|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Aeon Amadi
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
11
   |
Posted - 2015.07.09 05:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Instead of PG/CPU, there will be a commando skill, bonus to fitting light weapons
Dude, really...? Are you -trying- to homogenize the Assault/Commandos? Why not just nyx Commandos and combine these two roles if we're going that route?
We should be trying to further differentiate them, not bring them closer together.
10% of US schools no longer teach Cursive. A decade from now, 10% of the US isn't going to understand all the squiglies.
|
Aeon Amadi
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 04:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
I'm really starting to wonder what the difference between Caldari Commandos and Caldari Assaults is going to be if Commandos get a PG/CPU reduction on weaponry.
Both would get a fitting reduction
Both would get a reload speed bonus
Assault gets a grenade and slightly more mobility
Commando gets a built in damage mod and slightly more EHP
As I said, we need to further differentiate these two classes and come up with legitimately different roles than trying to make them more similar. At this point it's like Espresso and Cappuccino. It's still freaggin coffee, people. They're both offensive roles with - increasingly - minor differences. If the Commandos are getting a fitting reduction to fit some new design spectrum involving Racial Dropsuit + Racial Weapon = Profit, that's fine, but the expense is going to leave players wondering what they're geared for. I'd imagine a new player will just look at them and figure them to just have different models.
They need distinction, rather than overlap.
10% of US schools no longer teach Cursive. A decade from now, 10% of the US isn't going to understand all the squiglies.
|
Aeon Amadi
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 19:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:The replies about ROF mods were mostly "I don't like change"
Not even so much "I don't like change" as "Why?"
What is the grounded reasoning for introducing RoF mods..? I'm going to call shenanigans on it being a measure to buff shields, honestly, because that isn't going to be some magical jesus feature that makes shields viable - if anything it'll just make them less viable because those modules will still apply to anti-shield weaponry as well.
If your goal is to allow both sides (Armor and Shields) to have some form of damage increase - it seems sort of contradictory toward wanting a higher TTK. In fact, that's almost guaranteed to lower the TTK as both sides of the tanking spectrum are likely going to start fielding damage mods of some form and I'd imagine there are some (particularly heavy suits who already have plenty of EHP) who would field both.
And let's not forget the all-time favorite for community hatred, the Breach Assault Rifle, which would be an absolute monster on a glass cannon fit.
So, no, it isn't "I don't like change", it's "What are you trying to accomplish?"
10% of US schools no longer teach Cursive. A decade from now, 10% of the US isn't going to understand all the squiglies.
|
Aeon Amadi
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 14:04:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Cat Merc wrote:Rattati, my Plasma Cannon, why must you hurt it so?  you mean your armor while dmg moding PLC?
So your counter-argument is that you're wanting to introduce RoF mods to balance armor tankers? That's contradictory, considering that RoF mods would lower the TTK universally and not just for armor tankers.
If you want to reduce the effectiveness of armor, just reduce the effectiveness of armor. Don't make sweeping changes that would affect the entire balance spectrum - shields included.
10% of US schools no longer teach Cursive. A decade from now, 10% of the US isn't going to understand all the squiglies.
|
|
|
| |
|