DUST Search - [Feedback] OP / UP

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[Feedback] OP / UP

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.07.21 12:17:00 - [31] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: A. OP - Armor Modules (Infantry) Which aspects in particular do you have issues with? I'll admit that shields still feel too weak compared to armor, but I'm not sure if that means armor is necessarily OP. A1. Preface - It is my opinion that loadout variety is a strong indicator of balance, and that a lack thereof is indicative of imbalance. Looking at the usage rates, we see diversity in high-slot module utilization. In essence, high-slot modules other than Shields (namely, precision enhancers, myofibs, damage amps) are seeing sufficiently high levels of usage to make the daily Top 10 every day. By contrast, 9 of the top 10 low-slot modules sold every day are brick-related, and the one non-brick module (KinCats) which makes the list just so happens to offset a penalty to stacking brick. In summary, when we look at daily high-slot module usage, we see balance; when we look at low-slot module usage, we see imbalance. A2. Response - If we nerfed armor plates or introduced greater drawbacks to stacking them, mercs would be less inclined to stack brick and more inclined to run other things. There's a good chance we'd observe an increase in loadout diversity. If we buffed shields, on the other hand, there's a good chance we'd observe a decrease in loadout diversity as high-slot HP modules would potentially crowd out non-HP modules. In my estimation, a broader problem than Armor v Shield balance is at play here; that problem is the potential for HP Modules > All Else. Hm. I wanted to disagree slightly with your statement there... " 9 of the top 10 low-slot modules sold every day are brick-related". Yes, regular armour plates are still too heavily featured in that list, but both ferroscales and reactive plates at multiple tiers also make the list, and they are at the very least a step away from pure bricking, though, yes, they are HP modules. But I really wouldn't call the armour repairer a bricking module. Frankly, regen tanking is not the same thing as HP bricking, both for armour and shields, even if you go for a mix of both buffer and regen. Using regen modules by default detracts from the ability to stack pure HP, thus making the fit not bricked by definition (even though, yes, still mainly focused on HP). However, I do agree, and have long been frustrated over, that "HP Modules > All Else". I think one of the issues here is that still, even after the changes to armour plates, a simple HP module is easier to fit than most other things, for low slots in particular, or at the very least, the perceived benefit to fitting cost ratio simply makes most other modules lackluster in comparison. And in the case of a utility module that might even be easier to fit, the actual effectiveness of it may be hard to visualise or understand in comparison to how easy the added HP is to see in the fitting screen. I believe that utility and regen modules should be more attractive to fit than HP modules, and until it is so, HP will continue to be the most used module type simply for expediency. And another thing.. You have to also figure that some modules may not ever feature in the top 10 simply by their nature, without that indicating them being underutilised. For example, scouts are just one of the five infantry roles in the game, but they are really the only class that can get any great utility out of dampeners. Not saying that dampeners aren't ever used by non-scouts, they are, but that is currently far from common. Codebreakers, by their nature, are situational... That is not to say there aren't people who run around with them fitted more often than not, but generally speaking that is not the case, and then you have to figure in that they aren't even useful in all the game modes. Or for the highslots, precisicion enhancers can be, and are, used to great effectiveness, but I still would be quite surprised to find them in the top 10. Now, it is entirely possible that those modules are underutilised, but this particular graph isn't useful in demonstrating that. Running for CPM2
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.07.21 12:17:00 - [32] - Quote Reserved for when I return...but I'm fairly certain that Shared Squad Sight isn't an issue as in order to run an all seeing fit, you are EXTREMELY squishy... But I digress 07 "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner *The Mascot of 0uter.Heaven * Be back in 6 dayz
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 11	Posted - 2015.07.21 12:30:00 - [33] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: Or for the highslots, precisicion enhancers can be, and are, used to great effectiveness, but I still would be quite surprised to find them in the top 10. Agreed on all points. Though I would point out (in response to above) that Precision Enhancers routinely make the Top 10. Albeit barely; they're typically in the last position or two. This has been the case since December 2014. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.07.21 13:03:00 - [34] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Zaria Min Deir wrote: Or for the highslots, precisicion enhancers can be, and are, used to great effectiveness, but I still would be quite surprised to find them in the top 10. Agreed on all points. Though I would point out (in response to above) that Precision Enhancers routinely make the Top 10. Albeit barely; they're typically in the last position or two. This has been the case since December 2014. Hmm. I will take your word on that, as though I have never seen them there, I will admit I haven't looked very often :) Running for CPM2
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 11	Posted - 2015.07.21 13:05:00 - [35] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: * Shared Squad Sight: fine as is. Many are of the opinion that if we could disable shared squad sight, we should. I'm curious; why is it that you feel otherwise? because it's gives a role for scouts as recon outside of active scans. very important in sharing Intel that not all players can quite articulate. a lot of guys aren't rainbow six, or have English as a first language. Or mics. important for me as pilot trying to provide air cover and having an idea where the enemy is engaging buddies. also for nailing equipment in hard to reach places. With rings of detection, players have to bsay close to the enemy to passively pick them up. still by outclassed by far by active scans. my counter questions is why do people want it removed? is it because it's a squad benifit that solo players don't have? I see it as a minor squads advantage that aids in sha ring Intel, that a solo player can still over come with damps, or with an active scanner. its a non wp bonus to team play. In response to the question, "why do people want it removed?" ... 1. Not exactly an argument, but passives aren't supposed to be shared in the first place. Shared Squad Sight was disabled by the Old Devs in Uprising 1.4. IIRC, the change came shortly after the introduction of Active Scanners and coincided with the rotation cap being lifted lifted from Heavies. Perhaps passives were ninja'd back in without announcement; more likely, the Old Devs failed to shut them off in the first place. Either way, the Old Devs wouldn't "make work" for themselves; they had reason to shut off shared passives. 2. To paraphrase Wolfman, "an FPS experience should be an immersive one; more 'heads on a swivel' and less 'chase the red chevron'." 3. Shared Passives (in their present state) exert disproportionate and arguably unreasonable pressure on CQC and Stealth-oriented playstyles. In many cases and at marginal investment, Passive Scans -- and by relation Shared Passives -- cannot be beat by dampening one's loadout. 4. Prior to the implementation Falloff , Rattati ruled that "360 degree wallhacks" afforded their operators (and the squadmates of those operators) too much reward at too little risk (read, imbalanced). If this logic applies to Medium and Long Range scans, why should it not apply to Close Range scans? 5. Recon 2.0 was intended to involve active and proactive effort. There is nothing active or proactive about spinning around and gunning down another player who happened to be picked up by your Logi's inner ring. You did not proactively check your six and see the player, nor did you did not hear the player. Nor did your Logi scan the player. You spun about reactively when the red dot blipped on your minimap or HUD. 6. If shared passives are in-fact bad for balance shared across 6 screens, they're really bad shared across 8 and supremely bad shared across 16. 7. Zaria Min Deir said so. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.07.21 13:27:00 - [36] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: 7. Zaria Min Deir said so. Always a good reason to do something. But I said what now? Ah, yes, something about shared passive scans, and how I personally would be happy to be rid of them. They are indeed problematic. I will say Tesfa makes some good points about the emphasis placed on squad versus solo play, however... I also find there to be a good case to be made for a clear difference between active scans that are more easily accessible to the squad, but are limited in duration and frequence and need to be, by their very nature, more proactive, and passive scans, that are, yes, limited by location, but are more immediate, and thus should perhaps be limited to personal use. Now, removing shared passive scans would limit the scout recon role somewhat. As Tesfa rightly pointed out, there are language barriers and not everyone can use voice comms, either at all or all the time. Not the simplest issue. In the end it comes down to what the designed purpose of the roles and the types of scanning are... Running for CPM2
The KTM DuKe 0uter.Heaven 479	Posted - 2015.07.21 13:50:00 - [37] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Overpowered * Scrambler Rifle * Active Scans * Shared Squad Sight * Armor Modules (Infantry) * Large Blaster Turrets * Armor Hardeners * Repair Tool WP Underpowered * Active Scan WP * MagSec * Ion Pistol * Scrambler Pistol * Breach Shotgun * AM Scout * Breach Mass Driver * Assault Swarm Launcher * Large Missile Turrets Wonky (Needs Polish) * Framerate Drops * Sniper Rifle Handling * Cloak Handling * Bolt Pistol Magnetism * Pub Payouts * EWAR * Strongboxes * Gallente Research Facility ^ My two cents. Plus cents from Talos, Pokey and Vesta. Missile turrept is far from UP , still able to 1-shot maddies if used by a good tanker Italy, a country that can QQ and speak, dont ask them to act though. Bye bye dark cloud, see you again o7
Varoth Drac Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.07.21 13:53:00 - [38] - Quote Regarding armour modules, I think the issue is not that they are overpowered compared to shields, but that there is a wider variety of good high slot modules. In high slots, Myobifs and damage mods are both good and common, (though I think heavy damage mods should mirror light in %). In low slots I can see why armour is preferred. Shield regulators are only good at proto, and shield energisers aren't good enough to compliment them for many people to focus on a shield regen build. Cardiac regulators are good but of limited use. Kinetic catalysers are only really good at complex, and have huge fitting costs, particularly at lower tiers. Codebreakers have ridiculous fitting costs for the benefit, and are only good at complex. Range amps have been nerfed to oblivion. This also affects the viability of precision mods. Profile dampeners are rarely useful on suits other than scouts due to the ever present danger that the enemy will field a Gal logi. The precision bonus should be replaced to allow more suits to fit for stealth if they wish. High slot mods that need a buff: Shield energisers/rechargers. They don't give enough benefit for the module sacrifice. Also, lower tiers are worthless. Heavy damage mods. The Amarr sentinel is the most common because nobody cares that it only has one high slot. With decent damage mods a Gallente heavy would be much more viable, with the extra damage it could output.
Sequal's Back Dead Man's Game 697	Posted - 2015.07.21 14:06:00 - [39] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Sequal's Back wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: * Active Scans Hard to say personally. I get scanned down by passive and active scans constantly. * Shared Squad Sight Similar thing, Im mostly blind in my favorite suits so I dont watch the mini radar much, but i cant confirm or deny how powerful this is. This is much more powerful than you can imagine, it changes a battle to have just 1 scanner in your team. Ridiculously OP IMO. I played many FPS before Dust, and it's the first time I see a wallhack available IG (that's what it is). Do you think Active Scanner Falloff would help with this issue? Mmh no.. I think it should only do snapshots so that you can only see the red dots once every 4 seconds. Plus, all suits shouldn't be able to carry more than one scanner at a time. I'm those who think that scanners shouldn't exist at all, but this would actually make them balanced. And I believe that WP rewards should be doubled, and that you should earn them not only when your squad mates kill someone thanks to you, but any team member. WON'T YOU PLEASE TAKE ME HOME !
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 3	Posted - 2015.07.21 14:38:00 - [40] - Quote The ion pistol is really solid and about the only two things I think it honestly needs are maybe 3 meters more range and to lose the shake on full charge. I honestly don't think this weapon is 'underpowered' so much as it's outranged. As far as the magsec goes... I think it's honestly just outclassed by what the smg (in particular the breach smg) can do. It could use a little more hipfire dispersion (keep the ADS accurate as all hell) maybe a small reduction in kick and then I'd get the bolt pistol optic onto it. I think that would fix its problems mostly. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.

Vesta Opalus Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 904	Posted - 2015.07.21 14:41:00 - [41] - Quote Mina Longstrike wrote: The ion pistol is really solid and about the only two things I think it honestly needs are maybe 3 meters more range and to lose the shake on full charge. I honestly don't think this weapon is 'underpowered' so much as it's outranged. I think all the pistols need a range outside the SMG's range.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 3	Posted - 2015.07.21 14:43:00 - [42] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Mina Longstrike wrote: The ion pistol is really solid and about the only two things I think it honestly needs are maybe 3 meters more range and to lose the shake on full charge. I honestly don't think this weapon is 'underpowered' so much as it's outranged. I think all the pistols need a range outside the SMG's range. If you can get in to use it though it's so good. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.07.21 15:04:00 - [43] - Quote Varoth Drac wrote: Regarding armour modules, I think the issue is not that they are overpowered compared to shields, but that there is a wider variety of good high slot modules. In high slots, Myobifs and damage mods are both good and common, (though I think heavy damage mods should mirror light in %). In low slots I can see why armour is preferred. Shield regulators are only good at proto, and shield energisers aren't good enough to compliment them for many people to focus on a shield regen build. Cardiac regulators are good but of limited use. Kinetic catalysers are only really good at complex, and have huge fitting costs, particularly at lower tiers. Codebreakers have ridiculous fitting costs for the benefit, and are only good at complex. Range amps have been nerfed to oblivion. This also affects the viability of precision mods. Profile dampeners are rarely useful on suits other than scouts due to the ever present danger that the enemy will field a Gal logi. The precision bonus should be replaced to allow more suits to fit for stealth if they wish. High slot mods that need a buff: Shield energisers/rechargers. They don't give enough benefit for the module sacrifice. Also, lower tiers are worthless. Heavy damage mods. The Amarr sentinel is the most common because nobody cares that it only has one high slot. With decent damage mods a Gallente heavy would be much more viable, with the extra damage it could output. This. Not exactly a question of the armour modules being too good, but rather the alternatives often not being good enough in comparison. Running for CPM2
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 11	Posted - 2015.07.21 15:20:00 - [44] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: 7. Zaria Min Deir said so. Always a good reason to do something. But I said what now? Ah, yes, something about shared passive scans, and how I personally would be happy to be rid of them. They are indeed problematic. I will say Tesfa makes some good points about the emphasis placed on squad versus solo play, however... I also find there to be a good case to be made for a clear difference between active scans that are more easily accessible to the squad, but are limited in duration and frequence and need to be, by their very nature, more proactive, and passive scans, that are, yes, limited by location, but are more immediate, and thus should perhaps be limited to personal use. Now, removing shared passive scans would limit the scout recon role somewhat. As Tesfa rightly pointed out, there are language barriers and not everyone can use voice comms, either at all or all the time. Not the simplest issue. In the end it comes down to what the designed purpose of the roles and the types of scanning are... Thank you, Zaria. In response to your and Tesfa's points: If it is a role/function of the Scout to share his passive recon with squad ... 1. Why are passive scans of all unit types shared? Should they be? 2. Why is the base scan range of the Logi superior to that of the Scout? Should it be? 3. Why is the Scout not paid WP for "scouting"? Should he be? 4. Last December, we ruled in consensus that recon scouts were bad for balance. Should we have? Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
zzZaXxx Second-Nature 758	Posted - 2015.07.21 15:26:00 - [45] - Quote RR - reduce hipfire dispersion ARs - increase range for all (fine tune with dispersion), improve shields AHMG - Increase ROF, reduce dispersion and damage MAGSEC - reduce recoil overall ION - increase range FLAYLOCK - increase radius SCR PISTOL - increase damage, improve shields
Vesta Opalus Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 905	Posted - 2015.07.21 16:53:00 - [46] - Quote Mina Longstrike wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: Mina Longstrike wrote: The ion pistol is really solid and about the only two things I think it honestly needs are maybe 3 meters more range and to lose the shake on full charge. I honestly don't think this weapon is 'underpowered' so much as it's outranged. I think all the pistols need a range outside the SMG's range. If you can get in to use it though it's so good. Not really sure about that either... it feels like it needs 3-5 more bullets per clip as well. If you use the Ion Pistol as a sidearm I constantly notice this, enemy suit HP generally gets low around the time you run out of bullets. If you hit every bullet they will be dead, if you miss like a quarter of them they will live with ~50-150 health, if you miss half or more they will think you are a noob and run off with half their health left laughing at you. With the bolt pistol or SMG you dont get this unless you miss half or more of your shots. I have been ******* around with a double ion pistol suit lately just for giggles and it actually removes alot of the problems I have with the gun (aside from range) to have a second pistol I can switch to for an extra few shots. P.S. this thing still needs its heat per shot/overheat revamped so spam shooting it is less likely to overheat.
Vesta Opalus Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 905	Posted - 2015.07.21 16:55:00 - [47] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: Varoth Drac wrote: Regarding armour modules, I think the issue is not that they are overpowered compared to shields, but that there is a wider variety of good high slot modules. In high slots, Myobifs and damage mods are both good and common, (though I think heavy damage mods should mirror light in %). In low slots I can see why armour is preferred. Shield regulators are only good at proto, and shield energisers aren't good enough to compliment them for many people to focus on a shield regen build. Cardiac regulators are good but of limited use. Kinetic catalysers are only really good at complex, and have huge fitting costs, particularly at lower tiers. Codebreakers have ridiculous fitting costs for the benefit, and are only good at complex. Range amps have been nerfed to oblivion. This also affects the viability of precision mods. Profile dampeners are rarely useful on suits other than scouts due to the ever present danger that the enemy will field a Gal logi. The precision bonus should be replaced to allow more suits to fit for stealth if they wish. High slot mods that need a buff: Shield energisers/rechargers. They don't give enough benefit for the module sacrifice. Also, lower tiers are worthless. Heavy damage mods. The Amarr sentinel is the most common because nobody cares that it only has one high slot. With decent damage mods a Gallente heavy would be much more viable, with the extra damage it could output. This. Not exactly a question of the armour modules being too good, but rather the alternatives often not being good enough in comparison. Dampeners rock, Kincats rock, Repair modules rock, the problem is HP kicks all their asses when it comes to sitting on a point guarding or facefucking point defenders. In a head to head HP almost always wins unless the other guy just doesnt shoot as well.
Vesta Opalus Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 905	Posted - 2015.07.21 16:58:00 - [48] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Zaria Min Deir wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: 7. Zaria Min Deir said so. Always a good reason to do something. But I said what now? Ah, yes, something about shared passive scans, and how I personally would be happy to be rid of them. They are indeed problematic. I will say Tesfa makes some good points about the emphasis placed on squad versus solo play, however... I also find there to be a good case to be made for a clear difference between active scans that are more easily accessible to the squad, but are limited in duration and frequence and need to be, by their very nature, more proactive, and passive scans, that are, yes, limited by location, but are more immediate, and thus should perhaps be limited to personal use. Now, removing shared passive scans would limit the scout recon role somewhat. As Tesfa rightly pointed out, there are language barriers and not everyone can use voice comms, either at all or all the time. Not the simplest issue. In the end it comes down to what the designed purpose of the roles and the types of scanning are... Thank you, Zaria. In response to your and Tesfa's points: If it is a role/function of the Scout to share his passive recon with squad ... 1. Why are passive scans of all unit types shared? Should they be? 2. Why is the base scan range of the Logi superior to that of the Scout? Should it be? 3. Why is the Scout not paid WP for "scouting"? Should he be? 4. Last December, we ruled in consensus that recon scouts were bad for balance. Should we have? I think the problem with passives isnt that they are strong, I think they should be, its that the modules dont do anything much and the default precision/range is too high. Precision and range should be dropped through the floor and the difference made up in module strength so that it takes fitting sacrifices to get good passive scanning. Same for active scans imo, aside from active scans needing some kind of fall off mechanism, they also should be tied to precision modifiers (and possibly range mods, but Im not sold on that) so that a single piece of equipment cant counter (or at least force equipping of) 2+ dampeners.
Vesta Opalus Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 905	Posted - 2015.07.21 17:03:00 - [49] - Quote zzZaXxx wrote: RR - reduce hipfire dispersion ARs - increase range for all (fine tune with dispersion), improve shields AHMG - Increase ROF, reduce dispersion and damage MAGSEC - reduce recoil overall ION - increase range FLAYLOCK - increase radius SCR PISTOL - increase damage, improve shields RR - No thanks, but an increase in ADS performance would be very welcome. ARs - Im not convinced any of these need changes, they work pretty well as is, though I'd go for a minor range buff (note any buff to these make shield meta even worse until its fixed) AHMG - These just have too much range right now, its absurd being sniped by an HMG at 50 meters (not even just being picked at for minor damage, but just getting wrecked from 50m away, lost a dropship to an HMG yesterday from 50-60m out, and I get they are AV, but when the heck were HMGs supposed to be medium range AI/AV all purpose weapons?) MAGSEC - agree recoil reduction would help this thing alot ION - range, heat per uncharged shot revamp, and +clip size would be welcome FLAYLOCK - Nah. If these things werent so situational they would be OP already, they dont need to be improved. SCR PISTOL - Yes to increase damage, keep an eye on headshot damage though, also burst needs to be dramatically improved in dispersion/dispersion recovery
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5	Posted - 2015.07.21 17:36:00 - [50] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Zaria Min Deir wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: 7. Zaria Min Deir said so. Always a good reason to do something. But I said what now? Ah, yes, something about shared passive scans, and how I personally would be happy to be rid of them. They are indeed problematic. I will say Tesfa makes some good points about the emphasis placed on squad versus solo play, however... I also find there to be a good case to be made for a clear difference between active scans that are more easily accessible to the squad, but are limited in duration and frequence and need to be, by their very nature, more proactive, and passive scans, that are, yes, limited by location, but are more immediate, and thus should perhaps be limited to personal use. Now, removing shared passive scans would limit the scout recon role somewhat. As Tesfa rightly pointed out, there are language barriers and not everyone can use voice comms, either at all or all the time. Not the simplest issue. In the end it comes down to what the designed purpose of the roles and the types of scanning are... Thank you, Zaria. In response to your and Tesfa's points: If it is a role/function of the Scout to share his passive recon with squad ... 1. Why are passive scans of all unit types shared? Should they be? 2. Why is the base scan range of the Logi superior to that of the Scout? Should it be? 3. Why is the Scout not paid WP for "scouting"? Should he be? 4. Last December, we ruled in consensus that recon scouts were bad for balance. Should we have? Maybe I can shed some light on this, or get a Dev to kick me in the kitten for being wrong if I'm wrong 1. I believe it is the overall intent as of this time for passive scans not to be shared in general. The nature of the response to item #1 defines the context for the following. 2. Logistics scans, including the active scanner, both bonus and equipment, should have another look for polish and scaling once passives are not shared/their sharing is more limited. A trade off must be established which is not currently present and leaving (for example) the GalLogi w/active scans in the same state as it is now after a change would be problematic. Either the logi, the scanner, or both will need a look. 3. Due to a mechanical barrier in the code AFAIK. Conceptually I would say yes a scout should be earning for recon but I do not know how likely we are to be able to see that translated into a mechanical reality. This is a recurring issue among roles in general, in that what is most tactically valuable can often not be the most effective method for earning. A state which is certainly not ideal. 4. I think that at the time it was the proper call to make, broadly speaking, but it would need to be revisited if the context of #1 is applied. Further being the right call at the time does not mean it was or is a perfect solution or without flaw. The mechanical side of scout role definition could use better polish IMO, but the what and the how are answers I'd turn to a full community thread for as my own scout play does not qualify me - in my view - to make such assessments sans input. 0.02 ISK CPM 1, reelection platform here.

Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5	Posted - 2015.07.21 17:50:00 - [51] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Overpowered * Scrambler Rifle * Active Scans * Shared Squad Sight * Armor Modules (Infantry) * Large Blaster Turrets * Armor Hardeners * Repair Tool WP Underpowered * Active Scan WP * MagSec * Ion Pistol * Scrambler Pistol * Breach Shotgun * AM Scout * Breach Mass Driver * Assault Swarm Launcher * Large Missile Turrets Wonky (Needs Polish) * Framerate Drops * Sniper Rifle Handling * Cloak Handling * Bolt Pistol Magnetism * Pub Payouts * EWAR * Strongboxes * Gallente Research Facility ^ My two cents. Plus cents from Talos, Pokey and Vesta. OP list Largely agree with the following exceptions. Armor hardeners aren't the problem, it's passive vehicle reps combining with stacked hardeners. Make reps active mods and then tune the values of reps and hardeners to find proper balance. Rep Tool WP isn't simply OP, as even logi focused on using rep tools in a squad can still readily go ISK negative. Rescaling both the mechanic and values for Rep Tool earnings would likely be a good move, as I've actually advocated since closed beta, but pulling them back while leaving the current burden of cost is improper. Armor Modules (Infantry) - I think shields need a buff rather than armor mods a nerf. Granted in a mathmatical zero sum assessment that's the same net change but two factors change it in the live game context. First the net effect on TTK, second the net effect on diversity of offerings. In my view, overall game value is better served by a more robust set of offerings from the shield line than by a nerf to armor mods. Underpowered Active scan WP - Generally agreed but with the qualfier that it not be a universal buff, rather a lessor WP value be added to team wide scans. Scrambler Pistol - Not sure it's UP when considering the possible alpha of a headshot (with the onboard bonus included of course). I haven't run active tests so my perception is highly anecdotal, but I have seen it doing some real work on the field. This goes in my "cannot support without more data" pile. Otherwise generally inclined to agree. Wonky (Needs Polish) I'd personally put frame rate drops and the gal map under the general heading "performance" and simply state that game wide performance needs to be further polished and increased until we have a min 30 (better 60) fps standard for the game. But maybe I'm nitpicking there. In either case generally agree on the listed items. CPM 1, reelection platform here.
Vesta Opalus Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 910	Posted - 2015.07.21 18:49:00 - [52] - Quote Cross Atu wrote: OP list Largely agree with the following exceptions. Armor hardeners aren't the problem, it's passive vehicle reps combining with stacked hardeners. Make reps active mods and then tune the values of reps and hardeners to find proper balance. Rep Tool WP isn't simply OP, as even logi focused on using rep tools in a squad can still readily go ISK negative. Rescaling both the mechanic and values for Rep Tool earnings would likely be a good move, as I've actually advocated since closed beta, but pulling them back while leaving the current burden of cost is improper. Armor Modules (Infantry) - I think shields need a buff rather than armor mods a nerf. Granted in a mathmatical zero sum assessment that's the same net change but two factors change it in the live game context. First the net effect on TTK, second the net effect on diversity of offerings. In my view, overall game value is better served by a more robust set of offerings from the shield line than by a nerf to armor mods. Underpowered Active scan WP - Generally agreed but with the qualfier that it not be a universal buff, rather a lessor WP value be added to team wide scans. Scrambler Pistol - Not sure it's UP when considering the possible alpha of a headshot (with the onboard bonus included of course). I haven't run active tests so my perception is highly anecdotal, but I have seen it doing some real work on the field. This goes in my "cannot support without more data" pile. Otherwise generally inclined to agree. Wonky (Needs Polish) I'd personally put frame rate drops and the gal map under the general heading "performance" and simply state that game wide performance needs to be further polished and increased until we have a min 30 (better 60) fps standard for the game. But maybe I'm nitpicking there. In either case generally agree on the listed items. Armor Hardeners v. Reps, if you just make reps active and leave the basic synergy between hardeners and reps intact, then you cant balance reps for both hardened and unhardened tanks. I suggest breaking the synergy between hardeners and reps by decreasing rep amount while hardeners are active so repped effective HP/second remains the same. Scrambler Pistol: These weapons are terrible now because of how they rely on headshots, completely. Body shots wont kill anything but an untanked scout or a nearly dead medium. This is not a workable thing in dust, its like having a sniper rifle that does ~150 damage on a headshot instead of 500+, but you have to be right next to the enemy while using it, and you still have to deal with the wonky hit detection, and any non headshots will do trivial damage. The scrambler pistol is dysfunctional across the board right now, and needs its body shot damage boosted.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 1	Posted - 2015.07.21 19:26:00 - [53] - Quote In response, and basically re iterating my support for squad shared passive scans: Whether by original intent when coding the game years ago or not I have yet to hear an argument that squad scans are abused. It just turned into a talk about the nature of passive scans. It's a tool that can not be used for wp. Passive scans work for everybody across the different classes. The only drawback is that if you engage one member of a squad at cqc the others will know. But you're passive scanning them right back anyways so when you engage your own squad will know? Hell, all they will know is only the location within your cqc scan range. The enemy is not highlighted for a long duration of time, and if he kills me quick enough nobody will know where he was, unlike anot active scanner. We can only tailor this team based tactical shooter for solo players so far. It's one of the benifits to squads that don't result in wp or isk. It isn't broke, no need to fix it. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me. "I sometimes wonder why I share stuff "- CCP Rattati vote Tesfa for CPM2
Vesta Opalus Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 910	Posted - 2015.07.21 19:31:00 - [54] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: In response, and basically re iterating my support for squad shared passive scans: Whether by original intent when coding the game years ago or not I have yet to hear an argument that squad scans are abused. It just turned into a talk about the nature of passive scans. It's a tool that can not be used for wp. Passive scans work for everybody across the different classes. The only drawback is that if you engage one member of a squad at cqc the others will know. But you're passive scanning them right back anyways so when you engage your own squad will know? Hell, all they will know is only the location within your cqc scan range. The enemy is not highlighted for a long duration of time, and if he kills me quick enough nobody will know where he was, unlike anot active scanner. We can only tailor this team based tactical shooter for solo players so far. It's one of the benifits to squads that don't result in wp or isk. It isn't broke, no need to fix it. The problem comes when someone runs a scanning fit and you get 50 meter radius perma scans that can find anything but a highly dampened scout without much effort. This actually existed, I used to run it myself on a Cal Scout (2 precision/2 range mods), and it was pretty absurd how much utility it gives your squad, especially in CQC maps like Gallente Lag Facility. P.S. Not sure 50m is the correct radius, I think it was something closer to 70m at the time. It was pretty insane.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 1	Posted - 2015.07.21 21:24:00 - [55] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: In response, and basically re iterating my support for squad shared passive scans: Whether by original intent when coding the game years ago or not I have yet to hear an argument that squad scans are abused. It just turned into a talk about the nature of passive scans. It's a tool that can not be used for wp. Passive scans work for everybody across the different classes. The only drawback is that if you engage one member of a squad at cqc the others will know. But you're passive scanning them right back anyways so when you engage your own squad will know? Hell, all they will know is only the location within your cqc scan range. The enemy is not highlighted for a long duration of time, and if he kills me quick enough nobody will know where he was, unlike anot active scanner. We can only tailor this team based tactical shooter for solo players so far. It's one of the benifits to squads that don't result in wp or isk. It isn't broke, no need to fix it. The problem comes when someone runs a scanning fit and you get 50 meter radius perma scans that can find anything but a highly dampened scout without much effort. This actually existed, I used to run it myself on a Cal Scout (2 precision/2 range mods), and it was pretty absurd how much utility it gives your squad, especially in CQC maps like Gallente Lag Facility. P.S. Not sure 50m is the correct radius, I think it was something closer to 70m at the time. It was pretty insane. in the old days passive scans were insane. now with fall off, your only 100% efficient than at really close ranges. The farther out you are the less effective your scans may be. here is the balance from rattati https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=168249&find=unread which clarifies all passive scans can be beaten by all scouts. scanning souts are trouble for mediums and heavies. and the should be. Now even the longest range passive scans can only lying 9th up my undamaged suit well within rifle range, which is fine from me. But yet again we digress. talking about the pros and cons is one thing. calling the ability for the team to share OP is quite something else. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me. "I sometimes wonder why I share stuff "- CCP Rattati vote Tesfa for CPM2
Varoth Drac Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.07.21 21:51:00 - [56] - Quote Squad shared passive scans are fine so long as they aren't too precise. Scouts with max skills and a complex dampener should not be scannable with passives, regardless of how many precision mods are used. Assaults that want to get in close and flank should have a reason to dampen, without needing to sacrifice all their fitting to dampeners. Sharing weak passives is fine. Sharing scout-hunter passives is not. I wouldn't mind if squad share was removed, but I think passive scans are mostly ok where they are. My scout suits often use a precision mod to scan assaults at max range, and my logi uses two for the same purpose. I won't scan scouts outside the inner ring, and assaults could easily dampen below my scans. An Amarr scout could scan most scouts, but not at a long enough range to benefit their squad. It is enough to use as a personal tool for fighting other scouts in cqc. The only issues I see are range amps having been nerfed too much, making more dedicated scanning fits more difficult. The inner scan ring. This was the reason range amps got nerfed. Best to remove it, but if not, range amps can only be buffed if they don't affect the inner ring. The Gallente logi's precision bonus saturates the EWAR field. It sets the required profile too low, smothering what could be a more interesting interplay between dampening and precision. Without this bonus we may well see some assaults fitting dampeners. And precision mods may well become more useful. Amarr scouts' bonuses are a bit lacking in comparison to the others. Range amp buffs and active scan precision nerfs would certainly help it. Though an alternative where the Am scout scan bonus is replaced would also work. I think the discussion is kind of moot, as CCP have stated that removing squad share is not really possible.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 11	Posted - 2015.07.21 22:01:00 - [57] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: In response, and basically re iterating my support for squad shared passive scans: Whether by original intent when coding the game years ago or not I have yet to hear an argument that squad scans are abused. It just turned into a talk about the nature of passive scans. It's a tool that can not be used for wp. Passive scans work for everybody across the different classes. The only drawback is that if you engage one member of a squad at cqc the others will know. But you're passive scanning them right back anyways so when you engage your own squad will know? Hell, all they will know is only the location within your cqc scan range. The enemy is not highlighted for a long duration of time, and if he kills me quick enough nobody will know where he was, unlike anot active scanner. We can only tailor this team based tactical shooter for solo players so far. It's one of the benifits to squads that don't result in wp or isk. It isn't broke, no need to fix it. The problem comes when someone runs a scanning fit and you get 50 meter radius perma scans that can find anything but a highly dampened scout without much effort. This actually existed, I used to run it myself on a Cal Scout (2 precision/2 range mods), and it was pretty absurd how much utility it gives your squad, especially in CQC maps like Gallente Lag Facility. P.S. Not sure 50m is the correct radius, I think it was something closer to 70m at the time. It was pretty insane. in the old days passive scans were insane. now with fall off, your only 100% efficient than at really close ranges. The farther out you are the less effective your scans may be. here is the balance from rattati https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=168249&find=unread which clarifies all passive scans can be beaten by all scouts. scanning souts are trouble for mediums and heavies. and the should be. Now even the longest range passive scans can only lying 9th up my undamaged suit well within rifle range, which is fine from me. But yet again we digress. talking about the pros and cons is one thing. calling the ability for the team to share OP is quite something else. A couple quick points, as it seems your thinking might be based in outdated information. The link above points to Hotfix Charlie which was released in August of 2014. Several months later in December of 2014, EWAR was overhauled with the introduction of Falloff. Some of the EWAR interplay values and scenarios observed in HF Charlie still apply today, but in most cases they do not. Here is a breakdown of what EWAR looks like today. As you can see, the claim "all passive scans can be beaten by all scouts" may have once been the case, but today is no longer. At a nominal investment of 1 precision enhancer, an Assault or Logi will scan even a max-damped MinScout when he enters knifing range. If it were a 1v1 setting, then this could perhaps be argued as reasonable. But with shared squad sight -- especially shared 16x -- I don't think that this could be pitched as reasonable. Do you? Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 3	Posted - 2015.07.21 22:24:00 - [58] - Quote Varoth Drac wrote: Squad shared passive scans are fine so long as they aren't too precise. Scouts with max skills and a complex dampener should not be scannable with passives, regardless of how many precision mods are used. Assaults that want to get in close and flank should have a reason to dampen, without needing to sacrifice all their fitting to dampeners. Sharing weak passives is fine. Sharing scout-hunter passives is not. I wouldn't mind if squad share was removed, but I think passive scans are mostly ok where they are. My scout suits often use a precision mod to scan assaults at max range, and my logi uses two for the same purpose. I won't scan scouts outside the inner ring, and assaults could easily dampen below my scans. An Amarr scout could scan most scouts, but not at a long enough range to benefit their squad. It is enough to use as a personal tool for fighting other scouts in cqc. The only issues I see are range amps having been nerfed too much, making more dedicated scanning fits more difficult. The inner scan ring. This was the reason range amps got nerfed. Best to remove it, but if not, range amps can only be buffed if they don't affect the inner ring. The Gallente logi's precision bonus saturates the EWAR field. It sets the required profile too low, smothering what could be a more interesting interplay between dampening and precision. Without this bonus we may well see some assaults fitting dampeners. And precision mods may well become more useful. Amarr scouts' bonuses are a bit lacking in comparison to the others. Range amp buffs and active scan precision nerfs would certainly help it. Though an alternative where the Am scout scan bonus is replaced would also work. I think the discussion is kind of moot, as CCP have stated that removing squad share is not really possible. The problem with this is "scouts shouldn't be scanned ever" & the desire to remove shared passives is that it will likely just jump us back to 1.7 type gameplay, where scouts were king. Now I agree that shared passives are quite powerful, and there should be some limits to them, but I dont want to go back to a scouts r king meta. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 11	Posted - 2015.07.21 22:27:00 - [59] - Quote Just to keep the record straight, Scouts weren't king until 1.8. So much has changed since then; too many things to name. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Varoth Drac Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.07.21 22:53:00 - [60] - Quote Mina Longstrike wrote: The problem with this is "scouts shouldn't be scanned ever" & the desire to remove shared passives is that it will likely just jump us back to 1.7 type gameplay, where scouts were king. Now I agree that shared passives are quite powerful, and there should be some limits to them, but I dont want to go back to a scouts r king meta. I disagree. Scouts currently are rarely scanned and certainly aren't king. The idea that scouts must be scanned to prevent them being OP is clearly incorrect. I'm talking about buffing range amps and keeping shared scans. I see no reason to further buff scanning. The inner scan ring is currently only of marginal use, and mainly only affects nova knifers. It's removal is hardly likely to make anyone OP. Combining it with rebuffed range amps however would be disastrous. It is currently unusual for scouts in competitive environments to be scanned by active scanners. Swapping the Gal logi precision bonus for something else scanning related will make little difference to scouts, it's about medium suit's access to stealth. Ok, maybe it will free up a module slot for some. Perhaps a Min scout could fit both a kincat and a Codebreaker at the same time like they used to! This isn't op. Perhaps focused scanners should be buffed to 15db to compensate. My only concern with changing the Gal logi bonus, would be removing the need for scouts by giving assaults access to stealth. At the end of the day, EWAR is in an ok place at the moment. Scouts don't get scanned and aren't OP. It would be a shame to mess it up.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.