DUST Search - Yet another Hotfix Echo thread review: Sgt Kirk edition.

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Yet another Hotfix Echo thread review: Sgt Kirk edition.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

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*
CommanderBolt KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 3246	Posted - 2015.03.18 19:53:00 - [2] - Quote Agree. Shield tanks have been dropping left and right but armour tanks seem to put up a much better fight. Also 100% agree on the myofibs, they are fun and amazing but just need some adjustments to spamability basically. Right now its too easy to keep hopping around creating a nightmare for some people. (I will say though that the good players quite easily shoot you out of the sky) Vitantur Nothus wrote: Why hide a solution under frothy pile of derpa? SCV Ready!
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4765	Posted - 2015.03.18 20:45:00 - [3] - Quote Agree about the Myofibs. I think they need to implement a system like you mentioned. Hold X for a duration of time to reach full height and the larger the jump the more stamina it costs. I would actually make this the default operation for jumps, so even without myofibs you could hold X and get a larger jump to clear small obstacles/ rough terrain at the cost of more stamina. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Soul Cairn 191	Posted - 2015.03.18 21:13:00 - [4] - Quote Agree with the vehicle section. Don't be fooled, I'm Caldari Vehicular Specialist Grandmaster Bump
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17739	Posted - 2015.03.18 21:17:00 - [5] - Quote 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. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
D3LTA Blitzkrieg II 0uter.Heaven Back and Forth 260	Posted - 2015.03.18 22:18:00 - [6] - Quote Also all vehicles removed from ambush :( Running out of fuks to give
DarthJT5 Random Gunz 345	Posted - 2015.03.18 22:20:00 - [7] - Quote 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 Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Veteran Python Pilot for 1 year. The awnser is always XT missiles....
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17741	Posted - 2015.03.18 22:26:00 - [8] - Quote 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. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9977	Posted - 2015.03.18 22:40:00 - [9] - 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*
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17743	Posted - 2015.03.18 22:42:00 - [10] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: 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. But even the shameless Gal loyalist you are those constantly Heavy Rep values are rather..... powerful. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch

Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9977	Posted - 2015.03.18 22:52:00 - [11] - 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*
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17744	Posted - 2015.03.18 23:48:00 - [12] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: 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. Actually if you are around later I could throw you some numbers...... on the whole they are pretty much exactly the same as now e.g - a Prototype Active Repairer that reps 414 per pulse has a per second rep value of 138 (sounds familiar doesn't it) but pulses every 3 seconds for 15 seconds. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 415	Posted - 2015.03.18 23:50:00 - [13] - Quote The problem is too many people are trying to convince everyone that ' armor should be CQC and shields should be ranged ' . This philosophy is flawed as whoever is better at CQC is also going to be better at range. The argument would work if the 'ranged' suit/vehicle had a benefit over its CQC counter, right now all the shields can do is kite armor suits. Kiting a superior suit and hiding behind cover as a play style doesn't prove suit balance as you can successfully kite using an armor build better than a shield build. The same thing is being done to tanks. Both should be able to slap on a blaster and go toe to toe, blasters are +10/-10, but at this point armor tanks are 100% more effective instead of 10%. And now we have people happy with shield tanks being forced to kite from range also asking for shield tanks to get a speed nerf. There is no logic, just shield nerfs.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17744	Posted - 2015.03.18 23:54:00 - [14] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: The problem is too many people are trying to convince everyone that ' armor should be CQC and shields should be ranged ' . This philosophy is flawed as whoever is better at CQC is also going to be better at range. The argument would work if the 'ranged' suit/vehicle had a benefit over its CQC counter, right now all the shields can do is kite armor suits. Kiting a superior suit and hiding behind cover as a play style doesn't prove suit balance as you can successfully kite using an armor build better than a shield build. The same thing is being done to tanks. Both should be able to slap on a blaster and go toe to toe, blasters are +10/-10, but at this point armor tanks are 100% more effective instead of 10%. And now we have people happy with shield tanks being forced to kite from range also asking for shield tanks to get a speed nerf. There is no logic, just shield nerfs. But don't you think that is kind of the point to some degree. Armour HAV are better because Blaster fights are battles of endurance where the profile really comes into play. It's not that the Blaster is more efficient on the Maddy its the that weapon is not designed to engage armour tanks and in endurance base battles where both tanks have 40% resistances then modified by their weapons innate attributes these values add up. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 415	Posted - 2015.03.19 00:07:00 - [15] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: The problem is too many people are trying to convince everyone that ' armor should be CQC and shields should be ranged ' . This philosophy is flawed as whoever is better at CQC is also going to be better at range. The argument would work if the 'ranged' suit/vehicle had a benefit over its CQC counter, right now all the shields can do is kite armor suits. Kiting a superior suit and hiding behind cover as a play style doesn't prove suit balance as you can successfully kite using an armor build better than a shield build. The same thing is being done to tanks. Both should be able to slap on a blaster and go toe to toe, blasters are +10/-10, but at this point armor tanks are 100% more effective instead of 10%. And now we have people happy with shield tanks being forced to kite from range also asking for shield tanks to get a speed nerf. There is no logic, just shield nerfs. But don't you think that is kind of the point to some degree. Armour HAV are better because Blaster fights are battles of endurance where the profile really comes into play. It's not that the Blaster is more efficient on the Maddy its the that weapon is not designed to engage armour tanks and in endurance base battles where both tanks have 40% resistances then modified by their weapons innate attributes these values add up. The CQC suit/vehicle is also better at range. Might as well take proto tag off all shield suits and just have them as some wierd standard suit/vehicle variant to use as a joke. 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, but what we have is shields being stuck in the redline or insta popping to one clip of a blaster. There is no ' madrugar out lasting gunlogi hardeners ' .. there is only ' madrugar out reps, out hardens, out damages, out nitros, out eHP's the gunlogi' Nerfing gunlogi shield reps was a mistake Not fixing shield boosters functionality and fitting costs was a mistake not having shield regulators also act as rechargers was a mistake the insane fitting costs on regulators is a mistake Armor > Shields
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17748	Posted - 2015.03.19 00:11:00 - [16] - Quote 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. As for the 44 repairs per second you lost...it's barely noticeably. Better design that you fit a Shield Booster is you want more prolific and reliable repairs. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9977	Posted - 2015.03.19 00:17:00 - [17] - 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*
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 415	Posted - 2015.03.19 00:20:00 - [18] - 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. 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.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17748	Posted - 2015.03.19 00:22:00 - [19] - 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. I do feel like module fitting and the Shield Booster does need looking at. Shield Booster only seems to work for me if I have 1 second between when I am hit and activation. Beyond that and fitting I'm not convinced shield HAV are as underpowered as people suggest but they need looking at. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9978	Posted - 2015.03.19 00:22:00 - [20] - 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*

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17748	Posted - 2015.03.19 00:31:00 - [21] - Quote 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?) Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9978	Posted - 2015.03.19 00:45:00 - [22] - 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*
ReGnYuM Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 3582	Posted - 2015.03.19 01:39:00 - [23] - Quote D3LTA Blitzkrieg II wrote: Also all vehicles removed from ambush :( Turn that frown upside down!
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9980	Posted - 2015.03.19 02:18:00 - [24] - 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*
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17753	Posted - 2015.03.19 02:25:00 - [25] - Quote 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! Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9980	Posted - 2015.03.19 02:29:00 - [26] - 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*
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17753	Posted - 2015.03.19 02:31:00 - [27] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: 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. Scrub stop using OP vehicles! Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
Gabriel Ceja Ready to Play 101	Posted - 2015.03.19 07:39:00 - [28] - Quote The power diagnostic unit would definitely be awesome and the return of shield recharges would be much appreciated since they would actually be very useful now that the shield recharge of shield tanks is better by a good margin compared to what is used to be back then pre 1.7 "Throw on the flux capacitor." activates fuel injector "WOOOOOO!!!"


Pages: [1] :: 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.

SCV Ready!