|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9
   |
Posted - 2015.05.26 13:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
* MN Assault
* Armor Plates
* Scrambler Rifle
* Large Blaster Turrets
* Armor Hardeners
* Wiggle Wiggle
* Team-shared Active Scans
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 16:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
PARKOUR PRACTIONER wrote:Agree. What about proposed buffs?
Buffs are a 'bit tougher ... will stick with the obvious, safe ones ...
* Commandos (all races, all tiers)
* Magsec SMG
* Ion Pistol
* Large Missile Turrets (defer to reasonable pilots on this one)
* Sniper Rifles / Sniping Mechanics
* Scout EWAR and/or Cloak Mechanics
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 16:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
Which one?
Nocturnal Soul wrote:Bolt pistol needs its AA removed
From what I understand, Aim Assist can be dialed up/down. I wouldn't object to BP AA being dialed down slightly; I use it often, and it is very accurate from the hip.
Breakin Stuff wrote:nerefing wiggle will correct minassault
Certainly possible. Still, this unit is too fast considering the HP levels it can attain.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 17:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
alias lycan wrote:You just showed why min assaults need to keep their stamina. Its their mobility is the defining feature
If HP and Mobility were inversely related, mobility would be a defining characteristic of low-HP units.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 19:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:You gave no reasoning for anything. Can you logically explain why any of that should take a Nerf?
Yes :-)
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 21:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:As of Hotfix 1.1.2; listed in no particular order:
Items
* MN Assault
* Armor Plates
* Scrambler Rifle
* Large Blaster Turrets
* Armor Hardeners
Mechanics
* Wiggle Wiggle
* Team-shared Active Scans I'm going to ask why on several things not necessarily the ones you might expect though. MN Assault? Armour Plates? And the Large Blaster Turret? I mean I know that I despite the Large Blaster Turret despite using it since it barely represents a main tank gun but I have to ask why it specifically merits a nerf in the balance pass. Specifically what about it do you feel needs to be nerfed?
MN Assault
High Speed + High HP = FoTM; sustained and disproportionately high usage rates in Pubs and PC; extreme mobility is rolebleeding Scouts; first-hand observations; Rattati has mentioned reigning them in (so I think safe to assume there's a need to reign them in).
Armor Plates
High-slot diversity was recently achieved; low-slot diversity remains in a sub-optimal state. As per daily usage rates, brick-related modules have occupied 9 of the Top 10 slots each and every day for the past 6 months. The only low-slot module which appears in the Top 10 other than Brick is the KinCat, which coincidentally offsets penalty of stacking brick.
Blaster Turrets
Primarily first-hand observations. It is too effective at wiping out infantry at too great a range; it is too good in its AI capacity to simultaneously excel at AV. In my opinion, an anti-infantry blaster tank shouldn't stand a chance against an anti-vehicle missile or rail tank.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
10
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 21:20:00 -
[7] - Quote
Georgia Xavier wrote:THUNDERGROOVE wrote:Nocturnal Soul wrote:Bolt pistol needs its AA removed It has the same AA numbers and bullet magnetism as the scrambler pistol. You try killing with the burst, even ridiculous AA won't save that disgrace
It certainly isn't the best sidearm, but I'd take a Burst ScP over a MagSec or Ion Pistol any day :-)
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
10
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 21:45:00 -
[8] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:True Adamance wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:As of Hotfix 1.1.2; listed in no particular order:
Items
* MN Assault
* Armor Plates
* Scrambler Rifle
* Large Blaster Turrets
* Armor Hardeners
Mechanics
* Wiggle Wiggle
* Team-shared Active Scans I'm going to ask why on several things not necessarily the ones you might expect though. MN Assault? Armour Plates? And the Large Blaster Turret? I mean I know that I despite the Large Blaster Turret despite using it since it barely represents a main tank gun but I have to ask why it specifically merits a nerf in the balance pass. Specifically what about it do you feel needs to be nerfed? MN AssaultHigh Speed + High HP = FoTM; sustained and disproportionately high usage rates in Pubs and PC; extreme mobility is rolebleeding Scouts; first-hand observations; Rattati has mentioned reigning them in (so I think safe to assume there's a need to reign them in). Armor PlatesHigh-slot diversity was recently achieved; low-slot diversity remains in a sub-optimal state. As per daily usage rates, brick-related modules have occupied 9 of the Top 10 slots each and every day for the past 6 months. The only low-slot module which appears in the Top 10 other than Brick is the KinCat, which coincidentally offsets penalty of stacking brick. Blaster TurretsPrimarily first-hand observations. It is too effective at wiping out infantry at too great a range; it is too good in its AI capacity to simultaneously excel at AV. In my opinion, an anti-infantry blaster tank shouldn't stand a chance against an anti-vehicle missile or rail tank. I'd freely defer to reasonable pilots on this, but if pressed for suggestion I'd propose nerfing its dispersion (so mowing down infantry with impunity while hardened would take more time/effort), I'd propose nerfing its maximum range or accuracy at range (so popping infantry at longish range wouldn't happen), and I'd propose a less lenient overheat mechanic (to leave it at disadvantage against missile HAVs and to limit the amount of infantry casualties it can inflict in a given hardened cycle). 1. Min Assaults are relatively easy to kill at a distance, and the only thing that would need to change imo is its silly ability to dodge most bullets by simply strafing them. 2. The problem with plates seems to be similarly in vehicles where there's nothing really useful to put in those slots other than plates. Also, simply nerfing them because they are currently the most useful is kinda misguided. 3. I don't have much expirence with vehicles (yet, I'm getting there). From what I see, if a infantry is caught in the open, or not even trying to dodge the bullets, dying is common. From my infantry play, I can see that is the case; even going as far as staying in closed off areas or in inaccessible areas from the HAV (with AV for maximum effect) will get the HAV to go away. If you're dying to blasters, stay under cover being a fatty, or just quit scrubbing. 4. Also, a LARGE turret is AV. There is no such thing as an AI large turret; that is nonsense. As for your needs, no. Any less accuracy and it will be forced in to fight at pretty much point blank. Heating has already been needed twice, it doesn't need any more in that field.
1. Relative to what? Agreed on wiggle wiggle.
2. Correct; brick affords users more utility other low-slot modules. Whether or not we should reign in brick or buff all else is debatable.
3. Thanks for the tip.
4. Large Blaster turrets are killing infantry all the time. This is why you find Blaster HAVs parked near hostile CRUs. They're also pretty good at popping infantry at range. I guess I'd have to concede on whether or not Large Blaster Turrets are supposed to be anti-infantry, though they're certainly filling that role.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
10
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 22:29:00 -
[9] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
1. My thoughts in regards to the Minmatar Assault can be summised as one simple question. "Is the it being over used because its core statistics allow it to do so or is it being used because it is able to break Dust's poor hit detection, gains a bonus to an arguable over performing anti-armour rifle in an anti-armour meta, and remains a versatible 4/4 suit?"
2. Low slots issue I can understand though nerfing armour modules will not see a wider use of low slot modules instead it will cement the value of tank modules in the low slots. If anything rather than nerf them we need to be able to incentivise the use of other modules however at this time I cannot think of any such changes.
3. Tank Feedback Inbound......Framing Pines........ Insinuating Pathos.......
1. An excellent question. I can't argue with your logic, but I will opine that HP and Speed should share an inverse relationship if it is a design goal for low-HP / high-speed units to be competitively viable.
2. Fair enough. Have ideas for some. Need ideas for others ...
3. Looking forward to it. o7
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
10
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 22:56:00 -
[10] - Quote
Georgia Xavier wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:2. Correct; brick affords users more utility other low-slot modules. Whether or not we should reign in brick or buff all else is debatable. A buff on other modules would be nice. But which ones though? Something like the cardiac regulators? Damps?
Spitballing ...
Plates, Ferros, Reactives - Slight mobility nerf; specifics here.
Armor Repairers - OK
Codebreakers - OK
CPU Upgrades - OK
KinCats - Reduce PG by 1 - 2.
CardRegs - Add a stamina pool penalty to plates (create demand).
Shield Regulators - Improve output by 10% at each tier.
Damps - When active scanned, decrease scan duration by 15/20/25%.
Range Extenders - Lock down "inner rings" to 5m - 8m, then restore to bonus to its former 45%.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
|
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
10
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 23:16:00 -
[11] - Quote
Kaeru Nayiri wrote:
1. Damps: Love the idea
2. CardRegs: Brilliant !!
3. KinCats: I honestly think the PG cost is good, and promotes the kind of tough choices more mercs need to make to fit their suits
4. Extenders: Something that might be more elegant, allow them to affect each ring with a different modifier
example: Inner ring +10%, Medium ring +25%, Outer ring +45%
1. Credit owed to Jebus McKing
2. Posted here as alternative to increasing plate mobility penalties
3. Agreed. Changed above to "OK"
4. Whichever is easier to implement :-)
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
10
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 23:28:00 -
[12] - Quote
Ares 514 wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Spitballing ... Plates, Ferros, Reactives - Slight mobility nerf; specifics here. Armor Repairers - OK Codebreakers - OK CPU Upgrades - OK KinCats - OK CardRegs - Add a stamina pool penalty to plates (create demand). Shield Regulators - Improve output by 10% at each tier. Damps - When active scanned, decrease scan duration by 15/20/25%. Range Extenders - Lock down "inner rings" to 5m - 8m, then restore to its former 45%. I like everything except the armor speed penalties which I strongly dislike.
What about this this instead? If my math is right, the penalty could be readily offset by running 1 CardReg.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
10
|
Posted - 2015.05.27 00:00:00 -
[13] - Quote
Ares 514 wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Ares 514 wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Spitballing ... Plates, Ferros, Reactives - Slight mobility nerf; specifics here. Armor Repairers - OK Codebreakers - OK CPU Upgrades - OK KinCats - OK CardRegs - Add a stamina pool penalty to plates (create demand). Shield Regulators - Improve output by 10% at each tier. Damps - When active scanned, decrease scan duration by 15/20/25%. Range Extenders - Lock down "inner rings" to 5m - 8m, then restore to its former 45%. I like everything except the armor speed penalties which I strongly dislike. What about this this instead? If my math is right, the penalty could be readily offset by running 1 CardReg. I think that is a better idea, not sure it's spot on yet. What if it affected stamina recovery instead of the pool?
That might make True Adamance happy. 
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
10
|
Posted - 2015.05.27 02:30:00 -
[14] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Roger Cordill wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:
Large Blaster Turrets
It is too effective at wiping out infantry at too great a range; it is too good in its AI capacity to simultaneously excel at AV. In my opinion, an anti-infantry blaster tank shouldn't stand a chance against an anti-vehicle missile or rail tank. I'd freely defer to reasonable pilots on this, but if pressed for suggestion I'd propose nerfing its dispersion (so mowing down infantry with impunity while hardened would take more time/effort), I'd propose nerfing its maximum range or accuracy at range (so popping infantry at longish range wouldn't happen), and I'd propose a less lenient overheat mechanic (to leave it at disadvantage against missile HAVs and to limit the amount of infantry casualties it can inflict in a given hardened cycle).
LARGE turret is AV. There is no such thing as an AI large turret; that is nonsense. As for your needs, no. Any less accuracy and it will be forced in to fight at pretty much point blank. Heating has already been needed twice, it doesn't need any more in that field. Large Blaster turrets are killing infantry all the time. This is why you find Blaster HAVs parked near hostile CRUs. They're also pretty good at popping infantry at range. I guess I'd have to concede on whether or not Large Blaster Turrets are supposed to be anti-infantry, though they're certainly filling that role. That is inherent to their design, as well as the idea of infantry a lot of the time (at least as far as I've seen) thinking that the HAV for some reason simply not having the ability to oil them. If missiles and rails were more appropriately designed, they would most likely be killing infantry in their respective optimals as well. Simply put, getting caught in front of a gigantic turret will probably kill you, people around you, and the wall behind you from a logical standpoint. Moral of the story is, don't get caught in front of a HAV.
So ... in your mind ...
Blaster HAVs are anti-vehicle, and not anti-infantry, because Large Anti-Infantry Turrets do not exist. But by design, these anti-vehicle Blaster HAVs should be able to "oil" infantry with minimal effort, at both short range and at long range. And if/when infantry get killed by these anti-vehicle Blaster HAVs, it is because infantry are doing it wrong.
(Is that you, Spkr?)
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
|
|
| |
|