's clear that your not so committed to begin with if one or two changes that will benefit marketing and the company in the long run , is implemented and you suddenly jump ship . I for one being on a console would have never known anything about CCP if it wasn't for that chance that they took working with Sony and for that I am thankful . EVE has been out for years and I have a nephew who plays it but it's just not interesting to me . I know this isn't about Console v.s. PC but the wording in your comment can't help me but to feel it's along the same lines of foolishness . Doubts are like flies and should be treated as such and crushed .
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7588	Posted - 2015.03.07 14:45:00 - [105] - Quote I think rather than making it PC versus console or MMO versus FPS the people who stay with DUST long term are the ones who enjoy the idea that you have to THINK to succeed AV
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1376	Posted - 2015.03.07 14:49:00 - [106] - Quote Neutral damage profiles are a bad idea. Placeholder weapons with the correct profiles and firing mechanics for all racial weapons are much more important. Otherwise there's little point in even having shield/armour vehicle differences, just have a single type of vehicle HP. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Greiv Rabbah M.T.A.C Assault Operations Command Lokun Listamenn 170	Posted - 2015.03.07 16:30:00 - [107] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Greiv Rabbah wrote: This is a frightening statement. I've seen several times over the past couple years the mmo players that were brought here from other games get left in the lurch in favor of appeasing fps players that will either complain every time anything changes, or else will just move on to the next big thing whenever destiny/the new cod/bf/whatever the hot shooter is. You've done some nice things to help with that, like missions and market, but it seems only if both the fps and the mmo groups are in agreement about needing it. Otherwise the fps group has more say by default, and if something needs to get cut its mmo bits. Why? mmo players are long term players, and have a track record of long term players. We also dont take issue with throwing some cash in regularly/somewhat regularly. New players coming from fps's are more likely to leave when another shinier fps comes out, and are harder to sell the idea of a long term game. Mmo players find an mmo they love and play it for several years or until theyve done "everything". We are an easy sell for the long term game, but not when we watch you brush us aside so many times. Especially for a crowd that's notorious for a short attention span. This got a little long-winded sry about that. I appreciate your opinion but these comments are wrong on so many levels , # PCMASTERRACE ... that type of thinking is bias and so outdated , it's like those who claim that they were quitting EVE because Dust 514 went to the console instead of the PC first , yes ... that was their major player base but it's always good for a business to branch out and make their presence known in different areas as to attract more attention , more revenue and help others understand who's developing quality games . This type of thinking is so counterproductive , if you people get mad about such business decisions then it's clear that your not so committed to begin with if one or two changes that will benefit marketing and the company in the long run , is implemented and you suddenly jump ship . I for one being on a console would have never known anything about CCP if it wasn't for that chance that they took working with Sony and for that I am thankful . EVE has been out for years and I have a nephew who plays it but it's just not interesting to me . I know this isn't about Console v.s. PC but the wording in your comment can't help me but to feel it's along the same lines of foolishness . Chill just a lil pleeze. I'm not saying anything about PC master race whatever. I'm saying Iddon't like the "favor one side forget the other" mentality there sometimes seems to be, and the mmo crowd doesn't speak up much we sort of roll with the punches so I'm speaking up just to remind rattati there's a balance to maintain not just in the game but among the player base too. Sorry if it didn't come across like that to you, but with a long-term game like this there are a lot of factors to consider. I for one contribute a bit of time and money to try and help this project grow and I know a lot of fps players that for over a year haven't contributed a cent and jump ship when it looks like the games going to change in any way they don't like. I do feel like mmo players are more long term players because of this and I use myself as an example because I've been playing and lurking since as close to the beginning as I could get in(no I'm not a closed beta vet, but I'm not much younger than that) and I still intend to keep playing this for as long as its out, I just don't want to see the game deteriorate into something thats unplayable for either side and the more "pure fps" and the less mmo the game gets, the harder it is to justify continued play or investment in this game Sebiestor scout, MTAC pilot, Merc w/ a face
Greiv Rabbah M.T.A.C Assault Operations Command Lokun Listamenn 170	Posted - 2015.03.07 16:50:00 - [108] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I think rather than making it PC versus console or MMO versus FPS the people who stay with DUST long term are the ones who enjoy the idea that you have to THINK to succeed Fair enough, and I really like that. I don't want fps versus mmo, though. I want a balance. I dont want this to be just a pure mmo, that was never the idea behind this game, but a lot of people call out to make it a pure fps and that was never the concept either. Have you ever heard of the game blazing star? It was an awesome space shooter on arcade with cool ships, great art, fun gameplay and some pretty huge levels. I used to think "wow, I can't see a space shooter get better than this!" And then eve happened and CCP's all like "well we have an even more epic space shooter in a massive galaxy that youll practically never be able to completely explore with stunningly beautiful art and so many more ships and weapons to choose from and enormous battles that make your little arcade space shooter look like childs play AND just to blow your mind its not just a space shooter its also an mmorpg!" And good job CCP, mind=blown. So when they come out and are like "if you loved eve, youll love dust! Its an mmo set in the same galaxy where your actions affect the balance of power in new eden the galaxy youve grown to love but get this: the battle system is fps style, and everything will be able to be owned and traded by players and its going to be a free to play console game!" and im like "holy cow CCP yall just blew my mind all over again! I suck at fps games but i cant pass up this innovative crazy fps/mmo hybrid on the ps3, which has so few top quality exclusive games. Sorry ps3 game library, but yall are gonna be collecting... Dust(see what i did there? )for awhile cause i gotta see this through!" And im serious, im in it for the long haul where this game is concerned. For all the hate it gets, this is my favorite game out and conceptually i think its fantastic although in many ways it doesnt live up to the dream we all had for dust which i secretly still hold close to my heart. But I don't want to keep chatting on on this thread, rattati asked for a yea or nay and I threw my 2 bits in already so I don't want to spend too long on here getting things off topic Sebiestor scout, MTAC pilot, Merc w/ a face
danthrax martin Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 311	Posted - 2015.03.08 01:13:00 - [109] - Quote Yes, I am for it, for I am a suicidal A/V moron that just love to blow the kitten out of vehicles. Suicidal A/V Moron Future Corporate Raider 75m+ SP
Ghost Kaisar Negative-Feedback 10439	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:59:00 - [110] - 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 It's like the old days, when 8 AR's could take down a Sica! Currently listening to: Max Anarchy OST Old School Scout, watch out for the knives

Anoko Destrolock SMARTCREW Smart Deploy 40	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:05:00 - [111] - Quote This would be a huge improvement. Currently, swarms and forges are the best AV weapons and do less damage to shields while the only shield AV weapon- the plasma cannon is very hard to use. This directly correlates to the lack of armor tanks. My thoughts: Make AV weapons do the same damage to shield and AV. This would promote balance between shield and armor tanks as well as AV weapons. NOTE efficiency of ALL weapons in the weapon stats in the game. This would help everyone to understand. This change would need to come with a 20% nerf to forge and swarm damage since they would do more damage to shield tanks, the only balancing refrance we have right now.
Nirwanda Vaughns 1510	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:59:00 - [112] - Quote Something needs to be done. it will balance vehicle tanking because atm unless you add an extra 50% armour hp to a maddy a gunloggi is better at surviving. either that or at least introduced a Gallente Plasma Forge Cannon. just something more valid as an anti shield AV Never argue with an idiot. they bring you down to their level and beat you through experience proud C-II bpo owner
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17529	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:46:00 - [113] - Quote It's a shame it has to come to this due to a lack of content parity.... but I guess there is very little other choice. I simply hope this is not and end to damage profiles for vehicles and AV as a whole as you would be cutting our massive opportunities in the future for either racial hull specific resistances or specific damage type hardeners and adaptive hardeners. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Avallo Kantor 503	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:23:00 - [114] - Quote A thought I had today: What if you allowed an alternate damage module that affected efficacy against shields / armor? For example: +5/-5% modules with mlt -> pro either offering a bigger % increase or an additional small damage increase (less so than current damage mods) Then have two flavors, one for increasing shield efficacy at the cost of armor, and the opposite. Lore-wise: The modules are enhancements to the ammunition of the weapon, causing the desired effects.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7606	Posted - 2015.03.10 06:53:00 - [115] - Quote the problem is armor tanks have more HP which will stack the odds natively in favor of armor hands down. there's too many considerations for this to be a good idea. AV
Archduke Ferd1nand Nos Nothi 164	Posted - 2015.03.10 18:59:00 - [116] - Quote Just make the Laser Rifle have a 100% efficacy on vehicles, and the Br MD/FP have 100% efficacy on vehicles as well, and I think well be good. BRB, looking for socks Asslut Rifles OP, anal now I shit shotgun shells and piss Remote Explosives
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17548	Posted - 2015.03.10 19:53:00 - [117] - Quote Archduke Ferd1nand wrote: Just make the Laser Rifle have a 100% efficacy on vehicles, and the Br MD/FP have 100% efficacy on vehicles as well, and I think well be good. Please don't. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7617	Posted - 2015.03.11 05:18:00 - [118] - Quote Archduke Ferd1nand wrote: Just make the Laser Rifle have a 100% efficacy on vehicles, and the Br MD/FP have 100% efficacy on vehicles as well, and I think well be good. Jesus no. Laser rifle BAD. Someone get me a newspaper to roll up. AV

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 18329	Posted - 2015.03.11 05:38:00 - [119] - Quote why? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 421	Posted - 2015.03.11 06:17:00 - [120] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: why? Rattati, I generally run the laser rifle these days and I think giving it an AV role would cause problems the laser rifle works by increasing the damage the longer you hold the trigger, this is balanced against infantry as they are a small/agile target whist firing at the optimum range. Tanks and Dropships are large targets and it would be quite easy to hit them with the entire magazine (or until overheat) doing significant damage (i haven't done the maths but probably enough to take down a python/sica) ADS Ramming Revenge! Plasma Cannon Rampage

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7617	Posted - 2015.03.11 06:18:00 - [121] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: why? It's the increasing damage. If you hold a laser rifle with the escalating damage it gets high enough to disintegrate a heavy if you time it right, and that's if you heat the beam. Now combine that with the OTHER five or so seconds of escalation and you can dump more damage per clip than a breach forge Potentially. It's why when I cobbled up the scrambler lance bad idea it does a steady damage and doesn't share the escalation. It's a lot easier to hold a pinpoint laser on a tank than it is to hold it on a smaller dropsuit so the odds of applying 100% of that escalation approaches certainty. Especially from a rooftop perch where turrets cannot elevate and hit. It's why I say that laser rifles are a bad idea as AV weapons. AV
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2308	Posted - 2015.03.11 07:53:00 - [122] - Quote With a viktors laser and amarr assault 5 I got 1/3rd of the way through a 5300 shield hp gunnlogi.... without stopping its shield recharge. Think about what this would do if it had 100% efficiacy, lasers would be unbelievably deadly to vehicles. Laser has some of the highest damage per magazine in the game, and two lasers would kill any vehicle that's between 50-110 meters. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 18334	Posted - 2015.03.11 09:01:00 - [123] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: why? It's the increasing damage. If you hold a laser rifle with the escalating damage it gets high enough to disintegrate a heavy if you time it right, and that's if you heat the beam. Now combine that with the OTHER five or so seconds of escalation and you can dump more damage per clip than a breach forge Potentially. It's why when I cobbled up the scrambler lance bad idea it does a steady damage and doesn't share the escalation. It's a lot easier to hold a pinpoint laser on a tank than it is to hold it on a smaller dropsuit so the odds of applying 100% of that escalation approaches certainty. Especially from a rooftop perch where turrets cannot elevate and hit. It's why I say that laser rifles are a bad idea as AV weapons. damage is just an efficiency to be balanced. The aiming, sure but drawing a bead on something, while exposing yourself to enemy infantry at the same time, while maximizing damage by being far from the vehicle seems to outweigh a lot of the pros "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 986	Posted - 2015.03.11 09:11:00 - [124] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: why? It's the increasing damage. If you hold a laser rifle with the escalating damage it gets high enough to disintegrate a heavy if you time it right, and that's if you heat the beam. Now combine that with the OTHER five or so seconds of escalation and you can dump more damage per clip than a breach forge Potentially. It's why when I cobbled up the scrambler lance bad idea it does a steady damage and doesn't share the escalation. It's a lot easier to hold a pinpoint laser on a tank than it is to hold it on a smaller dropsuit so the odds of applying 100% of that escalation approaches certainty. Especially from a rooftop perch where turrets cannot elevate and hit. It's why I say that laser rifles are a bad idea as AV weapons. damage is just an efficiency to be balanced. The aiming, sure but drawing a bead on something, while exposing yourself to enemy infantry at the same time, while maximizing damage by being far from the vehicle seems to outweigh a lot of the pros Exactly. Being exposed is always something you try to do the least possible in infantry -> AV combat. The forge gunner is a good example. You have to not only contend with : a) aiming at your target to actually hit it b) being exposed to infantry that can shoot you c) being exposed to the vehicle, that can also shoot you I think the Heavy laser is a great idea with a good risk/reward principle. If you stay long enough on the target then you'll do ridiculous amounts of damage, but then that whole time you're risking certain death as an immobile target!
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2308	Posted - 2015.03.11 13:13:00 - [125] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: why? It's the increasing damage. If you hold a laser rifle with the escalating damage it gets high enough to disintegrate a heavy if you time it right, and that's if you heat the beam. Now combine that with the OTHER five or so seconds of escalation and you can dump more damage per clip than a breach forge Potentially. It's why when I cobbled up the scrambler lance bad idea it does a steady damage and doesn't share the escalation. It's a lot easier to hold a pinpoint laser on a tank than it is to hold it on a smaller dropsuit so the odds of applying 100% of that escalation approaches certainty. Especially from a rooftop perch where turrets cannot elevate and hit. It's why I say that laser rifles are a bad idea as AV weapons. damage is just an efficiency to be balanced. The aiming, sure but drawing a bead on something, while exposing yourself to enemy infantry at the same time, while maximizing damage by being far from the vehicle seems to outweigh a lot of the pros I don't think people are saying they don't want a laser heavy weapon, I think they're saying they don't want a laser rifle copy-paste weapon. I'd love something like the fusion rifle for a heavy laser Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 422	Posted - 2015.03.11 13:18:00 - [126] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: why? It's the increasing damage. If you hold a laser rifle with the escalating damage it gets high enough to disintegrate a heavy if you time it right, and that's if you heat the beam. Now combine that with the OTHER five or so seconds of escalation and you can dump more damage per clip than a breach forge Potentially. It's why when I cobbled up the scrambler lance bad idea it does a steady damage and doesn't share the escalation. It's a lot easier to hold a pinpoint laser on a tank than it is to hold it on a smaller dropsuit so the odds of applying 100% of that escalation approaches certainty. Especially from a rooftop perch where turrets cannot elevate and hit. It's why I say that laser rifles are a bad idea as AV weapons. damage is just an efficiency to be balanced. The aiming, sure but drawing a bead on something, while exposing yourself to enemy infantry at the same time, while maximizing damage by being far from the vehicle seems to outweigh a lot of the pros I get that you want to increase Laser Rifle usage, here is why I think creating a dual purpose laser rifle is a bad idea It's very easy to hit the 'broad side of a barn', or Tanks & Dropships as they're known, within the Laser Rifle's operational range Whilst you are exposed its no different to the current LR set up, everyone can see the beam and know where you are so you pick your engagements, there are no drawbacks to adding this proposal which suggests you think the LR is UP Damage, I get that you can change the efficiency but the LR is balanced by the idea you're not going to hit all your shots, against vehicles this is no longer the case Prefiring - both to kill vehicles directly but also to warm up before switching the beam to infantry. So whilst you are 'exposed' you can quick flick the beam onto any infantry Damage (again), if you were to implement this, the efficiency would need to be different for for dropships There are better ways to introduce laser based AV ADS Ramming Revenge! Plasma Cannon Rampage
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4119	Posted - 2015.03.11 15:01:00 - [127] - Quote We are in New Eden yet this is not New Eden. It feels and looks like the game is being dumbed down because it is too hard, Armor vehicles actually get a buff with this change while Shield vehicles suffer and take more damage as a whole but really the game needs shield weapons. If you do this with AV weapons then what is to stop you from doing it with all infantry weapons? In EVE there is armor and shield doctrines, i would have in time liked to have seen that in PC since it adds another tactical element to the game, instead what this is trying to replicate is every generic shooter instead where you aim and shoot and they die with no thought to it and frankly there is better games out who do this better already. Disclaimer: The above post is respectful, contains no ranting, contains no personal attacks, contains no trolling, contains no racism, contains no discrimination, contains no profanity, contains no spamming. This post is an opinion and is related to DUST514
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7617	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:22:00 - [128] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: why? It's the increasing damage. If you hold a laser rifle with the escalating damage it gets high enough to disintegrate a heavy if you time it right, and that's if you heat the beam. Now combine that with the OTHER five or so seconds of escalation and you can dump more damage per clip than a breach forge Potentially. It's why when I cobbled up the scrambler lance bad idea it does a steady damage and doesn't share the escalation. It's a lot easier to hold a pinpoint laser on a tank than it is to hold it on a smaller dropsuit so the odds of applying 100% of that escalation approaches certainty. Especially from a rooftop perch where turrets cannot elevate and hit. It's why I say that laser rifles are a bad idea as AV weapons. damage is just an efficiency to be balanced. The aiming, sure but drawing a bead on something, while exposing yourself to enemy infantry at the same time, while maximizing damage by being far from the vehicle seems to outweigh a lot of the pros I don't think people are saying they don't want a laser heavy weapon, I think they're saying they don't want a laser rifle copy-paste weapon. I'd love something like the fusion rifle for a heavy laser This AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7617	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:28:00 - [129] - Quote My problem is absolutely not with something smilar to tge laser rifle. I simply believe balancing the actual laser rifle we have now would be more of a pain in the ass than it's worth. Example: if I were to suggest it I would make the damage around 50 ish and put it at 1200 RPM. So steady, fast shield damage I wouldn't use the escalating damage but I Would make it so that instead of seizing on overheat it keeps firing. But have it do 150 damage per second to the firer. AV
Sequal's Back Dead Man's Game RUST415 374	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:12:00 - [130] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. I fully agree with you, and this is a very important point in game design to balance Lore and gameplay. I like this normalization, the balance between AV-V will be so easier to do! Rise? That's what they used to call me. Sequal Rise. That was my name. Now I come Back to you, at the turn of the tide.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17587	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:13:00 - [131] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: why? It's the increasing damage. If you hold a laser rifle with the escalating damage it gets high enough to disintegrate a heavy if you time it right, and that's if you heat the beam. Now combine that with the OTHER five or so seconds of escalation and you can dump more damage per clip than a breach forge Potentially. It's why when I cobbled up the scrambler lance bad idea it does a steady damage and doesn't share the escalation. It's a lot easier to hold a pinpoint laser on a tank than it is to hold it on a smaller dropsuit so the odds of applying 100% of that escalation approaches certainty. Especially from a rooftop perch where turrets cannot elevate and hit. It's why I say that laser rifles are a bad idea as AV weapons. damage is just an efficiency to be balanced. The aiming, sure but drawing a bead on something, while exposing yourself to enemy infantry at the same time, while maximizing damage by being far from the vehicle seems to outweigh a lot of the pros I don't think people are saying they don't want a laser heavy weapon, I think they're saying they don't want a laser rifle copy-paste weapon. I'd love something like the fusion rifle for a heavy laser This Seconded "Hell he's even agreed with me in the past but insisted I'm still wrong. It's totes adorbs." Pokey Dravon on Spkr4thDead
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5344	Posted - 2015.03.11 23:26:00 - [132] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: why? It's the increasing damage. If you hold a laser rifle with the escalating damage it gets high enough to disintegrate a heavy if you time it right, and that's if you heat the beam. Now combine that with the OTHER five or so seconds of escalation and you can dump more damage per clip than a breach forge Potentially. It's why when I cobbled up the scrambler lance bad idea it does a steady damage and doesn't share the escalation. It's a lot easier to hold a pinpoint laser on a tank than it is to hold it on a smaller dropsuit so the odds of applying 100% of that escalation approaches certainty. Especially from a rooftop perch where turrets cannot elevate and hit. It's why I say that laser rifles are a bad idea as AV weapons. damage is just an efficiency to be balanced. The aiming, sure but drawing a bead on something, while exposing yourself to enemy infantry at the same time, while maximizing damage by being far from the vehicle seems to outweigh a lot of the pros Do you happen to have the formula on hand on how DPS is calculated for the laser rifle? Obviously it's a non-constant DPS so it's difficult to actually measure what the DPS function is without some seriously fuzzy eyeballing. I'd love to see what the actual function is, if possible. For science. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2308	Posted - 2015.03.12 02:11:00 - [133] - Quote Pokey damage per individual shot = [BaseDMG + (scalar * # of shots fired consecutively)] * damage mods Scalar ranges from .85 on basic to 1.10 on proto I believe, with the number of shots capable of being fired ranging from 60 - 80 on basic / proto or up to 120 consecutively on officer laser (which might have a higher scalar). So for a basic at its 80th round 17 + (.85 * 80 = 68) = 85. A basic laser with amarr assault 5 and no damage mods has a damage per 'full burst' of 4114, the officer laser with its 120 rounds goes up to a damage per 'full burst' of something like 10 000, before damage mods. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5371	Posted - 2015.03.12 07:22:00 - [134] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Pokey damage per individual shot = [BaseDMG + (scalar * # of shots fired consecutively)] * damage mods Scalar ranges from .85 on basic to 1.10 on proto I believe, with the number of shots capable of being fired ranging from 60 - 80 on basic / proto or up to 120 consecutively on officer laser (which might have a higher scalar). So for a basic at its 80th round 17 + (.85 * 80 = 68) = 85. A basic laser with amarr assault 5 and no damage mods has a damage per 'full burst' of 4114, the officer laser with its 120 rounds goes up to a damage per 'full burst' of something like 10 000, before damage mods. Awesome! I use LR from time to time but I've never done much with the number side. So what we're looking at is potentially a weapon that at 100% efficiency could be doing 10,000 damage to a vehicle in a single magazine...yeah that's going to be pretty insane. So obviously if we went this direction it would need to be tweaked quite a bit. I'm almost wondering if it would be better to simply make a new weapon altogether rather than try to retrofit a Laser Rifle to properly perform. I mean sure it's less work to just increase the % efficiency against vehicles, but that's pretty boring too. I think the community would really appreciate (and be willing to wait for) some new variants of existing weapons that are more tailored to be AV weapons rather than just trying to modify existing weapons to be more efficient against vehicles. For example you could do something like a Scrambler Rifle that is Charge Shot only and performs like a Light Assault Forge Gun. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Haerr Nos Nothi 2483	Posted - 2015.03.12 08:00:00 - [135] - Quote With the introduction of the Krin's BPO's 'all handheld' modifier is it possible for one of the specialised tank types to have damage resistance against all infantry weapons? Also are grenades included in the 'all handheld' modifier?
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7618	Posted - 2015.03.12 08:17:00 - [136] - Quote I have a few suggestions for guns using existing art assets if interested. one light laser three heavy weapons as far as I know, no new oddball behaviors to program. AV
Balistyc Farshot The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 93	Posted - 2015.03.12 15:56:00 - [137] - Quote I love the idea of a racial based heavy weapon. The heat up also works well for me because what everyone is not thinking about is that the weapon will overheat like the burst HMG. Maybe this means that reaching shot 80 will be dangerous and you need a focused clean shot for that whole time and running this weapon into the red. We are all also thinking of linear combat with this weapon. I forge gun for my heavy AV today and I can tell you it is not easy unless you are on the perfect rooftop. If that is the case, the heavy chose the battle ground, he should win. If they make the movement speed while firing the same as the charged Forge Gun walking speed, the weapon will be very balanced. Then they just tweak heat to adjust the TTK of vehicles. Heavies will not be chasing down tanks, LAVs, or even dropships because they can just leave. It is more of a head on head fight or a surprise strike (Which is the vehicle's fault because heavies are seen on all scanners) which causes a vehicle deatth. So a stationary heavy LR with heat issues would be balanced, IMO. If you don't use slowing movement speed during firing or heat to hinder this weapon, we will need to figure out what the max range is or the dispersion to sights ratio, because we don't want a heavy's version of a sniper rifle. Do we? This is balanced for infantry because as long as the infantry can get clear of the beam on a corner, the damage should drop off sharply and remain that the base. Be sure this is how the mechanic works with a quick drop off. So a scout just needs a little cover and he can keep this weapon in the low end of the dmg spectrum. That could keep it from being OP in the city. Heavy with a massive bullet hose called Lola (Burst HMG).
Night 5talker 514 Dead Man's Game RUST415 363	Posted - 2015.03.12 20:46:00 - [138] - Quote I understand the ideology behind it, however, I agree that it would water down the game a bit too much on the AV side. May I perhaps suggest (instead of new maps etc.) a Hologram deck (similar to Planetside 2) to test and teach new players. You could have tutorials run there, perhaps have a competition for the vets to make the tutorials with officer weapon x 100 loot of their choice. You'd have a number of quality tutorial structures done in a week or two which you'd then implement into the holo deck. I think this would improve the new player experience more than these changes. When in the holo deck, all skills go to 5. One more problem with these changes, these changes would also largely remove ADS's from the game. One of the reasons pythons are used is because they are the only dropship right now that can truly get into the fight without getting insta-gimped by swarms. I think adding more skill to using swarms could help but that's for another discussion. Hope my thoughts are of use Gaming Freek DUST 514 YouTube Channel
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7620	Posted - 2015.03.12 23:59:00 - [139] - Quote My question, Rattati, is have you bumped Into an issue on the client where this is the only viable workaround? If this is a design idea dictated by necessity that will change the equation entirely. One thing I would hope you consider is that by all indications I have seen, and the numbers I and pokey have crunched you have the gallente and caldari HAVs solidly balanced to cope with AV rigged for proper damage typing. You have everything in place for AV parity. All we need is a couple weapons to make the things even, and I and most other heavies I talk to are wiling to be patient and suffer the gunnlogi being harder to crack if it means minmatar and amarr vehicles will be in play. Phase 3 of your vehicle fix is worth the wait because once your changes are done we can tune the AV to do the job at the pace you want the system to run on. There's no rush to the end goal here. You seem to want to do this right, so let's do it that way. I may be a jackass but the progress you're making is actually getting me interested. A few others as well. So please, if this has anything to do with second guesses? Stop it. Your HAVs are going to be an improvement and I think we can do better Than hacking out bits. AV
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1383	Posted - 2015.03.13 02:07:00 - [140] - Quote @Breakin Stuff: Slow clap good sir. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.

Banjo Robertson Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 482	Posted - 2015.03.13 14:18:00 - [141] - Quote I am for this, just dont reduce the damage on my lovely plasma cannons! Also! maybe give me a quafe plasma cannon in the next box i open?
jordy mack WarRavens 367	Posted - 2015.03.14 00:36:00 - [142] - Quote why not just tweak the lazer rifle efficency to vehicles slowly, why do we have to wait and reach a decision with only theories. also i would love a flux/em massdriver :) Less QQ more PewPew
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 403	Posted - 2015.03.15 03:49:00 - [143] - Quote Please. Anything that further buffs armor in any way, jump on and immediately implement without hesitation, the fact that any one uses any shield based suit or vehicle is reason enough. Please increase isk costs of all shield based suits and vehicles by 300% as some people are still using them and they need more incentive to switch to armor. Thanks!
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 326	Posted - 2015.03.15 07:24:00 - [144] - Quote Why would you make the flaylock an av sidearm? Doesnt this introduce mire disparity because only 1 race would then have an av sidearm? Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
Greiv Rabbah M.T.A.C Assault Operations Command 289	Posted - 2015.03.26 21:03:00 - [145] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Ghost Kaisar wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: So you would want to swap to a shield swarm and back to an armor swarm as AV infantry? 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. For those wondering, that was me I couldn't figure out where the tank weakspot was till about three months ago. I don't really ever see the BACK of a tank running in a fatsuit lolol the delicate flowers of the battlefield know, you gotta shove the bomb right up its a** to be effective lol. we werent tryyyying to keep it a secret, scouts honor! Sebiestor scout, MTAC pilot, Merc w/ a face
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7722	Posted - 2015.03.26 22:07:00 - [146] - Quote Lady MDK wrote: Why would you make the flaylock an av sidearm? Doesnt this introduce mire disparity because only 1 race would then have an av sidearm? considering the minmatar don't have an AV ANYTHING currently (and the flaylock is more of a joke as AV anyway, even at 100% efficacy) it's hardly going to create racial inequality. flaylock, bolt pistol, ion, none of the sidearms have the killing power, even in a squad, to match the vehicle cracking power of a single dedicated AV gun. none of them can break shield regen without help. AV
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17850	Posted - 2015.03.27 02:49:00 - [147] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lady MDK wrote: Why would you make the flaylock an av sidearm? Doesnt this introduce mire disparity because only 1 race would then have an av sidearm? considering the minmatar don't have an AV ANYTHING currently (and the flaylock is more of a joke as AV anyway, even at 100% efficacy) it's hardly going to create racial inequality. flaylock, bolt pistol, ion, none of the sidearms have the killing power, even in a squad, to match the vehicle cracking power of a single dedicated AV gun. none of them can break shield regen without help. DON'T YOU DARE EVER TALK BACK TO AN AMARRIAN ABOUT LACK OF CONTENT! Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 338	Posted - 2015.03.27 07:40:00 - [148] - Quote Mass driver should be made viable AV in my opinion. Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7723	Posted - 2015.03.27 07:42:00 - [149] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Lady MDK wrote: Why would you make the flaylock an av sidearm? Doesnt this introduce mire disparity because only 1 race would then have an av sidearm? considering the minmatar don't have an AV ANYTHING currently (and the flaylock is more of a joke as AV anyway, even at 100% efficacy) it's hardly going to create racial inequality. flaylock, bolt pistol, ion, none of the sidearms have the killing power, even in a squad, to match the vehicle cracking power of a single dedicated AV gun. none of them can break shield regen without help. DON'T YOU DARE EVER TALK BACK TO AN AMARRIAN ABOUT LACK OF CONTENT! Ahh I knew I could count on you True. I just won a bet and 5 mil ISK. Did I ever tell you about my idea for an amarr light AV weapon? AV
Haerr Nos Nothi 2637	Posted - 2015.03.27 09:08:00 - [150] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Please. Anything that further buffs armor in any way, jump on and immediately implement without hesitation, the fact that any one uses any shield based suit or vehicle is reason enough. Please increase isk costs of all shield based suits and vehicles by 300% as some people are still using them and they need more incentive to switch to armor. Thanks! Agreed, but those things are not enough, we will also need more buffs to Scrambler Rifles and Blasters. > [17:18] Haerr "[...]Tired of being told HAVs are OP[...]" > [17:21] Haerr "My Soma is OP, fear me! [:lol:][:pirate:]"

Shley Ashes And the ButtPirates 202	Posted - 2015.03.27 11:36:00 - [151] - Quote I can see the reasoning behind this proposal to normalise AV damage, however I don't agree with it, If the reasoning is simplifying the damage profiles because they are difficult to understand for newer players, then have some form of explanation in game with regards to them, I remember I didn't actually know the damage profiles until a post was made about Uprising 1.2 http://dust514.com/news/blog/2013/07/weapon-ranges-in-uprising-1.2-and-beyond/ The reason these things are difficult to understand is because you don't tell us them in game Also someone has already mentioned, how long will it be before this same normalisation is applied to light weapons and side arms? What will happen to the Proficiency skills ? 1.5% damage per level bringing Prof 5 to 7.5% damage increase ? On a side note I'm all for the implementation of some current models having their skins changed to implement some new AV in order to bring some for of parity Dust.... Dust never changes
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 228	Posted - 2015.03.29 03:04:00 - [152] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: So you would want to swap to a shield swarm and back to an armor swarm as AV infantry? If you wanted to have swarms as an AV-system designed around ease-of-use (Note: this is not intended to be a comment on the skill level required to use swarms most efficiently, but rather on a proposed role for the swarm launcher...if you will something that's easy to pick up, difficult to master)...you could say that the nanites reconfigure the warhead to always be good against the selected target...and just give it the raw damage (a +0/-0 profile)...or perhaps have another weapon with that in-mind... as I stated before, I love damage profiles, and they are present throughout the game already Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3145	Posted - 2015.03.30 03:30:00 - [153] - Quote Lady MDK wrote: Mass driver should be made viable AV in my opinion. No Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7757	Posted - 2015.03.30 09:52:00 - [154] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Lady MDK wrote: Mass driver should be made viable AV in my opinion. No You would have to make mass drivers 140% damage to vehicles for it to have a prayer of killing an HAV who sits still. If you mass fire them. Utterly ineffective vs. Dropships. LAVs would be the only vehicles threatened in any meaningful way. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3145	Posted - 2015.03.30 15:58:00 - [155] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Lady MDK wrote: Mass driver should be made viable AV in my opinion. No You would have to make mass drivers 140% damage to vehicles for it to have a prayer of killing an HAV who sits still. If you mass fire them. Utterly ineffective vs. Dropships. LAVs would be the only vehicles threatened in any meaningful way. Infantry weapons already have a larger explosive splash radius than a missile that's the size of a person. Infantry doesn't need any more insane bonus damage against vehicles. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7763	Posted - 2015.03.30 17:11:00 - [156] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Lady MDK wrote: Mass driver should be made viable AV in my opinion. No You would have to make mass drivers 140% damage to vehicles for it to have a prayer of killing an HAV who sits still. If you mass fire them. Utterly ineffective vs. Dropships. LAVs would be the only vehicles threatened in any meaningful way. Infantry weapons already have a larger explosive splash radius than a missile that's the size of a person. Infantry doesn't need any more insane bonus damage against vehicles. That wasn't an endorsement of the idea, that was me saying it'd be pointless. Do you ever actually read anything anyone says? Because 120 damage per second splash is so very threatening, I know. Maybe you should stay inside if the splash of the mass driver is that scary. AV
BraiNing Harloon MANUFACTURERS OF DEATH 14	Posted - 2015.03.31 17:04:00 - [157] - Quote I would rather you not "Normalize". At least now there is a specific use for each weapon. If you make them less "Different" then only one weapon will be the right choice. Even more so than now.
Shley Ashes And the ButtPirates 214	Posted - 2015.03.31 20:23:00 - [158] - Quote In this normalisation are Flux grenades likely to be normalised against Shield Vehicles ?? and the same question for AV grenades as well ? Dust.... Dust never changes
RemingtonBeaver Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2179	Posted - 2015.04.08 16:00:00 - [159] - Quote Watched 5 guys all with AV try to take down a proto tank. The 5 AV guys lost. Tank went 32/0. 3 swarmers and 2 forgers. I grabbed my forge to help. I'm no slouch when it comes to hitting tanks. So now its just a ridiculous barrage of swarms and forge shots. I've never seen anything like it. The swarms and forges didn't budge the tank after his hardeners were up. Tank retreated, rushed in, killed everything he could until his time was up and repeated. Fix this garbage. Hardeners shouldn't render the tank invincible for 30 seconds. It's insane how good the hardeners work. Sort it the **** out. Sincerely, everyone that isn't a tanker. Unleash the BIMBOBOT!
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5731	Posted - 2015.04.08 20:39:00 - [160] - Quote RemingtonBeaver wrote: Watched 5 guys all with AV try to take down a proto tank. The 5 AV guys lost. Tank went 32/0. 3 swarmers and 2 forgers. I grabbed my forge to help. I'm no slouch when it comes to hitting tanks. So now its just a ridiculous barrage of swarms and forge shots. I've never seen anything like it. The swarms and forges didn't budge the tank after his hardeners were up. Tank retreated, rushed in, killed everything he could until his time was up and repeated. Fix this garbage. Hardeners shouldn't render the tank invincible for 30 seconds. It's insane how good the hardeners work. Sort it the ** out. Sincerely, everyone that isn't a tanker. Armor Hardeners should be reduced to 35% and Heavy Passive Repairers need to be converted to Active Modules. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net

Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3045	Posted - 2015.04.08 20:41:00 - [161] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: RemingtonBeaver wrote: Watched 5 guys all with AV try to take down a proto tank. The 5 AV guys lost. Tank went 32/0. 3 swarmers and 2 forgers. I grabbed my forge to help. I'm no slouch when it comes to hitting tanks. So now its just a ridiculous barrage of swarms and forge shots. I've never seen anything like it. The swarms and forges didn't budge the tank after his hardeners were up. Tank retreated, rushed in, killed everything he could until his time was up and repeated. Fix this garbage. Hardeners shouldn't render the tank invincible for 30 seconds. It's insane how good the hardeners work. Sort it the **** out. Sincerely, everyone that isn't a tanker. Armor Hardeners should be reduced to 35% and Heavy Passive Repairers need to be converted to Active Modules. And if that won't do it, nerf it another 5%. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 265	Posted - 2015.04.08 22:43:00 - [162] - Quote RemingtonBeaver wrote: Watched 5 guys all with AV try to take down a proto tank. The 5 AV guys lost. Tank went 32/0. 3 swarmers and 2 forgers. I grabbed my forge to help. I'm no slouch when it comes to hitting tanks. So now its just a ridiculous barrage of swarms and forge shots. I've never seen anything like it. The swarms and forges didn't budge the tank after his hardeners were up. Tank retreated, rushed in, killed everything he could until his time was up and repeated. Fix this garbage. Hardeners shouldn't render the tank invincible for 30 seconds. It's insane how good the hardeners work. Sort it the **** out. Sincerely, everyone that isn't a tanker. While I appreciate the sentiment...not exactly what this specific thread is about XD In fact, if we assume that it was a FoTM Armor HAV (Dual Hardened, Dual Rep, Armor HAV) then the ideas in this thread would actually make the problem worse... Most of us who where pushing for the Armor Hardener Buff where wanting a 30% hardener level (some at 35%)...very few where still asking for 40% without reducing the Active Time and decreasing cooldown to match the Shield Hardener at the least. Anyway, Normalization of AV Damage Profiles is still something I do not support...unless we're gonna normalize damage types across the board. Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Sarus Rambo Isuuaya Tactical Caldari State 178	Posted - 2015.04.09 20:56:00 - [163] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Normalization of AV Damage Profiles is still something I do not support...unless we're gonna normalize damage types across the board. Id be in favor of just reducing the advantages and disadvantages of different types. For example: EM based weapons: +5% damage to shields, -5% damage to armor Thermal: +2.5% damage to shields, -2.5%damage to armor Kinetic: -2.5% damage to shields, +2.5%damage to armor Explosive: -5% damage to shields, +5% damage to armor Something that still gives the game flavor, still leverages all the setup to make this work, but doesn't really have a big impact on the gun game/AV as much as it does now. You might argue this is small enough not to be worth it, but with multiple AV on a single target, each 5% would stack up pretty quick, making it worth the extra effort in certain circumstances, but would also make skill and teamwork the primary thing necessary, not the "correct" weapon. This sums up 75% of forum posts.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7939	Posted - 2015.04.10 01:04:00 - [164] - Quote Sarus Rambo wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Normalization of AV Damage Profiles is still something I do not support...unless we're gonna normalize damage types across the board. Id be in favor of just reducing the advantages and disadvantages of different types. For example: EM based weapons: +5% damage to shields, -5% damage to armor Thermal: +2.5% damage to shields, -2.5%damage to armor Kinetic: -2.5% damage to shields, +2.5%damage to armor Explosive: -5% damage to shields, +5% damage to armor Something that still gives the game flavor, still leverages all the setup to make this work, but doesn't really have a big impact on the gun game/AV as much as it does now. You might argue this is small enough not to be worth it, but with multiple AV on a single target, each 5% would stack up pretty quick, making it worth the extra effort in certain circumstances, but would also make skill and teamwork the primary thing necessary, not the "correct" weapon. actually this would force almost as much homogenous design as eliminating the profiles. I as an AV nerd prefer the "right tool for the job" approach. making it so the AV weapons only differ in firing mechanics would pretty much require a serious buff to baseline damage to be able to fight vehicles on any sane term, because breaking the strong tank, which usually has between 4 and 6 times the HP or EHP of the weak tank (madrugar with 5600 armor HP and a single hardener has a raw EHP of 7840 vs 1200 shields before you start counting heavy reps) the profiles become ridiculously important in the breaking of the tank. it also means we can have weapons that don't perform perfectly in all situations. If the forge gun performed the same to all things every time then the Madrugar will always be the proper tank of choice. Why? Because it has more EHP than a gunnlogi because it regens constantly. This fits the armor motif of higher EHP, but after the nerfe to fitting, the gunnlogi doesn't have much to speak for it if all AV is equal suddenly. AV
Sarus Rambo Isuuaya Tactical Caldari State 178	Posted - 2015.04.10 18:25:00 - [165] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I as an AV nerd prefer the "right tool for the job" approach. making it so the AV weapons only differ in firing mechanics would pretty much require a serious buff to baseline damage to be able to fight vehicles on any sane term, because breaking the strong tank, which usually has between 4 and 6 times the HP or EHP of the weak tank (madrugar with 5600 armor HP and a single hardener has a raw EHP of 7840 vs 1200 shields before you start counting heavy reps) the profiles become ridiculously important in the breaking of the tank. it also means we can have weapons that don't perform perfectly in all situations. If the forge gun performed the same to all things every time then the Madrugar will always be the proper tank of choice. Why? Because it has more EHP than a gunnlogi because it regens constantly. This fits the armor motif of higher EHP, but after the nerfe to fitting, the gunnlogi doesn't have much to speak for it if all AV is equal suddenly. I would say this is a problem with a tank in general and you should lower the amount of EHP disparity instead of buff AV damage. A tank with 6x another tanks EHP isn't balanced. I would say at most it should be 2x-3x, 3x being full proto hp modules fit in all slots. You also need to balance modules at this point if they are making things to strong. The disparity between proto and regular gear in general should be reigned in quite a bit across the board if you want player skill to be a determining factor and not just who has more money/sp. This sums up 75% of forum posts.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7969	Posted - 2015.04.10 21:36:00 - [166] - Quote Sarus Rambo wrote: I would say this is a problem with a tank in general and you should lower the amount of EHP disparity instead of buff AV damage. were it up to me, I'd do both. AV
I-Shayz-I I----------I 5321	Posted - 2015.04.11 08:11:00 - [167] - Quote Please make the Mass Driver 100% At least the breach variant. Breach has to be one of the least used weapons in the game, and 75% is not nearly enough 7162 wp with a Repair Tool!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7991	Posted - 2015.04.11 10:01:00 - [168] - Quote I-Shayz-I wrote: Please make the Mass Driver 100% At least the breach variant. Breach has to be one of the least used weapons in the game, and 75% is not nearly enough Submitted an AV variant to rattati. It needed a lot of love and work to be viable for the job. Even with the changes I suggested it's going to be more LAV killer and deterrant to other targets. It CAN kill an HAV. it's just not likely at all. AV

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 20620	Posted - 2015.04.14 03:12:00 - [169] - Quote We will keep this discussion alive, but not going ahead with anything in the near future. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one 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.

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Redundant usernames FTW