|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sgt Kirk
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
9971
   |
Posted - 2015.03.18 17:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
To keep it short and simple these are the things I've noticed wrong with Echo after playing around with it for a short period of time. For the most part it's a great patch and very commendable.
Vehicles:
LAVs are now worthless. Ratburn has already acknowledged this saying he with increase fittings but that isn't enough, we need more slots back to compensate or at least give better slots with the Saga II and the Methana II (Soon).
Shield HAVs need more base shielding than what they have now. While I always supported the reduction of speed on the Caldari I also think it should also be in trade with higher base Shielding. I'd increase Shields by a good amount.
Shield Fittings, I've actually played around with Regulators and prefer them over using shield boosters with my long range rail set up. They use considerably less CPU and PG but without the use of recharger module I can't make much use of it. We need a shield recharger module for tanks as well but Ratburn probably already has plans for that.
Along with high priority modules due to Caldari tanks having only two low slots which is more than fair with their 5 high slots.
Along with Recharger modules Shield tanks need the power diagnostic unit back pronto. This lowslot powergrid based module increased CPU, PG, shield and recharge amount slightly in an all in one package. I believe it went 8%/11%/15% and it was a damn good module. Almost like what a damage control unit it for armor tanks.
Dropships need increased CPU and PG and to be honest all vehicles can benefit from having tiered versions like tanks are, but once again Ratburn probably already knows that.
Infantry:
Myofibrils are awesome and huge jumps need to stay in the game but we need to have a way to control it more. We need to have a controlled system to determine how high you jump. The longer you hold down X the higher you jump (I'd prefer for it to be pressurized but that may be too hard especially dealing with kb/m players), in addition to that I'd like for a jumps to cost more Stamina based on the jump height and frame of the suit.
Assault Scrambler I feel is hurting my armor a lot more than it should but it's only been on Amar assaults. So I'm not sure what to make of that. Further analysis is required.
Thank you for your time for yet another hotfix Echo thread.
As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP
|
Sgt Kirk
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
9977
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 22:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Soul Cairn wrote:Agree with the vehicle section. The only concern I have with it is I'm not yet too sure how a static boost to shield eHP will changing things a great deal.....might offer them 0.5sec greater longevity..... but that really doesn't address some of core issues of why armour is currently a fair bit more viable than shields. I think it's the fact that armor counters in turrets (missile/rail) both got nerfed pretty heavily, while the anti shield turret got buffed pretty signicantly. Along with the fact that the Madrugar can get into CQC instantly due to the easy acces to nitro mods, and then having a damage mod on that blaster plus having a full armor tank to completely destroy any shield tank that so much as raises a finger at it. The only hope for shield vehicles right now is long range combat, which the rail is okay at now, and the missiles are horrible at. And even then, a skilled Maddy will close the distance in seconds Only flaw I see in Maddies is that they can have eternal 305 repsec..... rather than short term prolific repairs. The former points you made about closing the distance and hitting hard are core concepts of the Gallentean combat doctrine.
Exactly, the fact that Shield tanks get wrecked in CQC is working as intended and Missiles are not for CQC either so you should try and use that against an Armor tank in CQC that's already prepared to take you on.
Large Rail - Long Range
Large Missiles - Best used at Mid Range
Large Blasters - Close Ranged Combat.
Do not try to use a Large Blaster at long range against a rail.
Do not try to use a Large Rail against a Large Blaster in CQC
Always use Ambush and or Support Tactics with Large Missiles.
As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP
|
Sgt Kirk
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
9977
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 22:52:00 -
[3] - Quote
True Adamance wrote: But even the shameless Gal loyalist you are those constantly Heavy Rep values are rather..... powerful.
Oh yeah I know, I hate the Idea of Constant Repairs and wish we never got them for vehicles like this.
I don't mind the idea of constant repair if it was on a smaller scale like a separate module but what we have now is ridiculous.
Ancillary Repairs (just using the name for now) - Should give a small Constant repair rate if they want it to keep it in the game so much. Have it be 10/30/50 for small and 55/75/95 for Large.
Have Active Repairs be 305 hp per pulse that go up per tier like we used to have.
As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP
|
Sgt Kirk
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
9977
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 00:17:00 -
[4] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Doc DDD wrote:
I have no idea what point you are trying to make, shield blaster tanks should have a short window where they can beat an armor blaster tank
Exactly why I want active armour reppers and not passives. If armour HAV can repair at 305 every section as soon as they take damage and this does not stop until they are fully repped they effectively have no weakness in that regard. But if those repair values were short duration with a cool down or broken into two module activations shield HAV would have windows of opportunity.
This is the way it was and it was far before they broke everything.
Constant armor repping has broken everything and they shouldn't have put it in the game in the first place. We told them it would be a bad idea.
Also, as far as vehicle balance goes this reminds me when we didn't have other suits in the game besides the original four.
People trying to do things in suits that have no business doing them is a product of lacking diversity.
We need Amarr and Minmatar HAVs and assets as quickly as we can get them.
As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP
|
Sgt Kirk
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
9978
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 00:22:00 -
[5] - Quote
Doc DDD wrote:True Adamance wrote:Doc DDD wrote:
I have no idea what point you are trying to make, shield blaster tanks should have a short window where they can beat an armor blaster tank
Exactly why I want active armour reppers and not passives. If armour HAV can repair at 305 every section as soon as they take damage and this does not stop until they are fully repped they effectively have no weakness in that regard. But if those repair values were short duration with a cool down or broken into two module activations shield HAV would have windows of opportunity. Yeah I'm fine with this alteration but I feel that buffing the gunlogi to be competitive should happen first, nerfing armor repairers is just going to have the effect of armor tanks ducking into the redline at cooldown.
Those long ranged weapons should come in handy for reaching us before we duck with our tail between our legs.
Those two things need to happen at the same time, not one over the other.
Skipping one over the other is just going to cause imbalance.
As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP
|
Sgt Kirk
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
9978
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 00:45:00 -
[6] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Sgt Kirk wrote:True Adamance wrote:Doc DDD wrote:
I have no idea what point you are trying to make, shield blaster tanks should have a short window where they can beat an armor blaster tank
Exactly why I want active armour reppers and not passives. If armour HAV can repair at 305 every section as soon as they take damage and this does not stop until they are fully repped they effectively have no weakness in that regard. But if those repair values were short duration with a cool down or broken into two module activations shield HAV would have windows of opportunity. This is the way it was and it was far before they broke everything. Constant armor repping has broken everything and they shouldn't have put it in the game in the first place. We told them it would be a bad idea. Also, as far as vehicle balance goes this reminds me when we didn't have other suits in the game besides the original four. People trying to do things in suits that have no business doing them is a product of lacking diversity. We need Amarr and Minmatar HAVs and assets as quickly as we can get them. Issue I've been having is thinking about how Amarr HAV will work. I'd assume that Heat Sinks are going to be mandatory...... scanners won't work for them as they should be at range...... maybe Nitrous or a Damage Module..... But without 180mm Plates every Amarr HAV will be 2x 120mm Plates 1x Hardener 2x Heavy Repairs assuming it can all fit on. Honestly I'd like to see a set up like 1x 180mm 1x Hardener 1x Heat Sink 1x Passive Plate 1x Heavy Repper 1x Damage Control 1x Something Amarrian (Active Tracking Computer?)
I also imagine if two Large turrets came out for Amarr, one being laser like, the other being "scrambler" like a weapon stabilizer might be useful as well for the scrambler turret.
I'm really itching to get these new vehicles and modules in ASAP.
Your scenario is also considering reps stay where they are. If by the chance they returned to being active I can see the Amarr HAV preferring plates over reps...wait...in your numbers do active repairs cost the same CPU and PG as they do now?
As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP
|
Sgt Kirk
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
9980
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 02:18:00 -
[7] - Quote
ReGnYuM wrote:D3LTA Blitzkrieg II wrote:Also all vehicles removed from ambush :( Turn that frown upside down!
Yeah I actually liked that tanks were removed.
They had no business being in ambush mode.
LAVs however I wish were omitted from the chopping block
As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP
|
Sgt Kirk
Fatal Absolution
Negative-Feedback
9980
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 02:29:00 -
[8] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Sgt Kirk wrote:ReGnYuM wrote:D3LTA Blitzkrieg II wrote:Also all vehicles removed from ambush :( Turn that frown upside down! Yeah I actually liked that tanks were removed. They had no business being in ambush mode. LAVs however I wish were omitted from the chopping block OP! OP! OP! OP! OP!
LAVs are def OP. Just the other day I drove one through the Car Wash and the LAV vehicle physics caused me to spiral upwards towards the ceiling from the ramp and I ended up breaking the washer rotator.
As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP
|
|
|
| |
|