|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
2972
   |
Posted - 2015.03.15 04:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
It's odd, I've been one shot by proto AV in my Grimises against AV as well as my proto Maddy, odd because neither should be.
Anyways, DS's need role buffing, yes. Making ADS's HAV hunters is just silly. They aren't gunships.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
2972
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 04:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
Shamarskii Simon wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Why don't you instead of complain that you are the bottom of the barrel (which is untrue) just propose numbers. This dropships +X, this Dropship +Y, swam launcher range - X. 2 pages of feeling sorry for yourselves is not going to help at all.
For example:
This Shield Hardener cost really messed up my fittings as I rely on them to tank 3 shots with X. Is it possible to increas PG by 10 because the nerf was meant for triple hardened Gunnlogis.
Thanks,
Smart player Ratt, i wish it was that easy. We aren't at the bottom with you but with everyone else? It's just "IT FLIES? KILL IT WITH FIRE!" Imagine the uproar that comes with someone asking for a buff to ADS of any kind. Whether it be fair or not, people just don't like us.
It's the nature of not willing to give on anything is why people usually don't like DS pilots, generally. They say a lot of unreasonable things, and when told so, or asking for a compromise, they do a sparky and just say, "No, you're simply wrong.". That's how it has been since day one pretty much.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
2974
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 06:34:00 -
[3] - Quote
Shamarskii Simon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Shamarskii Simon wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Why don't you instead of complain that you are the bottom of the barrel (which is untrue) just propose numbers. This dropships +X, this Dropship +Y, swam launcher range - X. 2 pages of feeling sorry for yourselves is not going to help at all.
For example:
This Shield Hardener cost really messed up my fittings as I rely on them to tank 3 shots with X. Is it possible to increas PG by 10 because the nerf was meant for triple hardened Gunnlogis.
Thanks,
Smart player Ratt, i wish it was that easy. We aren't at the bottom with you but with everyone else? It's just "IT FLIES? KILL IT WITH FIRE!" Imagine the uproar that comes with someone asking for a buff to ADS of any kind. Whether it be fair or not, people just don't like us. It's the nature of not willing to give on anything is why people usually don't like DS pilots, generally. They say a lot of unreasonable things, and when told so, or asking for a compromise, they do a sparky and just say, "No, you're simply wrong.". That's how it has been since day one pretty much. IDK man, some AV guys are pretty ignorant just like some ADS guys. Thankfully with respec's the ignorance per ADS is getting lower per se... but I'm not sure about the other side. But what about the reasonable? They still aren't listened to. I think it's that we feel unheard, that no one else wants us to live. It drove some into respec or simply being mad because somethings aren't resolved/fixed. Now, i can't apologize for the ignorant ones sadly... They should. But, the reasonable deserve a chance. like you've said before, "when people fight for what they love, blood, tears, or even bullets are exchanged to protect it" ^ not exact quote And simply some of us on the ADS side feel we fought so long, but are still losing. I don't know where I went with this... But it feels like I'm understanding the whole hate between the two better.
There has been many people that uses AV that wishes to insta gank vehicles, yes. That is irrelevant. I've seen pilots suggest things such as being able to easily crush infantry without taking damage to being able to kill a HAV in 10 seconds or less (so being able to basically fly around with a large turret). They ask for too much, and when people says no, they do this almost 1st world armchair feminist like **** where they claim they are being oppressed to get what they want.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
2974
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 07:08:00 -
[4] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Why don't you instead of complain that you are the bottom of the barrel (which is untrue) just propose numbers. This dropships +X, this Dropship +Y, swam launcher range - X. 2 pages of feeling sorry for yourselves is not going to help at all.
For example:
This Shield Hardener cost really messed up my fittings as I rely on them to tank 3 shots with X. Is it possible to increas PG by 10 because the nerf was meant for triple hardened Gunnlogis.
Thanks,
Smart player Hang on, i really have nothing to add to the conversation, i simply find this post hilarious and amazing. Please carry on with the waaaaahmbulance ride.
lel
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
2977
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 21:17:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Kallas Hallytyr wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:I love the assumption of "ignored". Where is the consolidated ADS thread with numbers so I can feast my eyes on it? The assumption of ignored is because threads like this, which are expressing resentment, get a Dev coming in and having a go where other threads that express reasonable ideas (some are better than others and some need work, but the ideas and presentation are reasonable) get 'ignored' - maybe instead of commenting on a negative thread, you can comment on a positive thread, even if it's a simple, " I have looked at this" post. There's no big thread, that I'm aware of, but there are many related suggestions: Juno Tristan's Swarm operation changes. While not specifically an ADS thread, it is a large factor of why DS pilots so vehemently hate Swarms - that they are so incredibly simple to use while being arguably the most effective AV weapon. This thread talks about changing it such that both Swarmer and all vehicle users can use some skills in the fight. My own thread about Small Missiles and ADSs given after you asked for community proposed stats. Intended to separate AP and AT small missiles to make them less jack-of-all-trades and make the AP variant much more strafing run-y. Another of my own, about the skills involved in the ADS tree and also some work on small turret variants.Thread by Breakin Stuff asking for help with modifying DS modules and stats.Godin Thekiller's ideas about bonusing Dropships to make people want to be transported.Another quality of life change suggested by DUST Fiend. A warning system for already travelling Swarms since, again, they are the biggest offenders in V/AV non-enjoyment. An idea to increase the efficacy of teamwork in a dropship by Kaeru Nayiri.Some feedback and a conclusion from Foxhound Elite about dropship HPThere are some older threads that I do not have the energy to dredge up from the depths of the forum (from now on I'll have to use my Favourites/Subscribing more aggressively) but hopefully these show you that there are many ideas that are not merely whinging and are actually contributory in respectful ways...that apparently get ignored when you're perfectly happy to come and rag on a thread like this. Point taken to post at least once, I read every single one of these.
What did you think of them?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
2979
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 21:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
It's the nature of not willing to give on anything is why people usually don't like DS pilots, generally. They say a lot of unreasonable things, and when told so, or asking for a compromise, they do a sparky and just say, "No, you're simply wrong.". That's how it has been since day one pretty much.
Compromise, meaning "pilots give up X, Y and Z while AV gains A and B." That's not compromise. There is no compromise with AV, it's all take take take. Breaking down points and pointing out why they're wrong and bad is not "no you're simply wrong." I explain why they're wrong, sometimes providing examples with my own experiences when needed. Then Pokey comes up with his favorite word, "anecdotal evidence," while he doesn't have any because he's never used vehicles. He asked me the greatest question ever a little while ago. "Why were tanks better in Chromosome?" That told me everything I needed to know about his "experience with vehicles." He doesn't have any. He's a spreadsheet warrior. His compromise is "I want to take away X, Y and Z from you because reasons." By the way, are you losing your own tanks to tanks with damage mods? Do you think that's fair?
I wasn't actually talking about you, but you've been on record for saying that you're unwilling to change your mind about anything. Regardless of the said change, that's silly.
I've seriously seen you simply say "You're wrong" several times, or berating people for not being a pilot, when they actually have experience in using vehicles, not enough to be a pilot of course, but well enough to understand them.
Master Splinter is getting better at balancing as well. Yes, he has made mistakes, everyone does. He's trying to listen well however, and is listening to us more and more. Telling someone " You haven't done **** for us, **** off" doesn't help either. And yes, saying "There was one time in which I was easily killed by X" is anecdotal evidence. Over time it is more solid, even more so if multiple people in isolated incidents are seeing similar things. It's pretty much a process of making theories for balancing the game.
Oh, and btw, Pokey has actually used vehicles. I can confirm that.
Yes, he hasn't. He stated such. That's why he went so far as to skill for it on his own personal characters (Well, we think he did), and talked to pilots of all kinds, and AV people. He wanted to know how they worked from all angles.
Which is fine, but he needs to, and as far as I see, is trying to understand that simply adjusting numbers on a spreadsheet and saying okay is now enough, but testing the numbers and having a period of field testing (which is currently happening) as well to get the best possible solutions.
I think a HAV fitted with damage mods is fine. I think someone fitting a pre echo particle cannon/XT with two damage mods is a scrublord.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
2984
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 22:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
Denchlad 7 wrote:I think the real issue is none of us really know how to balance Dropships.
Numbers, yeah, we could probably establish that. But with the issues every pilot has with Swarms, I highly doubt it would work. I think we need to modify Swarms so that they make us pilots rage less but are still effective. Then, potential balance changes.
Make them faster, but turn slower. Then they can be dodgable, and can crash into **** easier, not hit dime turns.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
2984
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 22:07:00 -
[8] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:MINA Longstrike wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:manboar thunder fist wrote:The recent changes to AV, just going to throw this out there... WHAT Changes to AV have affected dropships? The only thing that has changed is the AV nade count. Not trolling when I say if that has seriously affected the utility of dropships, there's a pilot error problem. Because there has been no other change to AV. So your thesis statement confuses me. Well there's been changes to hardeners, so obviously that's an AV buff!!!.... Oh and PLC's got stronger too! I also don't understand the thesis statement. I have had a lot of my fits invalidated though by the changes to resource costs and prior to this patch it was practically impossible to use dropships anyways due to how powerful swarms were. Considering how often that the PLC is effective against dropships it's hard to remember they exist in the context of the topic.
I actually had a moment earlier, where several PLC's were shot at me like RPG's in some military flick.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
2987
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 01:20:00 -
[9] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:I actually had a moment earlier, where several PLC's were shot at me like RPG's in some military flick. GalComs can put up a worrisome flak field, but PLCs are just bad at AA duty. Projectile speed plus drop makes it hard to nail such a mobile target.
Obvious, but
1: It was still badass
2: Flak fields are scary. 
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
2987
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 01:21:00 -
[10] - Quote
Skybladev2 wrote:I always wonder how devs tell about Vehicles and AV weapons balancing meaning only tanks and leaving behind Dropships and LAVs.
And every time they pass one part of the equation they seem to ignore other parts.
As a reminder:
1. HAV vs HAV can not be balanced without HAV vs DS and HAV vs LAV as well.
2. Vehicle vs AV means HAV + DS + LAV. Not HAV vs AV. Not DS vs AV. Not LAV vs AV.
3. Vehicle vs Vehicle can not be balanced without Vehicle vs Infantry (this means turrets balance mostly).
4. Mixed AV weapons (Plasma Cannon, Forgeguns) must be balanced against Infantry + Vehicles = Infantry + HAV + LAV + DS.
Not Infantry + HAV. Not HAV + LAV. All 4 types of targets.
So basically what I've been everything: Everything should be balanced against everything.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
2993
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 20:32:00 -
[11] - Quote
Derpty Derp wrote:Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:I have issue with this solution for the same reason I object to it for tanks.
The entire financial burden for the vehicle rests upon the pilot.
Yet he must be dependent upon someone else to operate his equipment and not be a dumbass. Or to at least have the courtesy of having skilled appropriately.
This is asking a lot, to the point of being unreasonable. Agreed. That said, I would love to see a variant that worked that way for both HAVs and DSs! This ^ ^ A vehicle designed to require 2 people to operate, would surely be allowed the survivability to require 2 people to take it out with AV. A lot of people wanted that & currently if you are screwing around with a co-gunner, your fit is totally gimped.
a HAV with the tnak of say 2 HAV's, or somewhere between one and two HAV's (leaning towards 2) would be unkillable. same for a DS. and balancing AV to suit them and not single pilot vehicles would be silly as hell.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
2993
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 20:33:00 -
[12] - Quote
Maiden selena MORTIMOR wrote:Derpty Derp wrote:Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:I have issue with this solution for the same reason I object to it for tanks.
The entire financial burden for the vehicle rests upon the pilot.
Yet he must be dependent upon someone else to operate his equipment and not be a dumbass. Or to at least have the courtesy of having skilled appropriately.
This is asking a lot, to the point of being unreasonable. Agreed. That said, I would love to see a variant that worked that way for both HAVs and DSs! This ^ ^ A vehicle designed to require 2 people to operate, would surely be allowed the survivability to require 2 people to take it out with AV. A lot of people wanted that & currently if you are screwing around with a co-gunner, your fit is totally gimped. Logistics dropships and tanks ..common. ccp bring back spider tanking
a LHV doesn't make sense, ass they are much too slow. and this post implies that LDS'sare actually good at repping anything, in which I laugh at you.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
2993
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 20:44:00 -
[13] - Quote
Eh, not really, more PLC shots were flying than that, and much closer.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
2993
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 20:52:00 -
[14] - Quote
Velvet Overkill wrote:
Derisive comments asside, back when there were remote repping modules, the speed/mobility of HAVs was not a problem because their targets were also HAVs. Also repping tanks and other dropships with a dropship wasn't that bad.
a LLV did the same job, and more much better.
And was also already based on, you know, repping ****.
And LDS's were based upon transport, never repping.
Also, I'd like to see you make a case with evidence that shows such. I've not seen such yet, but seen the exact opposite.
And lastly, every single logistic vehicle shouldn't be good at doing every single logistic role.
Oh, still giggling on the fact that you think that a Repping DS was okay... 10 minutes after I read it 
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
| |
|