DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Hotfix Echo

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] Hotfix Echo - Narrative and Numbers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 32 post(s)
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 4099	Posted - 2015.03.05 23:13:00 - [211] - Quote Silly question: With ROF nerf wouldn't it be better to rename assault HMG in Breach HMG? Milk my barge > Acquire Key > Open mistery box > quit Dust514
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 836	Posted - 2015.03.05 23:16:00 - [212] - Quote lol @ the assault HMG. I bet that thing will be the most used heavy weapon for sure. Simply cause you can kill multiple people in a row without reloading, has much better range and it can kill LAV's. It might have some issues with strafers but overall the performance of the assault HMG will be better. Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7543	Posted - 2015.03.05 23:17:00 - [213] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Silly question: With ROF nerf wouldn't it be better to rename assault HMG in Breach HMG? details on naming can be hashed out later. Fix guns, then nitpick. AV
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 836	Posted - 2015.03.05 23:30:00 - [214] - Quote Could i get a explaination why max AV grenades carried goes from 2 to 3 and LAV's are getting nerfbatted to crap at the same time? I mean common the saga was allready a rolling deathtrap but with the AV grenade buff on top of it its going to be a nightmare driving a LAV. If you allready add more PG+CPU to them then add aswell more module slots. And yes i do like to drive around with a gunner and a decent fit on the car which can cost up to 140k ISK. And you should know that less HP on the saga= better jihad LAV cause it blows up much quicker when bumping a tank. Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7543	Posted - 2015.03.05 23:37:00 - [215] - Quote Bright Cloud wrote: Could i get a explaination why max AV grenades carried goes from 2 to 3 and LAV's are getting nerfbatted to crap at the same time? I mean common the saga was allready a rolling deathtrap but with the AV grenade buff on top of it its going to be a nightmare driving a LAV. If you allready add more PG+CPU to them then add aswell more module slots. And yes i do like to drive around with a gunner and a decent fit on the car which can cost up to 140k ISK. And you should know that less HP on the saga= better jihad LAV cause it blows up much quicker when bumping a tank. if you're spec'd deep into LAVs and the mods then it'll make it easier to put a heavy shield extender and/or other powerful defensive modules into the LAV. With the current fitting limitations it's possible to stick a 120mm STD plate on a methana. With the fitting buff I might even be able to put in a heavy repper. the idea is if you're not willing to skill into them, they are, and should be, deathtraps. But if you're willing to do the work and burn the ISK, you should be able to make them good. AV
Foundation Seldon Heaven's Lost Property 881	Posted - 2015.03.05 23:52:00 - [216] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Bright Cloud wrote: Could i get a explaination why max AV grenades carried goes from 2 to 3 and LAV's are getting nerfbatted to crap at the same time? I mean common the saga was allready a rolling deathtrap but with the AV grenade buff on top of it its going to be a nightmare driving a LAV. If you allready add more PG+CPU to them then add aswell more module slots. And yes i do like to drive around with a gunner and a decent fit on the car which can cost up to 140k ISK. And you should know that less HP on the saga= better jihad LAV cause it blows up much quicker when bumping a tank. if you're spec'd deep into LAVs and the mods then it'll make it easier to put a heavy shield extender and/or other powerful defensive modules into the LAV. With the current fitting limitations it's possible to stick a 120mm STD plate on a methana. With the fitting buff I might even be able to put in a heavy repper. the idea is if you're not willing to skill into them, they are, and should be, deathtraps. But if you're willing to do the work and burn the ISK, you should be able to make them good. The point is that, even with the fitting buff, they'll be no where near as strong as they are now. You didn't NEED to fit a plate on the Methana in its current state of the game due to its base HP pool and on top of that you could stick a hardener on to further increase your effectiveness. Now you need a 120mm plate to ALMOST make up for the difference in the base main HP pool and lose the hardener if you want any sort of repair. Without a further buff to their slot layout, it's an objective nerf to the LAV as a vehicle class in the game.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7545	Posted - 2015.03.05 23:54:00 - [217] - Quote Foundation Seldon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Bright Cloud wrote: Could i get a explaination why max AV grenades carried goes from 2 to 3 and LAV's are getting nerfbatted to crap at the same time? I mean common the saga was allready a rolling deathtrap but with the AV grenade buff on top of it its going to be a nightmare driving a LAV. If you allready add more PG+CPU to them then add aswell more module slots. And yes i do like to drive around with a gunner and a decent fit on the car which can cost up to 140k ISK. And you should know that less HP on the saga= better jihad LAV cause it blows up much quicker when bumping a tank. if you're spec'd deep into LAVs and the mods then it'll make it easier to put a heavy shield extender and/or other powerful defensive modules into the LAV. With the current fitting limitations it's possible to stick a 120mm STD plate on a methana. With the fitting buff I might even be able to put in a heavy repper. the idea is if you're not willing to skill into them, they are, and should be, deathtraps. But if you're willing to do the work and burn the ISK, you should be able to make them good. The point is that, even with the fitting buff, they'll be no where near as strong as they are now. You didn't NEED to fit a plate on the Methana in its current state of the game due to its base HP pool and on top of that you could stick a hardener on to further increase your effectiveness. Now you need a 120mm plate to ALMOST make up for the difference in the base main HP pool and lose the hardener if you want any sort of repair. Without a further buff to their slot layout, it's an objective nerf to the LAV as a vehicle class in the game. because an untanked LAV eating two prototype AV hits made it too easy to troll around a heavy murder taxi or JLAV and be able to eat 2-3 railgun shots while delivering an RE lance to the victim. Light vehicles should not be casually taking hits in a manner similar to a tank. AV
Foundation Seldon Heaven's Lost Property 881	Posted - 2015.03.06 00:04:00 - [218] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Foundation Seldon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Bright Cloud wrote: Could i get a explaination why max AV grenades carried goes from 2 to 3 and LAV's are getting nerfbatted to crap at the same time? I mean common the saga was allready a rolling deathtrap but with the AV grenade buff on top of it its going to be a nightmare driving a LAV. If you allready add more PG+CPU to them then add aswell more module slots. And yes i do like to drive around with a gunner and a decent fit on the car which can cost up to 140k ISK. And you should know that less HP on the saga= better jihad LAV cause it blows up much quicker when bumping a tank. if you're spec'd deep into LAVs and the mods then it'll make it easier to put a heavy shield extender and/or other powerful defensive modules into the LAV. With the current fitting limitations it's possible to stick a 120mm STD plate on a methana. With the fitting buff I might even be able to put in a heavy repper. the idea is if you're not willing to skill into them, they are, and should be, deathtraps. But if you're willing to do the work and burn the ISK, you should be able to make them good. The point is that, even with the fitting buff, they'll be no where near as strong as they are now. You didn't NEED to fit a plate on the Methana in its current state of the game due to its base HP pool and on top of that you could stick a hardener on to further increase your effectiveness. Now you need a 120mm plate to ALMOST make up for the difference in the base main HP pool and lose the hardener if you want any sort of repair. Without a further buff to their slot layout, it's an objective nerf to the LAV as a vehicle class in the game. because an untanked LAV eating two prototype AV hits made it too easy to troll around a heavy murder taxi or JLAV and be able to eat 2-3 railgun shots while delivering an RE lance to the victim. Light vehicles should not be casually taking hits in a manner similar to a tank. But that's a different argument entirely, my point was that the change to the fitting doesn't make up for the huge hit they took from their HP pools. I agree that unfitted LAVs were too effective but if the LAVs in and of themselves were not a problem (and I seriously doubt they were from an overall effect on the battlefield point of view) then I don't see the reasoning behind punishing the few who actually DID fit out their LAVs as a side effect of the problem with BPO LAV spam and Driveby Heavies. An extra slot would keep the actual dedicated LAV drivers happy, increase fitting diversity among them, and punish those who only want to use them as driveby tools and cheap beefy transport.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7546	Posted - 2015.03.06 00:09:00 - [219] - Quote Foundation Seldon wrote: But that's a different argument entirely, my point was that the change to the fitting doesn't make up for the huge hit they took from their HP pools. I agree that unfitted LAVs were too effective but if the LAVs in and of themselves were not a problem (and I seriously doubt they were from an overall effect on the battlefield point of view) then I don't see the reasoning behind punishing the few who actually DID fit out their LAVs as a side effect of the problem with BPO LAV spam and Driveby Heavies. An extra slot would keep the actual dedicated LAV drivers happy, increase fitting diversity among them, and punish those who only want to use them as driveby tools and cheap beefy transport. if fitted LAVs are dying too easily then start making posts about it. Make them surviuvable as you can, and if they're still getting casually annihilated then ask for another slot. this is, unfortunately, something that has to be tested in-game, kinda like the HAV changes. I can say HAVs are going to be a nightmare to kill all I want, but until we get into them and try to DO it, it's crystal balling. Crystal balling with the advantage of knowing what's up, sure, but still crystal balling AV
Foundation Seldon Heaven's Lost Property 881	Posted - 2015.03.06 00:18:00 - [220] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Foundation Seldon wrote: But that's a different argument entirely, my point was that the change to the fitting doesn't make up for the huge hit they took from their HP pools. I agree that unfitted LAVs were too effective but if the LAVs in and of themselves were not a problem (and I seriously doubt they were from an overall effect on the battlefield point of view) then I don't see the reasoning behind punishing the few who actually DID fit out their LAVs as a side effect of the problem with BPO LAV spam and Driveby Heavies. An extra slot would keep the actual dedicated LAV drivers happy, increase fitting diversity among them, and punish those who only want to use them as driveby tools and cheap beefy transport. if fitted LAVs are dying too easily then start making posts about it. Make them surviuvable as you can, and if they're still getting casually annihilated then ask for another slot. this is, unfortunately, something that has to be tested in-game, kinda like the HAV changes. I can say HAVs are going to be a nightmare to kill all I want, but until we get into them and try to DO it, it's crystal balling. Crystal balling with the advantage of knowing what's up, sure, but still crystal balling My posts are based on my experience as an LAV driver, they will OBJECTIVELY be easier to kill due to the changes I mentioned. You don't cut their individual health pools by half, keep the slot layout the same, only buff their fitting to the point that they can only BARELY get to the numbers of their primary non-hardened health pools pre-Echo, and then buff AV grenades and not come to that conclusion. I don't believe it needs a crystal ball to say that running a fitted LAV post-Echo is going to be markedly more difficult. But hey, at least my new Methana can use a Complex Scanner with an Advanced Railgun now, right? We'll see how it plays out.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7548	Posted - 2015.03.06 00:22:00 - [221] - Quote Foundation Seldon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Foundation Seldon wrote: But that's a different argument entirely, my point was that the change to the fitting doesn't make up for the huge hit they took from their HP pools. I agree that unfitted LAVs were too effective but if the LAVs in and of themselves were not a problem (and I seriously doubt they were from an overall effect on the battlefield point of view) then I don't see the reasoning behind punishing the few who actually DID fit out their LAVs as a side effect of the problem with BPO LAV spam and Driveby Heavies. An extra slot would keep the actual dedicated LAV drivers happy, increase fitting diversity among them, and punish those who only want to use them as driveby tools and cheap beefy transport. if fitted LAVs are dying too easily then start making posts about it. Make them surviuvable as you can, and if they're still getting casually annihilated then ask for another slot. this is, unfortunately, something that has to be tested in-game, kinda like the HAV changes. I can say HAVs are going to be a nightmare to kill all I want, but until we get into them and try to DO it, it's crystal balling. Crystal balling with the advantage of knowing what's up, sure, but still crystal balling My posts are based on my experience as an LAV driver, they will OBJECTIVELY be easier to kill due to the changes I mentioned. You don't cut their individual health pools by half, keep the slot layout the same, only buff their fitting to the point that they can only BARELY get to the numbers of their primary non-hardened health pools pre-Echo, and then buff AV grenades and not come to that conclusion. I don't believe it needs a crystal ball to say that running a fitted LAV post-Echo is going to be markedly more difficult. But hey, at least my new Methana can use a Complex Scanner with an Advanced Railgun now, right? We'll see how it plays out. hell, I'm actually at the point where once I start finishing up a couple weapons and dropsuits I'm going to spec into DHAVs and LAVs. So I'll be theorycrafting right there with you. Besides, driving over scouts is hella fun. AV
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2336	Posted - 2015.03.06 00:35:00 - [222] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Missiles are getting hit with several nerfs at the same time.... Half ROF( this was warranted) plus slower reload speed, AND less ammo? Why? And why are rails getting a ammo BUFF when they already have TONS more damage per mag and total damage than large missiles? Then we have the fact that Large Missiles are the most fitting intensive turret in the game, costing more CPU AND PG the the rail, which brings me to the conclusion that Missiles will be by far the worst turret for tanks. The only thing I would change is the ROF. It is a little excessive, but everything else is fine. In fact, a reload speed BUFF is more appropriate than a nerf, seeing as how both the Blaster and Rail rely moreso on overheat, which is much faster than Large missile reload This. Hopefully I can do some graphical analysis of the turrets tomorrow night or this weekend when I don't have piles of homework. Though one thing I can say for sure right now is that the large missile launcher needs its PG dropped to somewhere around 700 PG at the proto level. Highest CPU cost should translate to lowest PG cost of the turrets. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 346	Posted - 2015.03.06 01:05:00 - [223] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Armor hardener needs to be viable, if you are hardening your shields, you still have them. That is not a luxury of armor hardeners. However, armor has more health without hardeners than shields do. Shield hardeners should provide more ehp simply because shields have far less health to work with. What needs to happen is proto shield hardeners have 30 sec cooldown, as they are now worse than armor hardeners. Molestia approved
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 346	Posted - 2015.03.06 01:09:00 - [224] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Armor hardener needs to be viable, if you are hardening your shields, you still have them. That is not a luxury of armor hardeners. However, armor has more health without hardeners than shields do. Shield hardeners should provide more ehp simply because shields have far less health to work with. Have you seen the new numbers for Madrugars? It's about 500 more HP in main defence than shields. Vastly different from where we used to be(now are). I'd also take it into account that you guys have a nice number of highslots to play with now so you can easily overcome that. The Madrugar has 4 lows and the most I can see is adding at least one plate so you don't move too slow. My maddy has 5.6k armor with a complex heavy rep and complex hardener...while shields won't have higher hp because a booster is needed. Molestia approved
saxonmish T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K RISE of LEGION 1065	Posted - 2015.03.06 01:11:00 - [225] - Quote When can i have my Vayu back :( i used it for months on end, i hope it come back Shinier Then Before!!!! SAXON ON A MISH - My Youtube Channel :)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17494	Posted - 2015.03.06 01:17:00 - [226] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Armor hardener needs to be viable, if you are hardening your shields, you still have them. That is not a luxury of armor hardeners. However, armor has more health without hardeners than shields do. Shield hardeners should provide more ehp simply because shields have far less health to work with. Not really at all. Shield have several benefits in exchange for their comparatively lesser raw HP values, the most notable remains that shields passively regenerate at a fair bloody rate of 124 rep/sec without fitting any modules this regenerative power is the key stone of shield HAV. And before you say "Errrr meh gerd PASSIVE ARMOUR REPAIRS are better" lets not forget that this costs a module to fit, and we all bloody well know armour should not be repping passively! "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 346	Posted - 2015.03.06 01:18:00 - [227] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: anaboop wrote: Why are large missiles so hated? they are one of the least used turrets and yet its getting nerfed Slower shooting, slower rof, slower reloading, less max ammo and lower burst interval And to add to insult we miss out on a new module Which Blaster and Railgun can utilize. I would rather keep havs as they are then to further cripple the large missile turrets. Shame on u. That is exactly what I feel. Not to mention the 40% armor hardener. Yeah, us shield mercs are screwed. Molestia approved
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17495	Posted - 2015.03.06 01:45:00 - [228] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: anaboop wrote: Why are large missiles so hated? they are one of the least used turrets and yet its getting nerfed Slower shooting, slower rof, slower reloading, less max ammo and lower burst interval And to add to insult we miss out on a new module Which Blaster and Railgun can utilize. I would rather keep havs as they are then to further cripple the large missile turrets. Shame on u. That is exactly what I feel. Not to mention the 40% armor hardener. Yeah, us shield mercs are screwed. Lol you guys are quibbling over minuscule eHP differences while two turrets and most AV still have a hard on for armour, shield still have triple digit regen values, you are all getting Regulators, and suffer no mobility penalties while having access to 5 slots on your main rack AND fitting modules. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
CarlitoX Jojooojo 144	Posted - 2015.03.06 01:47:00 - [229] - Quote "Dropsuit Modules Myofibril Stimulants simply increase strength and thereby melee damage. All right, said the community, why wouldnGÇÖt it make your legs stronger as well? So we just added that functionality to them and now you can jump higher by adding them to your loadouts, opening up a whole new tactical gameplay plus allowing sentinels to jump a few of those hamster height curbs they canGÇÖt cross now." ROMULUS H3X likes this. Amarr 4 ever. C3PO's alt
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 376	Posted - 2015.03.06 01:52:00 - [230] - Quote Mostly excited for the patch as it has potential.. Have same concerns as a few others. Scrambler buff... Ok so no one in thier right mind runs shield fits as Armor>Shields... so lets buff the anti shield gun that no one is using since no one runs shields... Instead of 3 people running shields on the server there will be around 1... the problem is using the scrambler sucks against armor and EVERYONE IS RUNNING ARMOR... balance shields first then look at the scrambler rifle. Yo Rattati armor hardeners needed some love but going from 50% worse than shield hardeners to 50% better is swaying the pendulum pretty far in the direction of armor tanks. Infantry is already dominated by armor.. we want tanks doing the same thing? That duration is going to make running Incubus and armor HAVS the only option... 30% makes far more sense given how long they last. Shield tanks have like 900 armor that spells death to any weapon while armor tanks have like 1200 shields that is used as a buffer... while the regulators are a good start, without shield boosters being viable there are going to be A LOT of armor tanks. Myofibrils + RE spam is going to get old fast

Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2187	Posted - 2015.03.06 01:57:00 - [231] - Quote Foundation Seldon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Foundation Seldon wrote: But that's a different argument entirely, my point was that the change to the fitting doesn't make up for the huge hit they took from their HP pools. I agree that unfitted LAVs were too effective but if the LAVs in and of themselves were not a problem (and I seriously doubt they were from an overall effect on the battlefield point of view) then I don't see the reasoning behind punishing the few who actually DID fit out their LAVs as a side effect of the problem with BPO LAV spam and Driveby Heavies. An extra slot would keep the actual dedicated LAV drivers happy, increase fitting diversity among them, and punish those who only want to use them as driveby tools and cheap beefy transport. if fitted LAVs are dying too easily then start making posts about it. Make them surviuvable as you can, and if they're still getting casually annihilated then ask for another slot. this is, unfortunately, something that has to be tested in-game, kinda like the HAV changes. I can say HAVs are going to be a nightmare to kill all I want, but until we get into them and try to DO it, it's crystal balling. Crystal balling with the advantage of knowing what's up, sure, but still crystal balling My posts are based on my experience as an LAV driver, they will OBJECTIVELY be easier to kill due to the changes I mentioned. You don't cut their individual health pools by half, keep the slot layout the same, only buff their fitting to the point that they can only BARELY get to the numbers of their primary non-hardened health pools pre-Echo, and then buff AV grenades of not come to that conclusion. I don't believe it needs a crystal ball to say that running a fitted LAV post-Echo is going to be markedly more difficult. But hey, at least my new Methana can use a Complex Scanner with an Advanced Railgun now, right? We'll see how it plays out. If you stay close enough to your targets to get hit by 3 AV grenades, you shouldn't be bragging about speccing them. LAVs are highly mobile for a reason. All of your turrets have plenty of range and the blaster turret is going to annihilate infantry come Echo. And yes, they ARE a problem currently - Death Taxi heavies in cheap/BPO unfitted LAVs. Nuff said. drops mic Winmatar Assault, Proficiency 5 SMG's & Proficiency 5 Swarms Since Uprising 1.0 I GÖú Puppies (Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.*pâ+n+ín+ƒ.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5214	Posted - 2015.03.06 01:57:00 - [232] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Yo Rattati armor hardeners needed some love but going from 50% worse than shield hardeners to 50% better is swaying the pendulum pretty far in the direction of armor tanks. Infantry is already dominated by armor.. we want tanks doing the same thing? I fear you might be misreading something there. From what I gathered, both armor and shield will now resist 40% damage, the only difference being shield hardeners last shorter and cool down slightly slower (same as it was before) so they are for all intensive purposes, inferior. Just throwing this out there but if we assume both will be 40%....is anyone really against just making them have the same duration/cooldown too? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 725	Posted - 2015.03.06 02:04:00 - [233] - Quote Fizzer XCIV wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: 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. This is why I want heavies out of CQC. The primary resistance isn't because it's a bad idea. it's because people like winning 90% of the time. Making sentinels the open ground powerhouses would threaten that because they'd be exposed to the stuff that'll tear them to ribbons. in close it's just shotguns, REs, NK and other fatties with maybe occasionally being shot in the face with a PLC. in the open it's HAVs, ADS, charge sniper, tac sniper, forge guns, rail rifles, ACR, LAVs with decent turrets, also fast movers with the traditional assassination methods because you have to fall back to cover to regen/resupply sooner or later. For shield sents you have the additional threat of scrams, and the laser rifle. in close the HMG more or less outclasses everything. in the open, even if you outrange them with an HMG they still have a fighting chance to kill you. I've not yet come to understand why Sentinels don't wish to actually be juggernauts with large calibre weapons that can lock down infantry and vehicles from a range while being able to put down suppressive fire on tough to crack emplacements. Think mid way between Alex's HMG and a Mass Driver. Slower firing, much more powerful auto-cannon rounds, get in position and you are like a Mini Turret but up close you are subject to faster moving dropsuits like scouts and assaults. "because people like winning 90% of the time" They don't care whether their role fits into the game well... Incorrect. Because area denial roles require mobility. Heavies don't have that. The idea of a heavy being outside but being dangerous at range doesn't work because the heavy can't move around the battle field and change their area of denial. All they do is become open area campers and can't really commit to the battle very often as, when said battle moves or changes, that heavy won't catch up to the next fight till it is already over. Heavies will earn virtually no WP. Basically, they will be the closer range, slower moving version of a redline sniper. That's the reason why people who play a lot of Sent don't want to do this. Mobility is the single most important factor in long range battles -- and since Sents don't have it they won't be able to do it. Heavies out of CQC is a ludicrous idea. Change map design so that more points are open with no cover. That would right there solve your problem with no changes needed. Breakin is right about one thing though -- this won't kick heavies out of CQC at all. It might reduce the number of them though.
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2187	Posted - 2015.03.06 02:04:00 - [234] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Yo Rattati armor hardeners needed some love but going from 50% worse than shield hardeners to 50% better is swaying the pendulum pretty far in the direction of armor tanks. Infantry is already dominated by armor.. we want tanks doing the same thing? I fear you might be misreading something there. From what I gathered, both armor and shield will now resist 40% damage, the only difference being shield hardeners last shorter and cool down slightly slower (same as it was before) so they are for all intensive purposes, inferior. Though I wouldn't say 50% difference..but regardless Just throwing this out there but if we assume both will be 40%....is anyone really against just making them have the same duration/cooldown too? I believe the original reasoning behind this was because shield tanks can speed away faster and kite around structures better, thus being able to make better use of cover. Winmatar Assault, Proficiency 5 SMG's & Proficiency 5 Swarms Since Uprising 1.0 I GÖú Puppies (Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.*pâ+n+ín+ƒ.
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 725	Posted - 2015.03.06 02:08:00 - [235] - Quote Back on topic -- lots of interesting and scary things. Instead of providing feedback on stuff I haven't tried out yet -- I'll just be excited to try it out.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 377	Posted - 2015.03.06 02:09:00 - [236] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Yo Rattati armor hardeners needed some love but going from 50% worse than shield hardeners to 50% better is swaying the pendulum pretty far in the direction of armor tanks. Infantry is already dominated by armor.. we want tanks doing the same thing? I fear you might be misreading something there. From what I gathered, both armor and shield will now resist 40% damage, the only difference being shield hardeners last shorter and cool down slightly slower (same as it was before) so they are for all intensive purposes, inferior. Though I wouldn't say 50% difference..but regardless Just throwing this out there but if we assume both will be 40%....is anyone really against just making them have the same duration/cooldown too? Well I was exaggerating the 50% for dramatic effect.. I understand they are proposed to both have 40 percent reduction... just seems like 40 seconds is a lot longer than 24 seconds when using the same reduction ( or whatever the durations are )... reducing the duration is the only thing that makes sense but we lose a bit of racial diversity... Still think those shield reps are going to be too low even at 1.8 secs... or whatever the stat is....
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1858	Posted - 2015.03.06 02:17:00 - [237] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Yo Rattati armor hardeners needed some love but going from 50% worse than shield hardeners to 50% better is swaying the pendulum pretty far in the direction of armor tanks. Infantry is already dominated by armor.. we want tanks doing the same thing? I fear you might be misreading something there. From what I gathered, both armor and shield will now resist 40% damage, the only difference being shield hardeners last shorter and cool down slightly slower (same as it was before) so they are for all intensive purposes, inferior. Though I wouldn't say 50% difference..but regardless Just throwing this out there but if we assume both will be 40%....is anyone really against just making them have the same duration/cooldown too? Well I was exaggerating the 50% for dramatic effect.. I understand they are proposed to both have 40 percent reduction... just seems like 40 seconds is a lot longer than 24 seconds when using the same reduction ( or whatever the durations are )... reducing the duration is the only thing that makes sense but we lose a bit of racial diversity... Still think those shield reps are going to be too low even at 1.8 secs... or whatever the stat is.... + shields have faulty boosters. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17498	Posted - 2015.03.06 02:28:00 - [238] - Quote Imp Smash wrote: Incorrect. Because area denial roles require mobility. Heavies don't have that. The idea of a heavy being outside but being dangerous at range doesn't work because the heavy can't move around the battle field and change their area of denial. All they do is become open area campers and can't really commit to the battle very often as, when said battle moves or changes, that heavy won't catch up to the next fight till it is already over. Heavies will earn virtually no WP. Basically, they will be the closer range, slower moving version of a redline sniper. That's the reason why people who play a lot of Sent don't want to do this. Mobility is the single most important factor in long range battles -- and since Sents don't have it they won't be able to do it. Heavies out of CQC is a ludicrous idea. Change map design so that more points are open with no cover. That would right there solve your problem with no changes needed. Breakin is right about one thing though -- this won't kick heavies out of CQC at all. It might reduce the number of them though. No they simply don't. I don't need to move for my Laser Rifle to clear entire sections of the map. I get into position I can stay there as long as I need to. In other games once I get my Tiger H1 into position (its a heavy tank with a big gun) very little but well placed high calibre shots can dislodge me. You simply do not need to move to fulfil an area denial role, you simply need to get into position within the area and BAM you have a sweet spot of wreaking havoc. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 18082	Posted - 2015.03.06 02:33:00 - [239] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Mostly excited for the patch as it has potential.. Have same concerns as a few others. Scrambler buff... Ok so no one in thier right mind runs shield fits as Armor>Shields... so lets buff the anti shield gun that no one is using since no one runs shields... Instead of 3 people running shields on the server there will be around 1... the problem is using the scrambler sucks against armor and EVERYONE IS RUNNING ARMOR... balance shields first then look at the scrambler rifle. Yo Rattati armor hardeners needed some love but going from 50% worse than shield hardeners to 50% better is swaying the pendulum pretty far in the direction of armor tanks. Infantry is already dominated by armor.. we want tanks doing the same thing? That duration is going to make running Incubus and armor HAVS the only option... 30% makes far more sense given how long they last. Shield tanks have like 900 armor that spells death to any weapon while armor tanks have like 1200 shields that is used as a buffer... while the regulators are a good start, without shield boosters being viable there are going to be A LOT of armor tanks. Myofibrils + RE spam is going to get old fast Dropsuit Shield and Armor tanking are currently at pretty good parity. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9738	Posted - 2015.03.06 02:41:00 - [240] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Mostly excited for the patch as it has potential.. Have same concerns as a few others. Scrambler buff... Ok so no one in thier right mind runs shield fits as Armor>Shields... so lets buff the anti shield gun that no one is using since no one runs shields... Instead of 3 people running shields on the server there will be around 1... the problem is using the scrambler sucks against armor and EVERYONE IS RUNNING ARMOR... balance shields first then look at the scrambler rifle. Yo Rattati armor hardeners needed some love but going from 50% worse than shield hardeners to 50% better is swaying the pendulum pretty far in the direction of armor tanks. Infantry is already dominated by armor.. we want tanks doing the same thing? That duration is going to make running Incubus and armor HAVS the only option... 30% makes far more sense given how long they last. Shield tanks have like 900 armor that spells death to any weapon while armor tanks have like 1200 shields that is used as a buffer... while the regulators are a good start, without shield boosters being viable there are going to be A LOT of armor tanks. Myofibrils + RE spam is going to get old fast Dropsuit Shield and Armor tanking are currently at pretty good parity. I agree. The only thing Dropsuit shields needs is a threshold of damage. Everything else is pretty balanced, it's just a lot of people refuse to use the right fits and tactics that are required with shields. I.e all lower tier players know how to do is stack health and charge at the enemy at 6.14 m/s screaming and waving their wands. *As long as 4/5 (80%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris