|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 32 post(s) |

The-Errorist
1080
 |
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Update, and the spreadsheet is updated as well, and added to the OP.
"After making the Starter loadouts much better, we ran into the issue of PG/CPU capacity. The situation was tricky because Militia and Standard Basic Frames were not in parity, and we wanted to simplify fitting so that all starter fits had the same PG/CPU capacity. However, we also had an old issue we could fix at the same time, Basic Medium Frames have been underpowered for a while and the solution was simple. Massively increase and equalize all Basic Medium Frame capacity, make them worth skilling up to Prototype, and give Militia Dropsuits a reduced, fixed % of Standard capacity. So thatGÇÖs what we did. Coupled with the fact that we reduced the ISK cost of Basic Dropsuits in a recent hotfix, will hopefully make them viable choices for battle. To fine-tune the Starter loadouts, and increase parity of militia choices, we also made tweaks to the PG/CPU requirements of a few militia items as well." You should make basic medium frames generalists instead of skill-bonus-less assaults with extra capacity.
Basic medium frames could achieve that by having +5m increase in scan radius, 2 equipment slots at all tiers, 1 less module slot compared to assaults, a bit more PG/CPU, and a bit less HP than assaults, but more than logistics.
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2550419
Suits, Tanks, a mode
|

The-Errorist
1081
 |
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Rattati, why don't you want to give basic medium frames 2 total equipment slots so they'll truly be generalists that the logistics and assaults branched out from?
Suits, Tanks, a mode
|

The-Errorist
1084
 |
Posted - 2015.03.09 14:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
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?
Suits, Tanks, a mode
|

The-Errorist
1085
 |
Posted - 2015.03.09 14:48:00 -
[4] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:MINA Longstrike wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Exactly. Some pilots just keep hammering this topic in an effort to win some forum points. Nobody is listening to this particular rhetoric at CCP. It's not rhetoric if it's true Rattati, it's called arguing the point. Many of us find swarms so frustrating because they are mathematically guaranteed to hit. Its 'consistency' has often been a very frustrating point of balance, I remember 1.6 gameplay where I was shot down by swarm fire from the other side of the map by someone who went 'oh noes there's a dropship out time to grab a swarm and aggressively hold r1 at this thing that offends me while standing on a nanohive for forever!' The balance pendulum has swung many times on the swarm where it's gone from overpowered (pre 1.7) to useless (1.7 triple rep maddies) to powerful (hey it could kill tanks again!) to useless (dropships need only hit an afterburner to zoom away!) to powerful again (get too close to a swarm launcher and you are dead - user skill is irrelevant). Maybe it's time to re-think the weapon from the ground up as it's clear that its current form is fundamentally flawed from a balance standpoint. I'd love to see a swarm launcher that can be boiled down to a wordsoup of 'plasma cannon + av grenade lockon'. Who is more likely to die, the swarmer or the ADS? The ADS. Once we start getting hit by swarms we almost always have to run, because we don't have the tank to handle that much incoming damage. Here's the thing; right now we have a swarm that has enough speed to catch the ADS and enough damage to kill tanks. This is part of the problem. I created a thread about making the assault swarm launcher anti-air while having the regular swarm launcher focus on anti-armor against tanks, but the problem is we are dealing with a weapon that 1) is supposed to be strong enough to deal with tanks, while fast enough to catch ADS when ADS don't have tank levels of health 2) we have no way of knowing when they are coming in until they hit our ship. Multiple pilots have talked about having some sort of warning system so we know we are in danger. ADS don't want to be invincible in the sky. We just want to be able to fight back when someone uses AV. Rendering is still an issue for ADS, but even if it wasn't, we have no idea which one of those infantry is AV and therefore a threat to us, so we cannot respond properly until we are already being attacked. And then when we are being attacked, I'm dealing with damage meant for busting tanks when I struggle to fit enough HP to reach current base tank health. I honestly feel like separating the assault swarm to be anti-ADS and the regular swarm to be anti-tank is a great step in the right direction, because it means we can balance the two independently of each other; upping damage on the regular swarms to handle stronger tanks doesn't upset the balance between the assault swarm and ADS. But a warning system would also be another great step towards balance. I don't need to know where they are coming from, I just need to know they are coming. I made a trello card for this issue https://trello.com/c/aqxMxoUZ/498-rebalance-assault-and-base-swarm-launchers
Suits, Tanks, a mode
|

The-Errorist
1085
 |
Posted - 2015.03.09 15:06:00 -
[5] - Quote
Does anyone in CCP care about dealing with the assault variant of a weapon that is not to be mentioned in a later hotfix?
Suits, Tanks, a mode
|

The-Errorist
1087
 |
Posted - 2015.03.10 03:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sole Fenychs wrote: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?
Also why not make basic medium frames have 2 equipment slots so they'll finally be the generalists that assaults and logistics branch out from? This post is much more interesting than the Swarm discussion that is supposed to have ended by now. Absolutely agreed. I'm surprised someone even noticed my post and thanks.
Suits, Tanks, a mode
|

The-Errorist
1091
 |
Posted - 2015.03.10 11:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
jace silencerww wrote:I wrote this earlier and now I am adding to it. jace silencerww wrote:maybe you have answered this CCP Rattiati but what about dropships, lavs and ads with this fit to PG & CPU mods there are going to get hurt a lot. even more so are the dropship that run CRUs and troop support. are you going to come out with a light PG & CPU mods for them? like the armor plates, armor repair, shields exts, and shield boosters have bboth a heavy & light version. some of your prefit vehicles will need to be redone/fixed/changed with the CPU & PG mod changes due to the will not work even at maxed out skills. oh a big problem you need to fix the controls on ( "Nullarbor" Myron ) it does not fly correctly and before you say anything I can fly well. been flying dropships since open beta. I don't know if it is ok with m&kb but with the controller it always pulls the nose up you have to fight it to keep it down. maybe it was over looked when the fly mechincs or fly controls were changed. CCP will probably never fix them. I reported that problem on 2014.01.03 and CCP lied about going to fix it.
Suits, Tanks, a mode
|

The-Errorist
1091
 |
Posted - 2015.03.10 12:38:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP Rattati has so far ignored these issues that are relevant to Hotfix Echo:
- For the starter fits, seems kind of redundant to have 2 fits with uplinks. The recon should have uplinks while the frontline gets nanohives to replenish their ammo. Would also like to see starter fits with more interesting weapons, like the mass driver.
Lying to people's faces when you said you were going to address the problem of speed penalties of 60mm plates being higher than 120mm plates.
- 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?
- Why not make basic medium frames have 2 equipment slots so they'll finally be the generalists that assaults and logistics branch out from?
- Armor hardener vs shield hardener issues.
Suits, Tanks, a mode
|

The-Errorist
1095
 |
Posted - 2015.03.10 15:24:00 -
[9] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:What's with this hotfix echo talk? As far as I know, we're still on Warlords 1.0 with no hotfixes at all yet. CCP is working on a hotfix to apply to this current build and they chose to continue letter based naming convention from past hotfixes.
Also Echo is what comes after Delta and there was never a hotfix named "Hotfix Echo" before, so it makes sense to call this one that.
Suits, Tanks, a mode
|
|
|
|