|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 32 post(s) |
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
1022
   |
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
1. Loving the buff to carried amount of AV grenades.
2. I've been using the AScR a lot lately and I think you may be overdoing it. I don't know which method you used to arrive at the 15% buff, but it appears incredibly large. I'd suggest a 5% buff as a first step.
3. Buff to Plasma Cannon is solid I believe. It's my second weapon of choice the last few weeks (yes, I've been using an Amarr Commando) and quite honestly needs a bit more direct damage to become viable as a solo AV option within it's limited range.
I'm looking forward to one-shotting unfit LAVs for a few days after this change goes life. 
4. I see railgun damage is unmodified? That would be incredibly good news for railgun and dropship interaction. When I left the HAV discussion this was my main point of objection.
I realize a heatsink will allow a railgun a fifth shot, but I think that's a valid tradeoff.
5. The hardener changes will bring the Myron closer to the Grimsnes in performance. This is a good change. |
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
1022
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
Pagl1u M wrote:Wait, wait, wait, wait! Wait a second! You're telling me, everyone is asking to nerf REs and you are buffing them???
Are you kidding me?
I'll comment later about the other things that are really great, but this... Is really BS! This buff concerns proximity explosives, not remote explosives. |
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
1022
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
Stefan Stahl wrote:5. The hardener changes will bring the Myron closer to the Grimsnes in performance. This is a good change. Are you sure about making armor hardeners have equal damage resistance as shield hardeners? The original intent was for shield hardeners to be short duration and long cooldown delay but high effect and armor hardeners to be longer duration and shorter cooldown with less effect. Now you're making them have the same effect but different durations and cooldowns.
Why take a 40% shield hardener for 30 seconds over a 40% armor hardener for 45 seconds when the armor hardener has the shorter cooldown too?
That will very likely make the armor hardener more useful than the shield hardener. I would've gone with making armor hardeners have 30% resistance bonus as a first step. |
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
1023
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:30%-40% is going to be the necessary range. Better to get it over with NOW. Because AV weapons were going to need tweaking anyway. If we bite the bullet NOW we can adjust and do the necessary work in two steps rather than four. If the two hardeners have similar fitting requirements and similar resistance bonuses, are we going to give them similar durations and cooldowns or is that just going to be an artifact of nobody caring enough?
I don't mind buffing the armor hardener. The relationship between strength of effect and duration/cooldown is what I'm going on about. |
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
1025
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:36:00 -
[5] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pre-release assessment: Heavy Machinegun
[...]
This is going to make the Sentinels cluster even tighter into the CQC maps and roam a lot less. Given the nature of the maps they're going to cluster up in, even with the 11% base DPS nerf I'm going to say this isn't going to do the job of dislodging the heavy meta. I concur. Earlier I said you can't get Sentinels out of CQC by reducing range and I still believe it's valid.
Really bottom level game design question:
When a HMG Sentinel and an AR Assault duke it out in a typical outpost at 0-30 m range, who should win at which probability?
If the HMG Sentinel is supposed to win ~90% of the time, we don't have a problem. If the HMG Sentinel is only supposed to win less than 60% of the time, why have an HMG Sentinel?
I'm not proposing a solution, I'm asking the question. Once we know how that situation is supposed to play out we can change the game to be like that.
|
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
1027
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:anaboop wrote:@rat , im still awaiting reasoning or explaination on the missiles changes. Missiles were the reason madrugars are the rarest thing on the field. So their DPS was cut in half. Missiles can do 3700 DPS easily. That's not balanced against anything. Yes, the DPS was excessive, and I agree with that nerf. I don't agree with ANY of the other ones though. Reload speed should have actually had a buff to compensate for rails getting a larger magazine, total ammo increased instead of decreased.... I listed all of my reasons earlier. Missiles will be completely irrelevant to the rail after Echo. The reload change seemed to go in the wrong direction. I outlined it before but I think less damage per magazine, faster reload, is the best way to make the Missiles perform better without being so reliant on the "Kill in 1 salvo" mechanic. I didn't originally suggest this in the new HAV thread because I'm not an expert on HAVs, but would returning the large missile turret to it's pre-1.7 operation mode (4 shot salvos) with a hybrid AV-AI functionality be preferable to the current suggestion?
By the way, did anyone so far agree with the size of the AScR buff? |
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
1030
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 12:45:00 -
[7] - Quote
The-Errorist wrote:- What is the point of increasing the LAV scan radius to 30m when their scan precision is 50 dB and when vehicle active scanner range is independent of base range?
I've been wondering about that too. There's precisely zero utility in that change.
Also, I'm still bothered by the 40% armor hardeners. I'd still like to see an explanation as to why armor hardeners are going to be straight up better than shield hardeners. |
|
|
| |
|